Aggressive Messaging

Heather Digby Parton ("Digby") argues persuasively that Democrats "need to go nuclear about" the Republican effort to end democracy and

must engage in a party-wide effort, from the president on down, to make the case for democracy reform and raise alarms about Republican intentions to subvert democracy.  It means real pressure on Manchin and Sinema and a very public push to eliminate the filibuster. Democrats cannot make the case that they will protect democracy if they haven’t clearly fought like hell to do so.

Moreover

We must also clearly and specifically call out the Republicans. Because if Democrats don’t, we can be damn sure the media won’t do it for us. You lose 100 percent of the arguments you don’t make and not enough Democrats are making the argument that Republicans are a danger to democracy.

As luck would have it, the Democratic President had a great opportunity the day before to try this approach. In prepared remarks Saturday on the weekend's tornados which had hit several states, Joe Biden emphasized

whatever is needed, it’s within the authority of the President of the United States and the federal government to provide that help.  And we’re going to provide whatever is needed....

Whatever is needed — whatever is needed, the federal government is going to find a way to supply it.

Yet the Democratic President wouldn't say that only the government will provide this help. States are not calling on large corporations to rescue them; they are calling on government.  The President could have noted that when assistance is needed most, when tragedies strike, it is the people of the United States of American- through the federal government- which steps in. And Republicans stand in the way.

Digby recommends that Democrats recognize the "negative partisanship (which) is the zeitgeist of the In so doing, Democrats should undermine GOP sacred cows. One is sainted ex-President Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), who once stated "I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'."

The President could have helped. He might have recalled those words and noted they are terrifying only to Republicans such as Rand Paul who consistently try to block federal aid to states in other natural disasters.  Such obstructionism, Biden should stress, is inconsistent with the values of the American people, who through their government help those most in need, especially when they are most in need.

For better and for worse, Democrats are recognized by voters as the party of government. It's time that, led by the President, they explain that there are things the private sector is unable to do. When times are most difficult, it's government alone which can step in and lead the nation.

Share |

Libertarian In Name Only

The other GOP senator from Kentucky- the one not running theUnited States Senate- has endorsed libertarian Gary Johnson  for the US Senate seat in New Mexico in which incumbent Martin Heinrich is opposed by Republican Mark Rich. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic chairperson in New Mexico is unimpressed and stated

Rand Paul is the least surprising DC endorsement Gary Johnson could get. Both put on a big show about their so-called independence, but at the end of the day, both are rubber stamps for the extreme agenda of today’s Republican Party. We know both would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and both want to gut the types of programs that help New Mexico families thrive.

To be fair, Senator Paul was one of only ten senators who recently voted against the gargantuan, wasteful $717 billion National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

But that Democratic chairwoman is correct: Paul will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh for a pivotal seat on the US Supreme Court, just as he voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and in favor of the GOP's Corporate Tax Scam of 2017.

On Thursday, a leaked email confirmed suspicions that Kavanaugh does not believe Roe v. Wade is "settled law," and on the same day he referred during his Judiciary Committee hearing to contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs." That should please Senator Paul, who on July 2, 2018 was asked

whether he wants President Donald Trump to nominate a judge who thinks "an unborn child with a beating heart is a 'person' entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment." Fetuses generally develop beating hearts roughly three weeks after fertilization.

"I think we do need a pro-life justice, and I've always been in favor of that," Paul responded.

"Equal protection of the law" is code for abortion should be flatly prohibited, no questions asked.

Once posing as a fighter for freedom against government, Paul never believed in liberty for the half of the population composed of women. This week he exploded any pretense to being a libertarian as

In the wake of the anonymous op-ed essay published in The New York Times on Wednesday written by a senior administration official who claimed to be part of a “quiet resistance” against the president, Republican Senator Rand Paul recycled the idea of administering lie detector tests. The Kentucky senator said anyone with a security clearance who works in the White House should be subjected to one, according to multiple media reports that were confirmed to Newsweek by Paul’s press office. 

“It’s not unprecedented for people with security clearances to be asked whether or not they’re revealing things against the law under oath and also by lie detector,” Paul said. “We use the lie-detector test routinely for CIA agents and FBI agents. If you have a security clearance in the White House, I think it would be acceptable to use a lie detector test and ask people whether or not they’re taking to the media against the policy of the White House.”

That argument might carry weight if this had anything to do with national security, rather than the right of Donald J. Trump to be shielded from criticism.

The President of the USA can fire the individual found to be responsible for the controversial op-ed. He can fire the individual he suspects. He can fire any individual he wants to fire by claiming that he or she wrote the piece. He can fire any appointee he wishes.

But a lie detector test- except possibly to eliminate someone not seriously suspected of being the culprit anyway- makes little sense. In the video below, Jason Miller, chief spokesman of Trump's 2016 campaign, criticizes the op-ed (beginning at 19:15 of the video below) as "effectively a soft coup" but adds (at 20:09)  "now, I think the whole idea of a lie detector is silly and a non-starter."

Silly, and ineffective. Liars, such as the consummate one in the Oval Office, know how to beat a lie detector while innocent individuals may inadvertently implicate themselves when strapped to a polygraph machine.

Whatever the dangers or even merits of a lie detector test, it is not administered (or ordered) by an executive branch with any interest in the individual liberty libertarians are allegedly obsessed with. It is time to do away with the idea that Rand Paul is anything but a right-wing Republican, turned toady to President Donald Trump.

Share |

Backlash Anger

Rand Paul appeared on Sunday's "Meet the Press" and argued that President Trump couldn't be a racist because

I did about 200 cataract surgeries with a group of surgeons in Haiti and the same in Central America. And when we asked Donald J. Trump as a private citizen to support those trips, he was a large financial backer of both medical mission trips. So I think it's unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn’t constructive, is the least we can say.

And I think it's unfair then to sort of all of a sudden paint him, "Oh well, he's a racist," when I know, for a fact, that he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped finance a trip where we were able to get vision back for 200 people in Haiti.

Obviously, there are many reasons for extremely wealthy people to give to charities which have nothing to do with the color of skin of the people who may be benefitted, and that if Rand Paul or Donald Trump were concerned about charitable giving, they wouldn't have supported the Corporate Tax Scam of  2017. The legislation, The New York Times notes, "roughly doubles the standard tax deduction, to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples. A higher standard deduction means fewer taxpayers will itemize their deductions on their tax returns, reducing the incentive to give to charities." (And Paul could have cosponsored Senator Lankford's amendment which would have allowed the deduction for taxpayers who take the new and improved standard deduction.)

But his remarks did illustrate how confused- or mistaken- people are about the reason Trump made his remark- which reportedly he did so repeatedly. Paul argues

I think people jumped a little bit to a conclusion. Let's take the whole scenario and put different words in there and let's say, "We'd rather have people from economically-prosperous countries than economically-deprived countries." Or,   Then it wouldn't have been so controversial.

Of course, it wouldn't have.  But he didn't, and it was no mistake.  Paul adds

In 2013, Lindsey Graham said the exact same thing the president did, but he used the hell-hole. "We can't have everybody coming from every hell-hole on the planet here." And now everybody thinks Lindsey Graham's a great statesman because he's put out this thing about American ideals, and stuff, which was a good statement, but he said almost the identical thing to the president in 2013. 

But- policy implications aside- Trump did not say the same thing, and it was no mistake.

The President used crude and rude language because it painted a more graphic picture than did "hell-hole." He wanted to promote a crappy (pun intended) image of the undeveloped countries because he otherwise would not have gotten the visceral, gut reaction he cravesfrom supporters.  NBC's Hallie Jackson on Friday tweeted 

Two sources tell @GeoffRBennett and me POTUS worked the phones, calling friends/allies to gauge reaction to "sh*thole" fallout. One source familiar describes his mood as "belligerent" at fallout/coverage; another says he wanted insight into how his base might react.

Similarly, on Sunday conservative Christian and Trump critic Erick Erickson tweeted

It’s weird that people in the room don’t remember Trump using that word when Trump himself was calling friends to brag about it afterwards. I spoke to one of those friends. The President thought it would play well with the base.

Trump selected language he knew was descriptive and offensive, notwithstanding what Rand Paul and other Trump supporters- such as GOP TV's Tucker Carlson- may believe. Carlson remarked "an awful lot of immigrants come to this country from other places (that are) dirty, they're corrupt and they're poor, and that's the main reason those immigrants are trying to come here and you would, too, if you lived there."





That's a legitimate argument to make- if it had anything to do with what Trump said in the manner he said it.

It didn't. It didn't, because voters of his base would have barely reacted if the President had calmly stated "We realize that there are more problems in economically-deprived countries, therefore there's a bigger impetus for them to want to come." Neither would it have served his purpose had he remarked "We regret we cannot accomodate the good people from these economically-deprived countries who want to migrate to our own."

But "s_ _ _ hole" countries gives them red meat, especially knowing  that their enemy, the liberal-academic-minority complex, would howl in opposition.

President Trump gets a two-fer. His fans, whose support he'll need after calls for impeachment following release of the special counsel's report, clap and honk their horns in unison. And he further divides the people of the United State of America, a primary tactic since he announced his candidacy, and one which his buddy in the Kremlin surely approves of.

Share |

Let's Call It A "Boot."

We don't know how the vote will proceed on the Corporate Tax Scam of 2017 once it's reconciled but as for now, good on you, Bob Corker. And John McCain gets a pass, even though he was captured because, well, because he was captured, tortured, and then he refused release.  But....

as for you, Ben Sasse:  candidate Donald J. Trump tweeted "@Ben Sasse looks more like a gym rat than a U.S. Senator. How the hell did he ever get elected?"





as for you, Marco Rubio: candidate Donald J. Trump tweeted "Little Marco Rubio the lightweight no show Senator from Florida is just another Wahington politician." (Rubio reportedly is 5'10"; the average American male, 5'9").

as for you, Rand Paul: candidate Donald J. Trump: Donald J. Trump tweeted "Why would anyone in Kentucky listen to failed presidential candidate Rand Paul re: caucus. Made a fool of himself (1%.) KY his second choice!"  (Translation: "get rid of him, Kentucky voters.")

as for you, Ted Cruz: candidate Donald J. Trump tweeted "Wow, Lyin' Ted Cruz really went wacko today. Made all sorts of crazy charges. Can't function under presure- not very presidential! Sad!" (Also, he linked your father to assassination of John F. Kennedy.)

as for you, Lindsey Graham: candidate Donald J. Trump gave out your cell phone number and publicly called you an "idiot" and "lightweight." (In fairness, you have tried to prove him right.)





as for you, Dean Heller:  President Trump at a White House luncheon quipped "You weren't there (on ACA repeal) but you're going to be." After the desired laughter, it was "Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn't he?" (Nice little Senate seat you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it.")

as for you, Jeff Flake:  President Trump tweeted "Great to see that Dr. Kelli Ward is runing against Flake Jeff Flake, who is WEAK on borders, crime and a non-factor in Senate. He's toxic!" ("WEAK on crime" from a guy accused of sexual assault (by conservative definition, not this one) at least twice and sexual harassment several times.)

as for you, Lisa Murkowski: President Trump tweeted "Senator @lisa murkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, our our country down, yesterday. Too Bad!" (Admittedly, a relatively mild rebuke for voting to uphold the ACA. He's a misogynist; of course he treats women differently than men.)

And so you have it.  Forty-two Republicans, including the sainted Susan Collins, voting for the Corporate Tax Scam of 2017 because, as Graham and Rep. Chris Collins admitted, they're scared of their donors or, as Rubio revealed, it will create the pretext for going after Medicare and Social Security.

Then there were the other senators, who will give all manner of excuses. However, there is one thing certain: each was humiliated, receiving a boot up their rear end by Donald J. Trump. All of them now have voted to enhance the prestige and power of that same man by simultaneously voting for his unpopular tax cut plan and health care mandate repeal.  There are eight GOP senators (seven if Lisa M. is generously excluded) who have no spine but like the feel of the Timberland up their rear end.




Share |

Reckless And Bombastic

"It's time we punch Russia in the nose," one of the most judicious GOP presidential candidates asserted last night in Las Vegas. Observed Charlie Pierce: "that was noted Republican moderate John Kasich."

No one, however, does macho even nearly as well as Chris Christie.  The governor was asked "if the U.S. imposed a no-fly zone over Syria and a Russian plane encroached, invaded that no-fly zone, would you be prepared to shoot down that Russian plane and risk war with Russia?" He replied

CHRISTIE: Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it. A no-fly zone means a no-fly zone, Wolf. That’s what it means.
(APPLAUSE)

See, maybe — maybe because I’m from New Jersey, I just have this kind of plain language hangup. But I would make very clear — I would not talk to Vladimir Putin. In fact, I would talk to Vladimir Putin a lot. But I’d say to him, “Listen, Mr. President, there’s a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.” And yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling that the president we have in the Oval Office is right now.

"Feckless weakling?" And they call Donald Trump a fascist.  (Probably neither is a fascist, but no one trumps Chris Christie at the authoritarian thing.)  This is not only great theater, but great humblebrag, with Christie confessing to having a "plain language hangup."

"Well, I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate," countered Rand Paul in what Pierce refers to as "a decent body shot." However, Paul then forgot he was running in a Republican primary and added "My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, 'Yes, I’m jumping up and down; I’m going to shoot down Russian planes.'"

Yes, that is who GOP voters want, and their allies in the defense industry wouldn't mind churning out a few more missiles, either.  However, Paul added

And so if we announce we’re going to have a no-fly zone, and others have said this. Hillary Clinton is also for it. It is a recipe for disaster. It’s a recipe for World War III. We need to confront Russia from a position of strength, but we don’t need to confront Russia from a point of recklessness that would lead to war.

Then the Kentucky Senator used the word "judgment" thrice while trying to gain support among Republican primary voters, whose favorite candidate is Donald J. Trump.  That works about as well as would emphasizing women's autonomy in a speech before National Right to Life.

Christie then employed the literary device of anaphora, using the word "reckless" seven times before huffing and puffing

And if you think that a no-fly zone is a reckless policy, you’re welcome to your opinion. But how is it working so far? As we have 250,000 Syrians murdered, slaughtered; millions running around the world, running for their lives. It’s not working. We need to try something else. And that is not reckless.

That's "reckless" twice more, a clever move for voters who now appear to want Donald Trump as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and leader of the Free World.  And no one noticed that if the dictionary is opened to the word "reckless," up pops a reference to threatening to start World War III because "something" must be done. ("Terror takes center stage at Republican debate," read the weirdly ironic caption from the Wall Street Journal on Twitter, photo below.)

If that's a reckless policy, that to the Israelis.  After Turkey shot down a Russian plane over its airspace, a "senior military official" told reporters "the Russian miliary is a new, key player which we are not ignoring. There is a clear boundary here, and they are busy with theirmatters, and we are busy with ours." The Jerusalem Post has reported

When asked if Israel would hypothetically intercept a Russian jet that crossed into its air space, the official said: "Our policy is that we do not attack or down anything that is Russian."

"Russia is not an enemy," he said. "We are trying to avoid tension with the Russians. Both sides wish not to get to a point where two pilots, an Israeli and a Russian, will meet in the air and will be unsure of what to do. We are not going near the aerial zone in which they are operating, and they don't come close to where we are operating."

"This region is made up of common boundaries, and there are a lot of players on the ground and in the air," the official said. "If a Russian plane crosses the aerial boundary, we will not launch a missile and we won't down it."

There is no word on whether Chris Christie believes Tel Aviv is "reckless" or at least a "feckless weakling." There is, alas, also no way of predicting with certainty Moscow's response if it were to violate a no-fly zone announced by the USA. Engaged in Syria primarily to prop up Bashar al-Assad, Russia's air war is directed against rebel groups, the most powerful of which is  ISIL.  Action taken against Russia, therefore, would have the unintended- but predictable- effect of strengthening ISIL which Christie (as well as others in the Republican field) argue President Obama has been feckless in fighting.

Rand Paul cannot present the red meat to the Republican voters that the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, or Carly Fiorina can.  Nonetheless, "as a debate that touched on almost every overseas military adventure that the United States has taken in the past 25 years," Charlie Pierce concludes," it is an argument worth having, in both parties. "

Share |

We Have A Winner!

After each debate, the "Politico Caucus," which Politico describes as a "bipartisan survey of the top activists, strategists and operatives in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," declares "winners" and "losers."

On the whole, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Cruz, and Fiorina are perceived to have done well in Milwaukee and only Dr. Carson and, especially, John Kasich, to have laid an egg.  That's not surprising because of the ample time given the candidates to give their stump speech. Occasionally, a moderator would tell the candidate he or she went over the time allotted, after which the candidate would continue because, hey, no one wants to be Kellyed. 

Politico wrote

several respondents from both sides of the aisle who said Rubio had a good night also argued that while they saw him as the winner, it wasn’t a blow-out performance — other candidates also had solid showings.

“Several candidates had a good night, but Rubio had strong substance and presentation,” a South Carolina Republican said. “Jeb was probably good enough to stop some of his bleeding.”

Added a Nevada Democrat who selected Rubio, “Rubio, Trump, Bush, Paul and Cruz all seem to have held their own, but I wouldn't say there was a clear winner.”

The runner-ups for best performance, according to the survey, were Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina with 12 percent each, followed by Rand Paul with 8 percent and Ted Cruz and Ben Carson at 6 percent, according to Republican insiders.

“Jeb was most in need of a strong performance, and he was much improved,” a New Hampshire Republican said. “At a minimum, he has bought himself more time to reset and start advancing.”

Cruz was the favorite of several non-partisan participants, one of whom, from New Hampshire, called him the “most articulate” of all the candidates, and another, from Nevada, called him “always focused, on message.”

Really,  now, let's be objective. The real winner was Maria Bartiromo, who stayed on message throughout.In an interview with Politico sometime prior to the debate, the Fox Business Channel host stated

After that [CNBC] debate, I realized, I knew my marching orders. It was clearer than ever what my marching orders are, and that is to help the viewer, help the voter better understand what each candidate’s plan is; is it a realistic plan, can it work and how is it different from the next guy or gal, and that’s what I plan to focus on.

Marching orders? After she let the cat out of the bag, Bartiromo cleaned it up a bit- but.marching orders?  Some of the conservative talking points (in asterisks; comments beneath) she added to her questions:

Today the national debt is at record highs and growing unsustainably. Interest will be the fastest-growing part of the federal budget, tripling over the next 10 years. Social Security, the lifeline of millions of American seniors, is rushing toward insolvency...

The national debt is not growing unsustainably and the deficit has declined by two-thirds since Barack Obama took office (chart below by OMB via Politico).  Social Security, with its dedicated source of funding, has nothing to do with the national debt (or deficit) Inasmuch as (according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, its chart below, from OECD statistics) "After 2034, even if policymakers took no further action, Social Security could still pay three-fourths of scheduled benefits, relying on Social Security taxes as they are collected," Social Security is not "rushing toward insolvency."

Senator Cruz, the International Monetary Fund recently cut its expectations for economic growth. Many economists expect a recession to hit the U.S. within the next year due to the weakening of manufacturing. The next president will have to deal with it.

No doubt many of the thousands of economists in the USA believe a recession will hit within a year. However, this past summer, The New York Times

asked leading forecasters from economic consultancies, financial firms and universities for their predictions on where key economic variables will stand on Nov. 8, 2016 — Election Day. The 17 who participated replied with a relatively strong consensus.

They said they believed that unemployment would be the lowest it has been during an election since George W. Bush and Al Gore faced off in 2000, when it stood at 3.9 percent. The median forecast for the unemployment rate when voters go to the polls in November 2016 was 4.8 percent (which would be down from 5.3 percent last month). They saw only a 15 percent chance of a recession starting by next Election Day. Interest rates, inflation and gasoline prices should all be a bit higher than they are now, they said, while staying quite low by historical standards.

Moreover, early in the year, the chief economist of the National Association of Manufacturers explained (NAM's chart, below)

Respondents to the latest National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)/IndustryWeek survey continued to be mostly upbeat in their assessments of the economy, but the challenges discussed above have dampened some of that enthusiasm. In this report, 88.5% of manufacturers said that they were either somewhat or very optimistic about their own company's outlook.

Almost 40 percent of Americans are without a job and are not looking. Many have given up. That’s what the participation rate tells us....

Uh, no, Maria, The unemployment rate is down to 5.1% and approximately 40% of those individuals have given up looking for work. That would total around 7%, slightly less than 40%.


Mr. Trump, a federal appeals court just dealt a blow to the Obama administration’s plan to prevent the deportation of 5 million people living in this country illegally. The White House is appealing to the Supreme Court....

Ms. Bartiromo refers to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which pertains to young people who were under the age of 16 when they arrived, generally with their parents.  Such specificity, however, would have conflicted with the meme. People, even some Republicans, sympathize with children.


We go back to Facebook. Dewayne Wesley Cato asks on Facebook, how do we get rid of regulations choking our businesses? Ms. Fiorina?

Those "regulations choking our businesses" somehow have not prevented unprecedented corporate growth under the Obama Administration. Fourteen months ago- when the economy was a little weaker than it is today-  this Forbes contributor argued that the nation under Obama has enjoyed the highest private sector job growth in its history and "economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories."


Specifically, under the president’s Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more employees are required to offer health insurance, or be fined. Many are opting to pay the fine. Others are cutting back employee hours to duck the law altogether. What specific ways will you alleviate the pressure on small business?

Early this year, Ben Casselman of five thirty eight reviewed the Current Population Survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistica and found

the share of part-timers working just below 30 hours a week has been rising for roughly the past two years, while the share working just over 30 hours has been falling. (The share working exactly 30 hours has risen a bit too, but that’s harder to interpret since people who work 29 or 31 hours might round to 30 when they answer the survey.)

,,,,even focusing just on the most affected workers, the impact has been small. In 2009, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, 9.7 percent of part-timers worked between 25 hours and 29 hours and 7.7 percent worked between 31 and 34. In 2013, those numbers were 11.1 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively.

Further, as the chart below from the BLS reflects

The Congressional Budget Office, in a report before the law had fully taken effect, estimated that millions of Americans would voluntarily shift to part-time status once they no longer needed to work full-time to qualify for health benefits.9 It’s hard to know exactly how many have already done so. But there has been a marked increase in recent months in the number of people reporting they are working part-time by choice. It’s possible, a sliberal economist Dean Baker has suggested, that this rise reflects the effect of the health law.

The GOP candidates are so concerned about the American worker that three of them definitively came out against any increase in the minimum wage while one, John Kasich, noted that he had signed into a law a "modest increase.""  

Kasich did not address the idea of increasing the national minimum wage, recognizing that was too hot for the audience to handle. Later, he allowed that he would consider the plight of individual investors if a bank were to fail.  He was, of course, booed and was considered the big loser of the night. In a debate in which one of the moderators told us beforehand that she would hew to the Fox/GOP party line, that only made sense.








Share |

Addicts Start With Caffeine. Don't Tell Chris Christie.

Simply put: Chris Christie makes things up. (So does Carly Fiorina but this is about Chris Christie.)

Oh, as a good politician- an excellent one- and Christie generally avoids lying. However, he will leave his listeners with the wrong impression. Consistently.

After Senator Paul in Thursday's debate emphasized the Tenth Amendment and suggested that the federal government should permit states to set their own drug policy, Governor Christie cited New Jersey's use of drug courts instead of incarceration and added

You see, Jake, I’m pro-life. And I think you need to be pro-life for more than just the time in the womb. It gets tougher when they get out of the womb. And when they’re the 16-year-old drug addict in the Florida county lockup, that life is just as precious as the life in the womb.

And so, that’s why I’m for rehabilitation, why I think the war on drugs has been a failure.

As with most critics of the "war on drugs," Christie offered no evidence but of the claim but it was nonetheless a hopeful beginning. Nonetheless, the discussion immediately turned darker when- immediately after proclaiming the drug law a "failure"- Christie added

But I’ll end with this. That doesn’t mean we should be legalizing gate way drugs. And if Senator Paul thinks that the only victim is the person, look at the decrease in productivity, look at the way people get used and move on to other drugs when they use marijuana as a gateway drug, it is not them that are the only victims. Their families are the victims too, their children are the victims too, and their employers are the victims also.

The war on drugs, Christie argued, has been a failure.  With no more evidence, the governor labeled marijuana "a gateway drug," a charge which has been nearly disproved, though nicotine and alcohol do appear to be gateway drugs (Sanjay Gupta, in 2013, below).  Christie didn't call for banning cigarettes.








Of course, possession of marijuana is a victimless crime. By Christie's standards, highway construction- encouraging more drivers and hydrocarbon emissions- creates tens of millions of victims among pedestrians.

Still, the governor says marijuana use creates victims.- family members, employers, even unrelated, innocent, victims. Then he says "you can still put an emphasis on rehabilitation."  We are left with: marijuana destroys millions of people, but we won't lock people up for it.

The logic is weak; in fact, non-existent.  However, it gets worse when Christie remarks

In New Jersey, we have medical marijuana laws, which I supported and implemented. This is not medical marijuana. There’s goes as much — a further step beyond. This is recreational use of marijuana.

This is much different. And so, while he would like to use a sympathetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against medical marijuana. We do it in New Jersey. But I’m against the recreational use, against marijuana.

That at least is makes a little sense and is even coherent. But it's not true, given that

The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act was first introduced by Sen. Nicholas P. Scutari (D-Middlesex, Somerset, and Union) in January 2005 and was debated for five years before being enacted and signed into law by Gov. Jon S. Corzine in the closing days of his term in January 2010.

The final law was different than the original bill, which would have allowed a patient or the patient’s caregiver to possess up to six marijuana plants.

Gov. Chris Christie, who opposed the bill as he was running for governor in 2009, was put in the position of implementing it as he entered office. He’s contrasted New Jersey’s deliberate approach with the less restrictive approaches of Colorado, which has legalized the drug, and California, where doctors prescribe it for a wider range of conditions.

New Jersey's medical marijuana law is feeble, as Governor Christie has made it.  Non-violent drug users get a shot at drug courts, Christie says, and in most cases, that does bear more fruit than incarceration. As for completely innocent ill people under the care of a doctor but who could benefit from medical marijuana, Chris Christie would like them to go elsewhere, and it's not heaven or purgatory.





Share |

Yanking Our Chain

Donald Trump, reportedly, was displeased about some of the questions posed to him Thursday in an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.  Questions about Middle East, including the Quds and the Kurds and General  Qassem Soleiman confused the candidate, who in two separate tweets later complained about "typical 'gotcha' questions" by "just a 3rd rate 'gotcha' guy!"

Hewitt producer Marlon Bateman responded, Digby noted, with a tweet noting she had received a note from Trump reading "Please tell Hugh Hewitt it was my great honor- loved the U.N. 'waste' question. See him soon.".  Bateman asked, accordingly, "Why would you tell me it was a 'great honor' to come on our 'third-rate' show?"

There is no indication the producer's question was rhetorical, but it might as well have been.

In his report entitled "Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again" issued on August 16, the candidate wrote "All criminal aliens must be returned to their home countries, a process which can be aided by canceling any visas to foreign countries [that] will not accept their own criminals, and making it a separate and additional crime to commit an offense while here illegally." That day on Meet the Press (video, below) he emphasized "We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go.”

Clear, unambiguous, and definitive- or maybe not. Javier Palomerez, president and CEO of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, appeared on Tuesday's All In With Chris Hayes.   When Palomerez stated "The Donald Trump that I met today and that I sat with today was very different from the Donald Trump that I saw in the media," Hayes asked "what do you mean by that?" and Palomerez responded

The Donald Trump I sat with today was hospitable, he was a gentleman. He listened much more than he spoke. He asked questions.

We continue to disagree, particularly on the wall. We agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people. And we continued to agree on the fact that we will not use Trump properties.

After Palomerez continued for a moment, Hayes asked about the DREAMers, those people who dream. But in what otherwise was a very good interview, he failed to ask "What do you mean Trump doesn't want to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants?"

Immigration is the issue around which the Trump campaign revolves.  He now has said (semi-privately) that illegal immigrants can stay. He repeatedly has maintained that the USA should build a wall on the Mexican border, for which the government of Mexico will pay. "There have been a lot of dumb ideas put out. The one that said the Mexicans will pay for the wall is probably the dumbest of dumb ideas," in a rare sensible remark by Rand  Paul.   And we learned this past week that in private, he believes that it is an "honor"  to chat it up with "a 3rd rate gotcha guy."

Give Trump enough time, and he'll tell someone- confidentially, of course- that Barack Obama was born in the USA, is a tough negotiator, and would beat him in golf.







 




Share |

Chris Christie Is Still The Master

When the most sensible comment by a GOP presidential contender is from Rand Paul, you know the Repub field is descending even deeper into the rathole.

There have been a lot of dumb ideas put out,” the Kentucky senator observed. “One that the Mexicans will pay for a wall, was probably the dumbest of dumb ideas. But putting a wall up between us and Canada is sort of a ridiculous notion."

That is an idea from Governor Scott Walker as he heads, if the country is lucky, toward political oblivion.  He spoke on Meet The Press Sunday of his town hall meetings in New Hampshire and in an exchange that wasn't shown on television, Walker was asked about building a wall on the USA-Canadian border. He replied "They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at,"

There are reasons that is a harebrained idea. It is at 5,525 miles the largest international border in the world, although 1,538 of that is between Canada and Alaska. The USA-Mexico border is a relatively paltry 1,933.4 miles, and you can see how quickly that is going up. Most Democrats are ideologically opposed to construction, and Republicans are still trying to figure out how it can be done for free. There are, additionally, a lot more Mexicans streaming into the USA than there are Canadians because it's, well, Canada. Charlie Pierce remarks

... consider the vast and staggering vista of stupidity opened up by the idea of building a fence from upper Maine to the shores of the Pacific. Leave aside the basic impracticality of the entire idea- What the hell are you going to do about that part of the border that runs through Lake Superior? Submarine nets? Sonar? Volunteer muskie fishermen with AK's intheir boats? Yikes. Forget I said that last part....

But if building a northern wall is impractical to the point of ludicrous, it is not as appalling as a suggestion from Chris Christie who, rumor has it, is still the the governor of New Jersey. The New York Times reports

 “At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.

He added: “We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in.”

He said 40 percent of illegal immigrants are allowed into the United States legally with a visa and then stay longer than their visa allows.

It's that police state element that might concern you, though for fans of American literature, it could be entertaining as a throwback to the Scarlet Letter.   However, the concept has been put into practice elsewhere in the world before, albeit in a more extreme fashion, with rather unpleasant consequences.

Cattle are branded (video, below) but human beings might be a little trickier. It would require a major expansion of government power, right up the alley for a guy whose authoritarian nature can rival that of Donald Trump.   But few middle class jobs would need to be created because a President Christie would take it private, and handing out subsidies to private companies like they're candy canes at a children's Christmas parade is his modus operandi.

Still, Christie's idea has the advantage, in a GOP competition, of being both inhumane and impractical. Scott Walker- and maybe even Donald Trump- have a lot of learning to do.












Share |

Words Without Context

Say what you will about Rand Paul.  He is, for instance, an avowed supporter of a balanced budget amendment, which Charles Pierce has referred to often as "the worst idea in American politics."  (The second worst is an elected judiciary. Right, again.)   Paul believes in the right to discriminate against people if they can rationalize it on the basis of religious belief: "if people have an opinion, it's a religious opinion that is heartly felt, obviously they should be allowed to practice that and no government should interfere with them." That probably should be a finalist for the third worst idea in American politics, given that the balanced budget amendment and election of judges have the first two positions wrapped up.

The Kentucky senator either is a far-right conservative masquerading as a libertarian or a libertarian masquerading as a far-right conservative who believes in the same things as do virtually all of  his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination.   One is nearly as bad as the other.

To his credit, Paul does depart from his colleagues in opposing the administration's claim of an untrammeled right to spy on the citizens it serves. He has also departed slightly from his party's foreign policy consensus and has sponsored an amendment requiring the President to declassify 28 pages of the congressional inquiry into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

When President Bush in 2003 classified that portion of the 900 page report, he claimed that its release would make it "harder for us to win the war on terror." Representative Walter Jones- a Republican from North Carolina- noted "There’s nothing in it about national security. It’s about the Bush administration and its relationship with the Saudis."

Jones has read the 28 pages.  Then-Florida Senator Bob Graham, who asserts "That chapter refers primarily to the issue of who financed 9/11 and it points a very strong finger of suspicion at Saudi Arabia," has read them.

Nonetheless, another Graham, and contender for the Repub presidential nomination, Lindsey Graham, has not read them.  Another candidate, failed governor Chris Christie, whose recent debate performance amounted to "I care more about the 9/11 victims than anyone else," contended “Different people in Congress are interested in different things.  If they have an interest, they should go and they should read it. I don’t know why they wouldn’t have an interest, but I’m not going to sit here and dictate to people what they spend their time on."

As far as is generally known, no one has asked Donald Trump, who now is the leading candidate despite Thursday's event, what he thinks about the 28 pages, nor whether he has any clue what they refer to. However, Trump- testosterone flowing- phoned in to GOP TV's Fox and Friends (video below) Tuesday morning and stated

Now we take oil. We should have kept their oil. Now we go in, we take the oil. We thereby take their wealth.

The other thing, through Saudi Arabia, Steve, through Saudi Arabia and other places, tremendous money's flowing in. We have to stop that flow of money. But take the oil, knock the hell out of 'em."









The interview ended after Trump went on and on about the Mideast.  Even if it hadn't, no one would have asked him about the 28 pages. Nor would anyone ask him who takes the oil, who it's given to, and for whose benefit. The USA ("we?") already fought one war to enable multinational oil companies to develop oil fields.  If Donald Trump wants another, he should tell us.

Donald Trump may be a gasbag. But he's the Republican Party's gasbag, and someone ought to determine what lies behind the bravado.  He tells us the Mexican government is sending to the USA all manner of violent criminals, but he's going to get them to pay for a wall to keep those people in Mexico.  Now he says "we go in" and "take" the wealth of the Saudis, whom he argued in 2011 would raise the price of gasoline to "5 or 6 dollars a gallon for gasoline pretty soon."

Trump doesn't tell us where the wealth would go. Nor has he taken the first step (acquiring information) in deciding upon policy toward Saudi Arabia. He demonstrates no more curiosity than Lindsay Graham or Chris Christie about what the government in Riyadh has been up to.







Share |

Videos Concealed

Buried in this Politico story is one potentially radical development: "During a recent speech, Grassley also floated a pitch to require states to give those charged with a misdemeanor counsel in court." A few months ago, NPR had reported

To understand some of the distrust of police that has fueled protests in Ferguson, Mo., consider this: In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations.

A new report released the week after 18-year old Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson helps explain why. ArchCity Defenders, a St. Louis-area public defender group, says in itsreport that more than half the courts in St. Louis County engage in the "illegal and harmful practices" of charging high court fines and fees on nonviolent offenses like traffic violations — and then arresting people when they don't pay. The report singles out courts in three communities, including Ferguson.

No detail was given, and so goes the saying, "God is in the details." So, too, "the devil is in the details," which must provide quite an intriguing confrontation. Still, give these (alleged) offenders an attorney, the practice of filling municipal coffers with fines would end pretty quickly. Police officers don't want to spend their workweek in court; so, too, are towns uninterested in paying for counsel, nor in having to defend arrests on petty charges.  It would help deal a blow to "broken windows" policing, which can exist only because the right to counsel is limited.

So it will not happen. Momentum for reform seems focused on other elements of the system, such that

The Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for decades to reform the criminal justice system, including doing away with laws that force mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses or requiring police department to retrain and adopt body cameras.

Last week, Paul introduced legislation with Rep. Keith Ellison, a liberal Democrat from Minnesota, that seeks to reclassify some nonviolent drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.

Again, God/the devil is in the details and a full assessment should await those details being flushed out (in what is called the "RESET" Act). However, an AP article the past week points the way toward reform that would be revolutionary if enacted.  In Delaware

A police dashcam video released Thursday shows a black suspect being kicked in the face by a white police officer who was charged this week with assault.

The video, recorded in August 2013, was released by Dover police after a federal judge ruled last week that it was no longer considered confidential. The judge's ruling came in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the suspect by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Recorded by another officer's dashboard camera, the video shows Dover Cpl. Thomas Webster IV kicking Lateef Dickerson after Dickerson gets down on his hands and knees in response to commands to get on the ground.

Dickerson, 30, was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken jaw, police said in a news release Monday after Webster was charged.

Webster, 41, was arrested Monday and placed on unpaid leave after a grand jury indicted him for second-degree assault. A previous grand jury declined to indict Webster in March 2014, and the U.S. Attorney's Office, after reviewing the case, found no violation of Dickerson's civil rights.

Yet, Officer Webster was arrested only Monday, soon after the video (below) of the incident was released. Blogging on Daily Kos, Shaun King remarks

.... it's clear that the video is the only reason new charges were filed and Webster was arrested.

What national standards need to be in place concerning law enforcement videos such that departments are not able to conceal them for years at a time? Had this video been released immediately, the officer would've likely been arrested immediately.

This is an insight from a leftist blogger. Notably- and not surprisingly- it didn't come from the likes of Rand Paul, Cory Booker, Mike Lee,or any of the other Senators (or Representatives) leading the crime reform bandwagon.  Until an idea like King's becomes mainstream, or one such as Grassley's catches the attention of his colleagues, change to the criminal justice system ought (as another saying goes) be taken with a grain of salt.

Share |

Because "Quality Of Life" Is So Precise

Senator Cory Booker, with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul the leading congressional advocates of prison reform, writes

we have emerged as the global leader in a race that no nation would want to even be a contender in. While our country is home to only 5% of the world's total population, we are home to 25% of the world's prison population. And nearly three fourths of this population is comprised of nonviolent offenders.

Most of the prisoners, Booker maintains, are "nonviolent" and he observes

Americans of color are disproportionately burdened by the failures of our justice system. There are more black men in prison or under state or federal supervision today than there were enslaved in 1850. And while African Americans make up only 13.6% of the total U.S. population, they make up a whopping 40.2% of the U.S. prison population.

Booker used the term "nonviolent offenders," although whether that means they are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses or instead nonviolent individuals is unclear.In either case, the New Jersey senator, whose suggestions for improvement of the criminal justice system are arguable, need look no further than his own state for procedures to reform.

Two years ago, the police department of one of New Jersey's largest cities- and its most crime-ridden and poor- was disbanded and replaced by the Camden County Police Department Metro Division. Old contracts, with their pesky pension pension and salary requirements, were eliminated, with some of the City officers  rehired for the new, county-run, department afforded far greater resources than the old. (Although costs were cited as the main factor in the changeover, it did not escape the attention of everyone that the boss of Camden County, Democrat George Norcross, is the second most powerful figure in New Jersey politics, eclipsed only by Republican governor Chris Christie, with whom he has had a cozy relationship.)

There are far more officers and civilians assigned to the new Department than to the previous and crime has declined, even more than nationally (in which it is still high common compared to other countries, pie chart below.)  But as Senator Booker may be vaguely aware and Michael Boren of the Philadelphia Inquirer now has reported

since that shift in May 2013, the number of excessive-force complaints has nearly doubled, from 35 after the takeover that year to 65 in 2014 — the most in the state. Even the combined total of Newark and Jersey City — the state’s largest cities, which have hundreds more officers — was below Camden’s.

Interviews with those who filed the complaints and others reveal a pattern of stops, often for minor offenses, that rapidly escalate. Some individuals stopped have ended up in the hospital.

An analysis of four incidents for which The Inquirer interviewed those detained and reviewed hospital and police reports reveals a pattern in which stops usually made for minor infractions rapidly escalate. Three of the four individuals involved either filed complaints of excessive force or initiated related claims.

At least a dozen other individuals also have filed suits or tort claims against the county, alleging that its officers used excessive force or arrested them without just cause.

In such cases, the county Prosecutor's Office investigates to determine whether a crime seems to have been committed and if (when) it finds it likely has not, the PD itself determines whether departmental rules have been broken. However, in something of a parallel to the blue wall of silence, the procedure appears to have a flaw or two:

Camden County Police Chief Scott Thomson says excessive-force complaints account for a tiny fraction — fewer than 1 percent — of the thousands of arrests each year. The American Civil Liberties Union is struck by another statistic: zero. That’s how many excessive-force complaints authorities in Camden have upheld against officers in recent years.

The Justice Department is not investigating the department but the ACLU, which will be requesting data on police stops in Camden the past two years, will find

While the new force has won plaudits from residents for tamping down serious crime, some are irked by stops for petty offenses such as loitering and riding a bicycle without a bell. The number of tickets written for such offenses has risen to its highest level in years.

Authorities defend such aggressive policing, for the Inquirer notes "police say their 'quality of life' stops help net serious criminals."

That sounds like the highly questionable "broken windows" approach, in play when Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri was stopped by a police officer for walking in the middle of the street and was shot dead in the altercation which ensued.   Going largely unnoticed are less dramatic incidents, such as when the left foot of Shalla Ballance's son

was disfigured when a Camden police cruiser ran over it as he ran from the pursuing car in April 2014. Doctors at Cooper called the injury “foot degloving,” because so much skin was ripped off. Police said the car hit him after he slipped.

Saadiq Ballance, then 16, needed surgery. He was charged with resisting arrest and loitering to commit a drug offense, the latter of which his mother said was dropped.

Saadiq Ballance said that police came up as he played cards outside with friends at night and that he ran because he heard screeching tires from a car he could not see and feared someone was about to be shot.

Yet when his mother took the case to a lawyer, she said he told her: “You most likely won’t win.”

“For him to feel it was a losing battle,” Shaila Ballance said, “it just kind of discouraged me.”

It's easy to be discouraged by disfigurement when resisting arrest for an offense later dropped.  But it should draw attention to one of the greatest outrages of the criminal justice system, prodigious arrests for misdemeanor offenses.   Three years ago, law professor Alexandra Natapoff explained

Especially for large classes of urban policing offenses, such as loitering, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, convictions can easily occur without any evidence that the defendant actually committed a crime. To understand why, we need to go back to the beginning of the misdemeanor process: the initial arrest. Arrests require probable cause; there must be enough evidence to make it likely that the defendant actually “did it.” But police routinely arrest urban residents—particularly young black men—for other reasons, like clearing a street corner or establishing a police presence in a high-crime neighborhood.

For example, as former Baltimore cop and now-sociology professor Peter Moskos describes in his book Cop in the Hood, Baltimore police warn people to move on and arrest them for loitering when they don’t. The problem is that the crime of loitering is defined as “interfering, impeding, or hindering the free passage of pedestrian or vehicular traffic after receiving a warning.” A person who merely fails to move when ordered to move by a police officer is not actually guilty, but thousands of arrests occur in Baltimore on this basis every year. The same is reportedly true in New York.

Once police arrest someone, it is up to prosecutors to decide whether or not to charge the person with a crime. The system depends heavily on prosecutors to decline cases that lack evidence. But prosecutors often fail to screen misdemeanors precisely because they are seen as insignificant, and instead charge all petty arrestees on whatever basis the police arrested them. Studies in Iowa, New York, and North Carolina reveal that prosecutors declined only 3 or 4 percent of petty offenses. In jurisdictions like these, 96 percent of arrests convert automatically into criminal charges.

Once charged, misdemeanor suspects have little choice but to plead guilty. As the NACDL study revealed, many of these suspects will not get lawyers, and courts rush cases through in order to clear crowded dockets. Jailed defendants may plead just to go home. As a result, a person arrested for a so-called urban disorder offense is likely to get charged with it and to plead guilty to it, even if there was no real evidence in the first place.

This dynamic represents a breakdown in basic principles of justice. First, arrests are permitted to convert directly into criminal convictions without scrutiny of the facts by prosecutors or defense attorneys. Police are not supposed to decide who gets convicted. That’s what trials and plea bargaining are for. Moreover, where arrests themselves are generated not by evidence of crime but by other law enforcement tactics like order maintenance and street sweeps, the resulting convictions lack an evidentiary basis. That’s a fancy way of saying that defendants are innocent.

Police are not supposed to decide who gets convicted.  Much of the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system depends upon the discretion of police officers. Once arrested for a disorderly persons offense, the accused will, as Natapoff describes, virtually always be found guilty (whether or not he is guilty) which in the long term severely erodes police-community relations. If arrested for an indictable offense, the ham sandwich will be indicted, which usually results in a conviction, unless the defendant is sufficiently wealthy to afford a private attorney.

Corey Booker and Rand Paul, respectively a neo-liberal wunderkind and a right-wing libertarian, are chock full of ideas, of varying merit.  But until they deal with the grand jury system and police culture- which will require a great deal of courage- they are merely tinkering around the edges.

Share |