Christian or Catholic- Say the Word

Blown out in the 2024 election cycle, Democrats know they need a new message. They're all over the place, however, and the only common theme is Mark Cuban's simplistic advice: "just getting angry is not the way to go."

True, but not much of a game plan. Democrats had a chance to annoy Donald Trump and get under his skin by referring repeatedly to "President Musk."  They did so briefly and Trump was forced to play defense, pleading "No, he's not going to be President, that I can tell you. And I'm safe, you know why? He can't be- he wasn't born in this country." They had gotten the President-elect off his game, and Trump doesn't play defense well. So they stopped- too rude.

Currently, Elizabeth Warren has a clue.  She has sent to Elon Musk as chairperson of the Department of Government Efficiency a letter outlining measures which would reduce government inefficiency and save taxpayers at least two trilllion dollars "over the next decade." Noting that she has introduced the bipartisan Stop Price Gouging the Military Act, Warren explains that the Air Force has been overcharged by 7,493 percent for soap dispensers. 

Would it be so difficult for Democrats to deride, say, "$27,000 soap dispensers"?  Ir shouldn't be, but has been. 

"By the mid-1980s," Wikipedia reminds us, defense "spending became a scandal when the Project on Government Oversight reported that the Pentagon had vastly overpaid for a wide variety of items, most nefariously by paying $435 for a hammer, $6,000 for a toilet seat, and $7,000 for an aircraft coffee maker."

The numbers were "inaccurate," apparently, and insignificantly. President Reagan appointed a commission which made several recommendations to reform the procurement process and in 1986 Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 219. Soon after, the Goldwater-Nichols Act reformed the Joint Chiefs of Staff and implemented some of the recommendations.

Positive change came about after the President had responded to misguided, hyperbolic outrage from the public. Understandably, then, when asked whether the Democratic Party should nominate a celebrity as a presidential candidate, Mehdi Hasan in early January explained (at 3:32 of the video below)

Whether it's a celebrity or not a celebrity, whether it's a normal Senator politician, you need Democrats who are not afraid to say wild shit. Focus group bulshit has got to stop. Like, it's got to be- I said this in 2016- Democrats to go on Meet the Press and say "we're going to have a $25 minimum wage" or "we're going to spend a trillion dollars on health care."   

"How are you going to pay for it?"    "We just will. Trust me."    

How are you going to pay for it?"   Canada's going to pay for it."   

Just say absolute bullshit. Trump has set the bar. Say whatever the hell you want. I'm so fed up with a political system, this assymetric warfare which Donald Trump gets up and says "I'm going to buy Greenland and then we have serious discussions about him buying Greenland. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris produces a 27-page policy document on child care fully costed. 

That's assymetric warfare, right? It just seems to be it needs to be apresidential candidate who says "vote for me and I'll make sure $30 minimum wage. I'll make sure everyone has the best health care in the history of the world." Just say wild things because that's apparently what the American public wants and that's what social media is mainly.

Saying "whatever the hell you want" may take the form of extreme exaggeration, as Hasan points out, or misrepresenting the opponent's motives while highlighting the effect of his actions. Such an opportunity has been presented to Democrats on a silver platter, and Vice President J.D. Vance has given the good guys a blueprint:

Vance attacks the church: "The US Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to look in the mirror a little bit & recognize that when they receive more than $100m to resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns or are they worried about their bottom line?" pic.twitter.com/YOoMrOtHxy

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 26, 2025

 

The criticism by rhe US Conference of Catholic Bishops is telling because it opposes punitive immigration policies for two reasons: 1) it is generally welcoming to immigrants; and 2) most of the immigrants affected are Catholic.

If most of the newcomers were not Catholic, the Church still would oppose the Trump Administration policy. However, the leaders of the faith are aware of three things: 1) most of the affected individuals are Catholic;  2) most of these Catholics are more committed to their faith then American Catholics are and 3) the Church, facing declining numbers, need these immigrants, their numbers and the vitality they bring. 

This situation is simultaneously both fundamentally different and analogous to the Trump Administration's attack on immigration eight years ago. Campaigning for the presidency, Trump demanded "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Once he took office, he "stopped nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from being allowed to travel to America for 90 days."

The day before President Trump retroacitvely left office in 2021, the ACLU recalled

When Trump implemented his first Muslim ban, the public response was immediate. Crowds of protesters flooded airports in support of Muslims and other impacted communities who were immediately being detained or turned away all over the country. Lawyers and immigrants’ rights organizations nationwide, including the ACLU, filed a series of lawsuits as court after court ruled to block the ban. 

Despite the backlash, Trump issued new iterations of the ban to circumvent the law and conceal its real purpose, which in his own words was to block Muslims from entering the United States. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the third iteration of the ban to be implemented. The Trump administration then further expanded the ban, explicitly targeting Africans. As a result, people from 13 countries still remain barred from coming to the U.S.

By contrast, the Administration crrrently is targeting individuals who entered the USA through our southern border. They are from Latin America and with a few exceptions, are not Muslim. They are not Jewish or Hindu. They are Christian- mostly Roman Catholic, with some evangelical Protestants.

Layered upon that, the Vice President has called out the Church with which most of them identify. Vance asks rhetorically "are they worried about humanitarian concerns or are they worried about their bottom line?"

Both, ovbviously, but there is no shame in doing well by doing good. Nonetheless, the Administration- if Vance was not talking out of his posterior- is hostile to the interests of the Church in building its numbers. Yet only last September

"They're anti-Christian, and it's driving people out," (Catholic League President Bill) Donohue said in a phone interview of Democrats, citing similar comments from former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who recently endorsed Trump. "And the guys I'm talking to, it's not even so much abortion. It's just they feel like they don't speak their language anymore. This whole idea of letting men compete against women in sports abuses the bathrooms, they think they've just gone off the deep end”….

"Kamala Harris hates Catholics and everything we hold sacred. We can’t pretend otherwise. Our institutions, families, culture and belief in the sanctity of all human life are the antithesis of her vision for America. Donald Trump and JD Vance — and now RFK — are the antidote to the ruling class that has destroyed our country," Brian Burch, president of conservative non-profit, CatholicVote, said in the Trump campaign’s press release.

It's time to turn the tables, for Democrats to point out that Republicans are trying to drive Catholics,or more generally Christians, out of the country. When it was Muslims, Democrats were apoplectic, especially outraged because Trump was singling out individuals based on their religion. 

Now, the Administration is discrimating against Catholics and other Christians. Presumably, that's not by intent, though Vance's comments can be interpreted otherwise. It is, however, a blow against Christianity in effect. 

However, if Democras truly wish to change their message, the President and the Vice President, the former by policy and the latter by words, have given them an opening. You can drive a Mack truck through that gaping hole. Unfortunately, Democrats may be waiting for an electric-powered vehicle to take that drive.

Share |

The Carville Prescription

In his daily poll for January 4, 2025, Philadelphia-based CNN talk show hostMixhael Smerconish asks "Do you agree with James Carville that Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason: the economy?" The question probably was written by Smerconish's producer, who is in the habit of asking unclear, ambiguous, or misleading questions.

This question, prompted by Carville's 1/4/25 op-ed in The New York Times, falls into either the second or third categories. Acknowledging error in being convinced that Kamala Harris would defeat Donald Trump, Carville remarks "We lost for one very simple reason: It was, it is, and it always will be the economy, stupid. We have to begin 2025 with that truth as our political north star and not get distracted byy anything else."

Carville may be as famous for his stock phrase "it's the economy, stupid" as he is for having been one of the two primary campaign strategists for Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign, which spawned the expression.

  nbsp;

However, the advice of the Ragin' Cajun for his Democratic Party did not pertain primarily to the price of eggs or of gas. Carville, who has slammed the Party for concentrating on "woke,"argues in his op-ed

While Democrats have next to no chance of passing a bold, progressive economic agenda in the next four years, what we can do is force Republicans to oppose us. We must be on the offensive with a wildly popular and populist economic agenda they cannot be for.

Let’s start by forcing them to oppose a raise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Let’s make Roe v. Wade an economic messaging issue and force them to block our attempts to codify it into law. And let’s take back the immigration issue by making it an economic issue and force the G.O.P. to deny bipartisan reform that expedites entry for high-performing talent and for those who will bring business into our nation. This year the Democratic Party leadership must convene and publish a creative, popular and bold economic agenda and proactively take back our economic turf. Go big, go populist, stick to economic progress and force them to oppose what they cannot be for. In unison.

Amen and amen. Add to it consumer regulation (put into a sexier package) and raising Social Security benefits. However, Carville adds

To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast.

How authentic you are on the ecobomy? In August during the campaign, Donald Trump promised "promises will come down. You just watch. They'll come down, and they'll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything." Having now been elected, he says of grocery prices "It's hard to bring them down once they're up. You know, it's very hard."  Not very authentic but very effective, and the candidate was elected.

This is not an anomaly. On March 26, 1992, the "I feel your pain" was born as Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton- the most famous of Carville clients- told an AIDS activist 

I feel your pain, I feel your pain, but if you want to attack me personally, you're no better than Jerry Brown and all the rest of these people who say whatever sounds good at the moment.

It's hard to believe Bill Clinton ever felt anyone's pain except his own but voters bought it, He was elected and four years later was re-elected. "Strong and wrong beats weak and right" asserted Clinton, who understood the strategic importance of faking self-confidence.

As President, Clintom succeeded Ronald Wilson Reagan who, like the former Arkansas governor, won his re-election bid. In that latter race, in 1984, Reagan was re-elected on the theme of "It's Morning in America"-  with an economy weaker than the one Americans enjoyed in this, the last year of the Biden presidency.

               

But voters bought it. They bought it because Ronald Reagan prior to his political career was a professional actor. He didn't lose his acting skills, riding them to the California statehouse and later two elected terms as President of the USA.

Obviously, Donald J. Trump, despite his obvious unfitness for the office, has now been elected twice to the presidency. He was a bad businessman and terrible president but an excellent actor on The Apprentice. 

And so it is:two professional actors and the chaming and cunning "SlickWillie," each of them elected and re-elected. They were elected not because they were "authentic" on the economy but because they appeared authentic.

James Carville's emphasis on performing well on a podcast is interesting and at least legitimate, and the impact of social media generally is not going away. Touting the importance of economic populism also is a counter-weight to the obsession with race plaguing the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, it needs to be recognized that for authenticity in presidential elections, perception trumps reality.

Share |

The Anti-Christian Christian and His Advocate

It's hard to say whether the conservative Cardinal Timothy Dolan has been duped or is merely carrying water for the President-elect. In the video (beginning at 5:21) below, he tells the right-wing Fox News partisan Maria Bartiromo

And what I'm happy to see, Maria is that- what shuld I say? Experts and scholars who are ot religiously driven are fiding this out. They say "uh oh, sales of the Bible, sales of  books on spirituality are going up and there seems to be, there seems to be, a newfound appreciation for the role of faith, especially in our country, okay? I think President Trump tapped ito that, don't you?

He's referring to President-elect Trump, but that's an on-purpose mistake many dishonest people have been making since Donald Trump became the GOP nominee for President in the summer.

Sales of the Bible have been increasing, probably for a myriad of reasons, even as identification with Christianity and organized religion generally has declined.  Ironically, Dolan cites an increase in book sales on "spirituality," which- given that it s a poorly defined term- may suggest that the overall increase in such sales is due to something other than increase in religous faith.

Nevertheless, after Bartiromo agrees with Dolan that Trump "tapped into that," the Archbishop continues

I've had talks with him before in the past. He can't say that he was raised as a zealous Christian but we takes his Christian faith seriously. He has a lot of memories about Norman Vincent Peale, the famous preacher here in New York and down aways on Fifth Avenue. And I think he means it.

Norman Vincent Peale was a charlatan. A wise blogger on the Catholic "Women of Grace" website (I can be ecumenical) once wrote of Peale's very famous book

"The Power of Positive Thinking" is riddled with New Age-inspired gimmicks such as the use of imagery and repetitious phrases that are a form of auto-hypnosis. If you train yourself to think a certain way, certain things will happen. In other words, if the mind can conceive it, a person can achieve it – which is precisely what the New Thought movement of the 19th century was all about. There’s nothing wrong with training yourself to think positively, but when you believe your thoughts can actually change reality, then you’ve crossed the line and are now making the mind into a god.

If Donald Trump "takes his Christian faith seriously," this is a case in which, as his supporters enjoy putting it, he should be taken seriously, not literally.  Trump has taken contempt for Christianity to a whole new level, or depth: his reference to "Two Corinthians"; using an Episcopal Church and a Bible as props while racial justice protestors in the D.C. were tear-gassed; equating himself with the Jewish messiah/Jesus Christ: maintaining that he never has had to ask God for forgiveness; attempting to put money into a communion plate; suggesting that Communion is "asking for forgiveness," though the pastor literally says "do this in remembrance of me." 

And now we learn

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly planning an interfaith prayer service the day before his inauguration, where participants can worship alongside the businessman and his wife, Melania.

But those who want to join need to weigh the price of prayer: Tickets to the service will be awarded only to those who donate at least $100,000 to Trump’s inaugural ceremonies, or who raise $200,000.

 Earlier this month, Axios cited a seven-page prospectus that listed the service alongside several other donor-only events, such as a “cabinet reception” with Trump’s nominees and “candlelight dinner” with Trump and Melania.

According to the report, if a donor gives $1 million or raises $2 million, they’ll earn six tickets to the suite of inauguration events.

So if Donald Trump "takes his Christian faith seriously," Trump, earnestly demonstrating contempt for Christianity, is seriously trying to erode fiah in Christianity.

Cardinal Dolan continues

And I think- I think the assassination attempts kindof renewed in him oh my, there's something beyond me that I think is watching over me, and it's got a task for me. And what he expresses personally semes to be expressed more and more throughout the world. 

After Bartiromo argues that God saved Trump from assassination, Dolan adds

Yeah. You know, I think of, Maria, I think of Ronald Reagan and John Paul II. Both men survived assassination atempts very close to one another. And when the two of them met for the first time, Ronald Reagan said to Pope St. John Paul II, Mother Teresa told me that she things the Lord spared me because the Lord had something special in mind for me and Pope St. John Paul II smiled and said she told me the same thing. They both believe that, and look what they were able to accomplish. The world was changed for the better because of them.

As for Mother Teresa, the late Christopher HItchens was only slightly exaggerating when he called her "a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud." And the middle and lower classes still haven't recovered from President Reagan's attacks on organized labor and on consumer and business regulation, deep cuts in income taxes for the wealthy, and assault on the faith of citizens in their government.

Donald Trump was saved from being killed by two would-be assassins. In one,he was wounded by either the bullet or, more likely, fragments from the bullet. Escaping death. But the "something special in mind" for Donald J. Trump may not be something positive for the nation and the world. One Christian website explains 

In Revelation 13 the apostle John records visions that he saw, including a sign of a dragon and a terrible beast that had “ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name” (Revelation 13:1). As John watches, “one of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast” (Revelation 13:3). The significance of the healing of the beast’s deadly wound is that, because of the healing, the world unites in following the beast...

The apostle Paul calls him the man of lawlessness and the son of destruction (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This one will come in great power and deceive many—even with a counterfeit resurrection. The purpose of the Antichrist’s deception is to swindle many into believing that he is the savior and the one who should be worshiped. But, unlike the true Messiah, this beast’s deadly wound was only temporarily healed. He will later be killed and judged, while the true Christ will be victorious and establish His kingdom in righteousness.

The world has not- at least yet- followed the beast. However, the wound- a bullet to the head- which could have been fatal was followed by rapid hearing and the country uniting (sort of) in electing the guy. And clearly, many people believe Donald Trump should be not only supported, but worshiped.

This may be far-fetched. However, it's a whole lot realistic than the view of Cardinal Dolan that Donald Trump is a man of deep Christian faith.  A whole lot more realistic by a country mile, or even a city mile. 

            MERRY CHRISTMAS                                          HAPPY CHANUKAH

Share |

A Very Bad, Very Convenient, Memory

Bill O'Reilly makes the case for election of Donald Trump, and that warm feeling on your backside is smoke he's blowing up your rear end. Here, he claims

I don't care whether you like Trump or not. Trump governed this nation in a responsible way where everybody prospered. And if you don't believe that, you're a moron. Every single thing, every single indicator was on positive territory. All the working people no matter what color they were were making more money and there were more jobs. We didn't have inflation. We didn't have supply problems. We didn't have any of it. Now we have all of it, in addition to an open border.

🚨BREAKING: Fox News legend Bill O'Reilly just said: "I don't care whether you like Trump or not. Trump governed this nation in a responsible way, where everybody prospered. And if you don't believe that, you're a moron!"

What's your reaction? pic.twitter.com/NhS9UlgnUq

— PAMELA HENSLEY🇺🇸 (@PamelaHensley22) May 23, 2024

What a great country! All the working people were making more money and there were more jobs. Except that, as Vox explains

some of Trump’s signature economic policies have also been found to have had little to no measurable effect on the economy — and a few might have even hurt. Multiple studies have shown that the Trump tariffs at best had a neutral effect on the economy and at worst cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs and higher prices for consumers. And his 2017 tax cuts, which increased investment in the economy and contributed to modest wage growth in the short term, fell far short of Republicans’ promise that they would pay for themselves and are projected to significantly raise federal debt and increase income inequality.

"On the other hand," Biden

faced the immediate task upon assuming office of heading off a recession as the country started to bounce back from the pandemic. The US did recover from that pandemic economic slump. But there is evidence that his policies, including the stimulus checks he issued, contributed to an inflationary spiral. 

The US did, however, manage to curb inflation faster than other economically developed countries, while also maintaining much lower levels of unemployment and higher wage growth.

O'Reilly seems to have forgotten that

Supply chain disruptions rose nearly 70% in 2020, with the Covid-19 pandemic leading the way as the most damaging event, according to data from supply chain risk monitoring firm Resilinc, released this week.

The data come from Resilinc’s 2020 EventWatch Report, which analyzes information gathered from the company’s EventWatch AI global event monitoring service. The report shows that supply chain disruptions were up 67% year-over-year in 2020, with 83% of disruptive events being “human caused,” the company said...

Donald Trump was President in 2020, when he constantly assured Americans that the coronavirus would "go away" and "is disappearing," Inflation was low through most of 2020 (but rose to.4.2% in January 2021) because people were sheltered at home and there was little demand for goods and services. O'Reilly says "we didn't have supply problems," a claim which should surprise suppliers and consumers of toilet tissue.

The inflation rate is now 3.4%. At 3.9%, the unemployment rate is at a nearly 50-year low. It was at 6.3% in January, 2021, when Trump left office. (It was at 7.2% and inflation at 4.1% as Saint Reagan carried 49 states on his way to re-election bragging "It's Morning in America Again.")

Bill O'Reilly supports Donald Trump. But facts are facts. In 2017, O'Reilly was worth approximately $85 million and probably is worth much more now. Therefore, Bill he knows that under a President Trump, the tax he pays on his income will be significantly lower. There probably is a connection the two..

Share |

Blood of Our Ancestors

The 45th and possible 47th President of the United States of America:

You know, when they let, I think the real number is like 15, 16 million people into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to do.  They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned ... mental institutions and prisons all over the world. Not just in South America. Not just in the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into our country. From Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They’re pouring into our country. Nobody’s even looking at them. They just come in. The crime is going to be tremendous.

Mehdi Hasan asks the conventional rhetorical question.

Not sure how these people sleep at night https://t.co/JNEoCV46X7

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 19, 2023

Trump contends there are "like 15, 16 million people into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country." Representative Malliotakis said "He didn't say the word 'immigrants.' I think he was talking about the Democratic policies." 

Unless the ex-President meant that there are approximately 14 or 16 million Democrats "pouring into our country "from Africa, from Asia, all over the world," he was talking about immigrants.

Nonetheless, I'd ask a different question than would Hasan. We have to accept the possibility that these folks sleep well at night, either because they lack a conscience or because they actually agree with Mr. Trump. Perhaps the better question, asked rhetorically or not, would beg an explanation as to the reason such Republicans are unable or unwilling to defend the remarks they prefer to pretend the former President did not make.

They would not have to defend the racial aspect- "blood"- of the comment. If they want to restrict dramatically the flow of migrants to the USA, they could make the argument. But they won't. Karen Finney, of whom I'm no fan, has an interesting theory which might explain their reticence when in response to Hasan, she maintains "Trump's comments are as much about interracial/bi-racial Americans as they are about immigrants. The 'poisoning the blood' rhetoric akin to 'one drop' laws in the US. This is about a much bigger version of who is American."

Technically, she is wrong, but only technically. Trump was talking about immigrants, and only immigrants and reflects the perspective of many voters. While his words and meaning are hateful and bigoted, they make sense to a lot of people. 

Nonetheless (as Finney recognizes), when Trump speaks of "blood," he is not speaking of the "blood" of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or Americans of Latin descent. Were he doing so, there would be no "blood" to be poisoned- it already be "poisoned," the result of sexual relations among people of different national and racial backgrounds.

Thus, when Donald Trump was speaking of "the blood of our country," he was referring to the blood of white Americans. Finney's critique is insightful insofar as she was foreseeing a slippery slop, unconsciously harkening back to Reverend Martin Niemoller. The Lutheran minister, at first a right-winger, then a critic of Adolph Hitler, after the Second World War eloquently powerfully admitted

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Actor Ronald Reagan was a fake and bad President with soaring rhetoric. So he understood what even Republicans once did, that "you can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American." Here, it has been not who our parents or grandparents were, but who we are, or striving to become.

But Donald Trump's acolytes, including supposed rivals Ramaswamy, DeSantis, and Haley, are in too deep. Intimidated by, or in support of, the Republican Party's leading presidential candidate, they are unable to make an argument in favor of democratic principles, institutional mores, or American values. Their silence speaks loudly. Commitment to what has made America America has given way to accepting someone who wants to decide who gets to stay and who gets shut out based upon the supposed blood of their ancestors.

Share |

Not So Sudden

Still-conservative, though very anti-Trump George Conway no doubt was singing Joe Scarborough's tune when on Morning Joe he remarked

They hate the United States military because it's part of the United States government and this is basically- the Republicans have become anti-American, anti-government, anti- United States now- that's their shtick now. That's why you see them attacking law enforcement, the FBI, the Justice Department, state and federal prosecutors, and they attack institutions that normally Republicans were very, very supportive of and what now is just their nihilistic attack on American institutions.

.@gtconway3d:

“Republicans have become anti-American, anti-government, anti-the United States. That’s their shtick now.

That's why you see them attacking law enforcement. The FBI…Institutions that normally Republicans were very very supportive of.”
(Video: MSNBC) pic.twitter.com/6ot8jrEHvB

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) September 5, 2023

 

For those who aren't fans of the ex-President, there are three ways to account for the impact of Donald Trump upon his party.  He may be viewed as what is wrong with the Republican Party: as the intimidating individual who has hijacked the Party, brought it down to his level; or has merely exposed the GOP for what it is.

Take it from a long-time Republican strategist:

When I say Trump didn’t change the Republican Party, he revealed it, @RichLowry is a perfect example. https://t.co/eSDVieod1n

— Stuart Stevens (@stuartpstevens) August 2, 2023

When the 40th President of the USA died in 2004, professor government and politics Ronald W. Walters noted "Ronald Reagan, it is fair to say, was really an anathema to the entire civil rights community and the civil rights agenda." Moreover

Walters, in his book “White Nationalism/black Interests – Conservative Public Policy and the black Community,” argues that George W. Bush’s election in 2000 secured the domination of American politics “by the radical Conservative wing of the Republican party, a project begun when Ronald Reagan was elected to the White House in 1980.”the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This domination of American politics began with the election of 1980, was re-energized by the election of 2000, and has descended into the sewer in recent years. George Conway, bless his soul, says that "the Republicans have become."  But this didn't start today, yesterday, or when Donald Trump was elected. Ronald Reagan deserves credit for much of the continuing attack on American government, now including federal law enforcement and other institutions and the damage it is already bringing.

 

Share |

The New Eleventh Commandment

I suppose it was fairly predictable.  After Governor Ron DeSantis signed his signature "Stop Woke Act," he blasted the "myth" that "Florida schools have been directed to 'empty libraries' and 'cover classroom books.'"

However, as Judd Legum has pointed out, a regulation issued by the state's Department of Education has created sufficient confusion and fear that a few districts such as Manatee County School District have

instructed teachers to "remove or cover all classroom libraries until all materials can be reviewed." In addition, a librarian must "vet every classroom library book" and

In Escambia County for example, there have been challenges filed to remove 175 books from school libraries. 148 of those books have been removed from library shelves during the challenge process, which includes multiple reviews and appeals. But thus far, the Escambia County school board has considered and made a final decision on just four books. It voted to remove all four. The other 170 challenges are still pending. But, in DeSantis' intepretation of the data, Escambia would have only removed four books.

Large numbers of books have been removed pending appeal in Clay County and other school districts as well.

These challenges of individual books is entirely separate from the reviews of classroom libraries, which must be performed by librarians, mandated by the DeSantis administration. That process is why, according to data released by Duval County, more than 1.5 million books remain inaccessible to students.

Confused?  I am, and I'm writing about it, although Legum is thorough. Confusion probably is the intent, ambiguity the means for the governor. Far less ambiguous is the six-week ban on abortion approved by the legislature in Florida and signed by DeSantis which

will take effect only if the state’s current 15-week ban is upheld in an ongoing legal challenge that is before the state Supreme Court, which is controlled by conservatives.

The policy would have wider implications for abortion access throughout the South in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving decisions about abortion access to states. Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while Georgia forbids the procedure after cardiac activity can be detected, which is around six weeks.

A woman often does not know prior to six weeks that she is pregnant but the punitive ban, as the cliche goes, is "a feature rather than a bug," which more properly would be phrased "a benefit rather than a bug."

Supporters of DeSantis' expected candidacy for the GOP nomination for President have supported his legislative initiatives, however cruel or authoritarian, or both (here again, benefit rather than bug). However, so have his critics, whether supporters or skeptics of Donald Trump's bid for the nomination. 

In the latter category would be former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. The Guardian reports

DeSantis accused Disney of perpetrating a legally unsound “sham”, which he said he would dismantle. He also threatened to build on state-owned land next to Disney World.

“What should we do with this land?” DeSantis said. “Maybe create a state park. Maybe try to do more amusement parks. Someone even said, like, maybe you need another state prison. Who knows? I just think that the possibilities are endless.”

Christie said: “I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney.

“Where are we headed here now, that if you express disagreement in this country, the government is allowed to punish you? To me, that’s what I always thought liberals did. And now all of a sudden here we are participating in this with a Republican governor.”

As well as questioning why DeSantis attacked Disney, Christie blasted how he did it.

“For him … to not have foreseen that Disney was going to do what they did in response, which was to completely take over the millions and millions of acres and the zoning decisions on that … well, I’ll tell you this much: that’s not the guy I want sitting across from President Xi.”

 

BREAKING: Former Republican Governor, Chris Christie has just spoken out against Ron DeSantis and his attacks on Disney World:

“I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney. I mean, where are we headed now, that if you express disagreement… pic.twitter.com/tig5dz3ysw

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) April 18, 2023

 

Christie is not alone in his criticism, for former Vice President Mike Pence is doubling down on attacks against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis:

The latest salvo came during a Yahoo! News interview Tuesday, when the potential Presidential candidate likened “government activism” from DeSantis to that of California’s Gavin Newsom, comparing Florida’s handling of Disney to how California dealt with abortion pills.

“I’m a limited government conservative, and I believe in private property, free enterprise. My concern more broadly was just simply about taking action against a company in the wake of a political dispute, where the company had taken a different position than the state,” Pence contended.

“I have concerns about that in Florida. I had the exact same concerns about California, pulling a $54 million contract from Walgreens because Walgreens announced that they’ll not be distributing the abortion pill in 20 states where it would be illegal to do so. To me, it’s the same kind of government activism — one on the right, one on the left, and both are wrong.”

Ronald Reagan said the 11th Commandment is "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican."  He first said that, though, well over a half century ago. No, it is more like "Thou Must Not Antagonize Corporations."

Share |

A Fitting Representation

This year is the 30th anniversary of the siege in which

Federal agents raided the compound about 10 miles east of Waco on Feb. 28, 1993. They were trying to arrest sect leader David Koresh for stockpiling illegal weapons, but Branch Davidian members had been tipped off about the raid and a shootout ensued. Four agents and six Davidians were killed that day, leading to what would become a 51-day standoff.

As the weeks dragged on, federal authorities said they were becoming increasingly worried about the Davidian children possibly being abused. Then on April 19, 1993, after an FBI negotiator shouted over a loudspeaker for Koresh to lead his people out and “be a messiah, not a destroyer,” military vehicles began ramming the buildings and spraying tear gas inside.

A few hours later, flames were seen spreading through the compound. Authorities said the Davidians died by suicide by setting the fire and shooting themselves. Survivors have denied there was a suicide pact, saying military vehicles knocked over lanterns and ignited the blaze.

Nearly a dozen Davidians went on trial; all were acquitted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges. But five were convicted of voluntary manslaughter and weapons charges, and three were convicted on weapons charges.

It was thus Donald Trump's modus operandi to choose Waco for his rally on Saturday evening. In a commentary appearing in June, 2020 in The Washington Post, history professor Peniel E. Joseph noted

President Trump’s original decision to stage his first public rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa — the site of the worst anti-black racist massacre in American history — has deep roots in political leaders’ strategic displays of political solidarity with racists and those who support racial terror. The vocal minority of Never Trumpers — including such notable conservative intellectuals as George Will, Max Boot and William Kristol — proclaim their loyalty to a different Republican Party, that of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, the iconic former B-movie actor, California governor and two-term president, ushered in “Morning in America” through trickle-down economics that paved the way for the huge wealth gap the nation suffers from today.

Black America remembers Reagan much differently than apologists who claim him as a politically conservative figure who stood above the racist din of some of his more unseemly supporters.

As the Republican nominee for president in 1980, Reagan staged an Aug. 3 rally at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, an event that was weighted with racist symbolism. Neshoba County was the site of the brutal murders of the black activist James Chaney and white civil rights workers Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman.

Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman were killed during 1964’s Mississippi Freedom Summer, a historic effort by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to bring democracy and racial justice to the Magnolia State. The interracial trio of activists went missing June 21 outside of tiny Philadelphia, Miss. Their bodies were recovered Aug. 4 in an earthen dam, and they have become enshrined as three of the most visible martyrs of the civil rights era.

The fact that two white men were murdered by a combination of racist law enforcement and white vigilantes lent their deaths more weight in the public’s imagination. Freedom Summer continued, with activists emboldened, rather than fearstruck, by acts of racial terror orchestrated by Mississippi officials. Almost 1,000 white volunteers bolstered the SNCC staff’s efforts to organize Freedom Schools, literacy and civics classes, voter registration and integrated libraries.

Reagan knew all of this and still held a raucous rally in Neshoba County, where he declared his allegiance to “states’ rights,” a dog whistle fully understood by the white people in attendance who embraced the conservative former California governor and actor as a political hero straight from central casting.

There is a straight line in the Republican Party from the man Archbishop Desmond Tutu labeled "a racist, pure and simple" to Donald J. Trump. Ever eager to stir up racial animosity, the 45th President of the USA, updated for the 21st century, is a proper heir to the patron saint of the GOP. It will be Donald J. Trump in the flesh in Waco, Texas. But the ghost of Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) will join his Republican Party in attendance.

 

Share |

Pennsylvania

Adam Jentleson, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has been tweeting promiscuously (or in woke, "tweeting as a sex worker") about the US Senate race in which John Fetterman beat Mehmet Oz.  He was primarily exorcised by the mainstream media which brought the message that the Fetterman's difficulties in the debate with his opponent debate seriously jeopardized the likelihood the Democrat would prevail. 

But Jentleson made a couple of good peripheral points in his tweet thread. He noted

The Fetterman camp said reactions to the debate were likely to be shaped by the central fact of the campaign: people like John and do not like Oz. They’d be sympathetic to John’s struggles because they are decent human beings and not schoolyard bullies or overconfident GOP flaks.

It's what in recent years has been characterized roughly as "have a beer with test," which is similar- not identical- to the traditional factor of charisma. When Fetterman ran, unsuccessfully, for the Democratic nomination for the same Senate seat (then and until January still held by Pat Toomey) six years ago, I believed that he'd be the strongest nominee because he was an individual voters would be drawn to.

If nothing else, he was and still is down-to-earth, plain-spoken, frequently sporting shorts and a hoodie because, presumably, he is comfortable doing so. Moreover, he seemed to be, well, not an intellectual's intellectual or stuffed shirt, a trait to which voters in Pennsylvania (especially Pennsylvania) would relate to. It's why, along with the Hobbes decision, I believed from the start that Fetterman would blow Oz away, probably by around 20 points.

That turned out to be wildly optimistic. However, Jentleson's expectation that voters would "be sympathetic to John's struggles because they are decent human beings...." likely would not have been borne out if Fetterman himself were more stodgy than relatable, more like the stereotype of a college professor than a guy who had just hopped off his Harley. (This is, after all, Pennsylvania, arguably part of the Rust Belt and cultural cousin to Ohio.)

That explanation, related to Jentleson's suspicion (and hope), is speculative and though probably valid, applies specifically to the candidate himself. This, however, does not:

The abundance of evidence says that debates almost never matter. Yet in the face of all evidence and in many cases without bothering to check, many reporters immediately bought into the idea that this debate was an exception - that it had not just mattered, but was decisive.

Debates are rarely ultimately determinative, and seldom make a marginal difference in an election outcome, especially if there is more than one debate.

Surely, that opinion- observation, really- would be held also by Presidents H. Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore. Clinton is generally believed to have "won" at least two of her three debates with Donald Trump and Al Gore clearly "won" the first and third of his three debates with George W. Bush. (At the second, Gore seemed to have overdosed on Valium.) Kerry dominated- simply dominated- Bush in their debates and appeared to be the embodiment of a candidate who would be "ready on day one" for the job.

Nonetheless, the best example would be Ronald Reagan vs. Walter Mondale in 1984 because the first debate featured a 73-year-old candidate who appeared to be physically or mentally deficient, remarking in summation

I think that most of the people in this country would say, yes, they are better off than they were 4 years ago. The question, I think, should be enlarged. Is America better off than it was 4 years ago? And I believe the answer to that has to also be “yes.” 

There followed so much concern about the incumbent's fitness that the chairperson of the Republican National Committee was forced to deny his party's nominee harbored mental or physical deficiency. In the following faceoff, Reagan rambled in his closing statement about driving along a Pacific coast highway, nuclear weapons, and a time capsule. But it had no impact. He cleverly quipped, in a response to a question occasioned by his previous debate performance, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth, and inexperience. "

Game, set, match. Notwithstanding two closing statements that suggested the elderly Reagan was suffering from dementia, he had his sound bite- a devastating one- and he went on to crush the more capable Mondale.

Not surprisingly, the Oz campaign ran a debate snippet that displayed Fetterman fumbling while unable to give a to a question about fracking. Fetterman's advantage in polling went down- but his final margin of victory was extremely close (maybe even a little above) the margin which polls indicated the Democrat enjoyed before the debate.

Fortunately, the difference between the two candidates on abortion became ever clearer when in the debate Oz commented that "women, doctors, local political leaders" should be in on the decision. Evidently, it was a boon for Fetterman, as a CBS News exit poll found. 

Which ONE of these five issues mattered most in deciding how you voted today: (CHECK ONLY ONE)
Sample: 1,134	Fetterman	Oz
Crime (11%)	51%	49%
Abortion (37%)	78%	21%
Inflation (28%)	27%	72%
Gun policy (9%)	-	-
Immigration (7%)	-	-

Two years from now, during the next election cycle, news outlets will hype upcoming debates by trumpeting their importance to the outcome. Then, as almost always, they will be wrong. 

 

Share |

The Abnormal GOP Normal

 As Newsweek has reported

Trump said in a Truth Social post on Monday that unspecified "conclusive" information proved the FBI had "buried" an investigation into a laptop previously owned by Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 election winner President Joe Biden. The former president claimed that the FBI's alleged "interference" into the election could only be remedied by him being declared the winner almost two years after he lost, or by the "minimal solution" of calling a new election that could lead to his reinstatement.

"This is massive FRAUD & ELECTION INTERFERENCE at a level never seen before in our Country," Trump wrote. "REMEDY: Declare the rightful winner or, and this would be the minimal solution, declare the 2020 Election irreparably compromised and have a new Election, immediately!"

(Warning: sarcasm ahead.)

Not ONE Republican Member of Congress came out to support Trump’s deranged tweet that he should be declared the winner of the 2020 election and immediately reinstated as president. Not a single one.

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) August 30, 2022

I can't tell you (or Filipkowski) how impressed I am than no GOP member of the House or the Senate leaped to support a new election in 2020- which might invalidate the victories won by some of them that November.

Neither did any of them condemn Trump's tweet. That is simply not done. The previous day, George Stephanopoulos on This Week interviewed Republican senator Roy Blunt of Missouri about a report from ABC reporter Dan Pierre.  Stephanopoulos asked "You heard former President Trump in Pierre's piece saying he did nothing wrong. Do you agree with that? Was he right to take these documents to Mar-a-Lago?"

In pertinent part, Blunt responded "Well, I think we need to know more about the documents."  When Stephanopoulos interjected with "but, Senator, that's," Blunt stated "If there's a problem, the Oversight Committee should have been told."

In one way or another, Stephanopoulos asked the Senator six more times whether he agreed that Trump should have turned the documents over to the National Archives, Blunt would concede only "I understand he turned over a lot of documents. He should have turned over all of them. I imagine he knows that very well now as well." Stephanopoulos noted "well, he hasn't said that. He said he did nothing wrong."

Notwithstanding a strong effort from a journalist committing journalism, Blunt refused to concede that Donald Trump shouldn't have taken government documents, nor did he express support for the FBI performing the job it does regularly.  

The public is continually assured by the media- and even by some Democrats- that there are mounds of Republican Senators and Representatives appalled by Donald Trump who fail to criticize him only because they are afraid of the repercussions by the former President and his base.

This is, and has been, hogwash . Roy Blunt is retiring and does not have to fear a primary challenge from a Trump-endorsed opponent.  Surely, he is someone Bill Stepien, if asked, would consider part of "Team Normal" rather than "Team Crazy."  No one would mistake him for Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, or even his Missouri colleague in the US Senate, Josh Hawley. He even avoided the GOP go-to, "Hillary." Yet, he would not bring himself to agree that Trump was wrong to take documents to Mar-a-Lago.

He would not do so because he is unconvinced that Donald Trump did anything wrong. Blunt is fine with what the 45th President did because Trump is a Republican, Blunt himself is a Republican, and you are not. Aside from "but her emails," he is today's Republican Party. evolved from Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).

 

Share |