Reality Ignored

It's time to face reality. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, as reflected in the following tweet from this misguided auhor.

This election result isn't about Dem messaging.

Their messaging during the campaign was pitch-perfect in any other iteration of America. It was about helping the middle class, lowering taxes for the average American, continuing with sound economic policies to cut rising grocery… pic.twitter.com/djEWDJGMEW

— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) November 18, 2024

With Kamala Harris having run an exciting and efficient campaign, Pavlovitz is correct that "there is no messaging that can overcome prejudice and ignorance."  Prejudice and ignorance are endemic to the human condition, and the number of black males and, especially, Latino males who voted for Donald Trump is stunning.

Nonetheless, there are many factors which led to the horrific result in the presidential race and racism and misogny are not the two most significant. (Lack of education is a different sort of thing and a whole other issue.)

Of course, there is not "some perfect Democratic candidate." Regrettably, though, Kamala Harris was nearly as far from a perfect candidate as is possible.

Perhaps the Democratic Party (or presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden) should not have selected a candidate who had responded to a 2019 questionnaire from the ACLU in such a problematic way.

Harris was asked whether she would "champion legislation to provide fair and achieval paths to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants." She stated "As president, I will prioritize immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million plus people living in our communities." The American people would have preferred "I will prioritize securing the border," even if it had been followed by a "however.'

Asked if she would "commit to ending the use of ICE detainers," she replied that she would do so and bragged that "as Attorney General, I issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012 informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers." That is quite a boast for an ex-prosecutor, thus an ex-law enforcement officer.

And then, of course, there was the big one- as pertained to the presidential election. As a matter of policy, it is virtually irrelevant because these situations occur very rarely. However, Harris' perspective was skillfully exploited by the GOP this fall. The ACLU queried

As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so? 

The then-candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination checked the "yes" box and explained

It is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition. That’s why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates. I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained. Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.

Unlike some of the other answers which at least represented good policy, this is a bad idea. And Senator Harris should have realized that at some point in a general election campaign this would come back to haunt her. And haunt her it did, when she was caught on video reassuring the LGBTQIA community of her commitment:

   

           

Yet, given her oppponent, the Vice President still had an excellent chance of claiming the presidency. And she appeared in the best possible venue, one which included only as interviewees only supporters of hers and audience members poised to applaud enthusiastically a candidate on the precipice of becoming the first female President of the USA. An entire cheering section, in miniature a replica of the huge rallies she handled expertly.  And then, this:

 

                       

It's awkward when a Vice President is confronted about whether she or he would do anything different than has the incumbent President.  For Ms. Harris, it should hae been, as characterized by questioner Sonny Hostin, a "layup."

Moreover, it's a question she had to know she would be asked, if not on The View than elsewhere. And it turns out that she was:

             

This failure to prepare wasn't about racism, misogyny, lack of education, or even the campaign. It was about the candidate. The candidate wasn't the only reason for defeat of the Democratic nominee. However, it was a major reason, and failure to recognize and acknowledge that is an exercise in self-delusion.

Share |

Vance-Like

What is this with Ohio Republicans and stand-up comedy?  From Fox News in late August:

Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance's regret in referring to some leaders as "childless cat ladies" is that "a lot of people took it the wrong way," he revealed during a recent interview.

Since jumping into the 2024 presidential race, Vance has caught flak for a resurfaced 2021 comment, when he said that "we're effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies."

The senator, however, says that the statement was taken out of context.

"I want to be the vice president for the whole country and I want to represent everyone. And yes, I made a sarcastic comment years ago that I think that a lot of Democrats have willfully misinterpreted," Vance told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Vance was then pressed again on whether he regretted the comment.

"I regret certainly that a lot of people took it the wrong way. And I certainly regret that the DNC and Kamala Harris lied about it," the vice presidential candidate told the outlet.

"I'm going to say things from time to time that people disagree with. I'm a real person, I'm going to make jokes, I'm going to say things sarcastically. And I think that what's important is that we focus on the policy," Vance added. "I have a lot of regrets, Kristen, but making a joke three years ago is not at the top 10 of the list."

Oh, and what a joke it was! Which was more hilarious- childless cat ladies or "corporate oligarchs?"  It's such a running gag, a classic of stand-up.

While Vance is a sitting United States Senator, Republican Bernie Moreno is trying to oust Sherrod Brown, the senior United States senator from Ohio. On September 20, Moreno participated in a town hall meeting outside of Cincinnati and the NBC affiliate in Columbus reported

“You know, the left has a lot of single-issue voters,” Moreno said in video published by the TV outlet. “Sadly, by the way, there’s a lot of suburban women, a lot of suburban women that are like, ‘Listen, abortion is it. If I can’t have an abortion in this country whenever I want, I will vote for anybody else.’ 

… Okay. It’s a little crazy, by the way, but — especially for women that are, like, past 50 — I’m thinking to myself, ‘I don’t think that’s an issue for you.’”

 In a development roughly as likely as the Philadelphia Eagles qualifying for the playoffs in the past five years,  "Moreno’s campaign said he was joking." The odd thing, perhaps, was that the complete explanation belied the lame explanation of a "joke" as spokesperson Reagan McCarthy stated  “Bernie was clearly making a tongue-in-cheek joke about how Sherrod Brown and members of the leftwing media like to pretend that the only issue that matters to women voters is abortion, McCarthy added that her guy thinks “that women voters care just as much about the economy, rising prices, crime, and our open southern border as male voters do.”

The spokesperson did not explain how abortion after 50 is funny when the comedian was really referring to inflation, crime, and immigration.  Similarly, J.D. Vance never has explained how women who have cats but not children wield as much power as corporate oligarchs.

It's almost as if some Republicans want to zero out segments of the American mosaic or set them against other Americans. Ohio Republican govern Mike DeWine has properly denounced inaccurate and divisive rumors about the Haitians residing in Springfield, Ohio. Perhaps he can also denounce the misogynistic remarks of Moreno, whose general election campaign he has endorsed, and those of Vance, who is on the presidential ticket he has endorsed.  And then he can tell us what's in the water in Ohio or plead that these two guys don't represent faithfully the praiseworthy nature of the state he and J.D. Vance represent. 

Share |

Racism and Sexism Unnecessary

Jen Psaki, perhaps a living embodiment of the Peter Principle, once was a very good press secretary for President Joe Biden and now is a very, very bad host on MSNBC. Here she is commenting on the effective round of interviews Vice President Kamala Harris had following the President's atrocious debate performance.

Jen Psaki blames sexism and racism for why people don’t like Kamala Harris

No Jen, people just think she’s retarded

And btw, you’re ugly

pic.twitter.com/8ied9jwYfD

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) July 11, 2024

Psaki states that Harris "is like, in my view, and undervalued talent. Um, she's a very fierce communicator. She's very strong, especially on one of the core issues that the election may be won or lost on, which is abortion rights." She noted that she had watched the debate "on the set" with other MSNBC personalities and  

after the debate, I was like "that was great." I said "yeah." That's what she's doing out in the country and nobody's tracking it.  It's almost like public opinion has not caught up with what she's doing out there. And also, we live in a country that's sexist and racist.

This country has a problem with sexual and racial bias. However, there are other reasons- or should be- that Kamala Harris is unpopular.  A week before Harris was announced as Joe Biden's running mate in August, 2020, The Crime Report summarized an article published a few days earlier by the American Prospect, which noted that the V.P. hopeful had

openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general, reports the American Prospect. Working with Gov. Jerry Brown, Harris and her legal team filed motions that were condemned by judges and legal experts as obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical, at one point suggesting that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order a reduction in California’s prison population. Judges seriously considered holding the state in contempt of court. Observers worried that Harris’s office had undermined the ability of federal judges to enforce their legal orders at the state level. The resistance to a Supreme Court ruling was aimed at preventing the release of some 5,000 nonviolent offenders, whom courts had cleared as presenting next to no risk of recidivism or threat to public safety.

Despite a straightforward directive from the Supreme Court to identify prisoners for release over a two-year period, the state spent most of that time seesawing between dubious legal filings and flagrant disregard. By early 2013, it became clear that the state had no intention to comply. Harris refused to comment to the Prospect, which reviewed in detail the events leading up the 2011 Supreme Court ruling that required a reduction in the California prisoner count. In the 5-4 decision, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s liberals, condemning the state for facilitating “needless suffering and death.” Under Attorney General Harris, the state delayed compliance, and by 2012, a report surfaced that proved the state actually intended to increase its prison population.

The American Prospect reported that the Supreme Court a 2013 ruling on the case included

“defendants have repeatedly found new and unexpected ways to frustrate this Court’s orders,” the three-judge panel decried, and “used this Court’s patience and good-faith attempts to achieve a resolution as an excuse for protracting these legal proceedings to a time that could hardly have been imagined.” Harris’s work on that case alone would likely disqualify her from a shot at a federal bench or Supreme Court appointment, Cohen opined.

Harris’s use of the anti-desegregation playbook to prevent the release of low-level offenders ultimately failed. Finally, in 2014, the state acceded, and the prison population was reduced.

This was probably the most egregious- but not the only- behavior of the Attorney General's office under Kamala Harris designed to bolster her political viability in the pre-George Floyd era. If Harris were nominated for President, the GOP, contemptuous of the courts and other institutions, might not exploit the actions of a state attorney general dedicated to improving her image as a "law and order" advocate. 

Fortunately, she did not later reverse her approach and embark on a path to condoning lawlessness, which Republicans would be more anxious to use to their benefit. Or perhaps she did, as six or so years later, as she was being considered by Joe Biden as a running mate, she knew how to ride the wave of revulsion at the murder of George Floyd.

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020

The 2018 tax filing of the Minnesota Freedom Foundation, an organization committed to paying the bail of accused offenders

shows it raised only about $100,000 that year. Just weeks after Floyd’s death, it raised an astonishing $35 million, in part because of tweets such as the one by Harris, who is now the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. That influx has put a strain on an organization that at the time had only one full-time staff member.

According to an accounting by the American Bail Coalition, verified by The Fact Checker with a review of Hennepin County jail records, all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests between May 26 and June 2 were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released; in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested had to pay no bail — and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges. (The American Bail Coalition is a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds.)

Probably few of the individuals who sent money to the MFF realized that most of it would not be used to secure the release of black lives matter protestors. However, few of the donors had been the chief law enforcement officer of a state and only one would be promoted by (MSNBC host) Nicole Wallace and others as someone who could prosecute the case against presidential nominee Donald Trump because of her legal background. Fortunately, there is no one case the GOP could blow out of proportion- oh no, say it ain't so:

A Minnesota bail fund championed by Vice President Kamala Harris helped free a repeat felon now charged with murder.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund on Thursday acknowledged it helped secure the release of Shawn Michael Tillman, who in May shot and killed a passenger on a rail platform in St. Paul. Harris promoted the Freedom Fund on Twitter during the George Floyd riots in 2020, helping the group raise $35 million in a matter of weeks, according to the Washington Post.

Freedom Fund executive directors Mirella Ceja-Orozco and Elizer Darris defended the group's decision to post Tillman's bail in a statement Thursday, saying, "It is neither just nor effective to respond to violence by denying bail and preemptively punishing people who are disproportionately poor, Black, brown, and Indigenous."

Tillman's criminal record includes multiple counts of indecent exposure, as well as assault and unlawful possession of a firearm, court records show. He is now in custody with bail set at $2 million.

Tillman was convicted of first degree murder, second degree murder, and illegal firearm possession and sentenced four months ago to 60 months for the illegal possession and to life without parole for first-degree murder. 

Kamala Harris wasn't responsible for SM Tillman, any more than Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis was responsible to the rape committed by Willie Horton. Yet, the Willie Horton issue, exploited relentlessly by conservatives, was probably more responsible than anything for the victory of George HW Bush over Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.

Nonetheless, Kamala Harris' checkered record on criminal justice is ripe to be exploited by the GOP, were the vice-president to be nominated for the highest office in the nation. It illustrates also that if Jen Psaki and others from the race and gender left attempt to impugn criticism of Harris as misogynist or racist, they are- generously speaking- acting from a position of ignorance.

Share |

Haley's "Girl" Card

It was bound to happen,  The cliche is "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" and Vivek Ramaswamy is right maybe twice a year. The mainstream media is promoting Nikki Haley as the alternative to Donald Trump because the ex-governor is a woman. Additionally, she's also a corporate stooge who has demonstrated that she is not antagonistic to minorities. 

Nikki Haley’s gender-card schtick is pathetic & straight out of the Kamala Harris / Hillary Clinton playbook. There’s a reason why the MSM is propping her up as their token Republican. pic.twitter.com/m6Oe9zZKJv

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) November 16, 2023

Nonetheless, it's the woman's card she's playing for all it's worth.

BREAKING: Nikki Haley is now saying that Vivek is only criticizing her because he 'has a girl problem'pic.twitter.com/y9DJ7bd3u1

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 15, 2023

Haley is seen remarking

Look what happens. He comes out of the gate. He gets the female chair of the party, he gets the female anchor on the platform, and then he hits me. And I'm not saying anything. But he might have a girl problem. 

Now serving her fourth term as chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna Romney McDaniel has overseen the party during three bad election cycles, in 2018, 2020, and 2022. By all indications, she has done a poor job and appears to be a gift to the Democratic Party.

Ramaswamy opposes USA support of Ukraine and has been at best, lukewarm toward Israel. By contrast, the ex-UN ambassador supports USA assistance to Ukraine and to Israel, with condemnation of Hamas which has gone beyond that of virtually anyone of prominence. More to the point, Haley is now the main challenger to Trump's nomination. Ramaswamy has been extreme in his praise of the ex-President, probably angling (in vain) to be Trump's running mate, and may even be a proxy for Trump. He's not going to go after the former President; for him, Haley is the most obvious target.

Haley's criticism of Ramaswamy as having a "girl problem" is quite rich, and not only because if any politician said a female candidate had a "girl problem" or even a "woman problem," he'd be driven out of politics in less time than it takes to spell "woke."

Donald J. Trump has been accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment of more than a dozen women, including of E. Jean Carrol, whom a jury in civil court earlier this year found had been sexually abused by Trump in 1996. The leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is the man behind such statements as:

."If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?" 

 "Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that ((Carly Fiorina)? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" 

She(Megyn Kelly) gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

And so many more. Yet as recently as Wednesday, November 15, Haley stated unequivocally that she would "support the Republican nominee," who is likely to be Trump, and that the latter was "the right President at the right time."  When Dana Perino at the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California asked the candidates "which one of you on the stage tonight should be voted off the island," the obvious answer was "anyone not here to speak to Republican voters," which would have been Trump.  For Haley, it was "are you serious?"

It was a serious question, though drawing upon popular culture, and one which elicited revealing responses.  What Nikki Haley is serious about, as called out by Vivek Ramaswamy, is delivering the shtick of a tough chick act. 

Share |

An Ongoing Error

Four weeks ago, public radio station WBUR in Boston broadcast an episode of its On Point show focused on the question "Is vice president Kamala Harris a liability or an asset in Joe Biden's re-election campaign?"

It featured three intelligent guests, one of them the dishonest Cornell Belcher, a Democratic strategist and founder of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies. Three-quarters into the discussion, fan boy Belcher stated

Go back and look at her trip that she took to Asia. That was a success. Go back and look at her trips to Eastern Europe and shoring up our alliances with NATO. Those are successes. It's hard to criticize her on what she's actually doing as vice president. So the criticism is these other things that speak to sexism and racial aversion. And people being uncomfortable with a woman, a woman of color, being in such a position of power, and so close to power.

She is doing as vice-president what she is told to do. That's the job of the nation's vice-president, whose only power is casting a vote to break ties in the Senate, which vote is always cast as the President wishes. Under those circumstances, the concept of "success"- or of failure, for that matter- is virtually meaningless. Harris is not in a "position of power" because she has no power.

Belcher contends that criticism of Harris is rooted in "people being uncomfortable with a woman, a woman of color, being in such a position of power, and so close to power." That was Harris' choice, and the choice of her supporters. She could have run for vice-president as the Senator and former Attorney General of the largest state in the country.

But she did not. That experience was largely cast aside in favor of a heavy emphasis on her being the first as vice president- first woman, first black, first black woman, first Asian-American woman.  That's fine; whatever it takes to get the party's presidential nominee elected, which is the primary purpose of the vice presidential selection. So the complaint that people are uncomfortable with a black woman being in position of power (of which she has almost none- see above) is rich coming from individuals who were publicly over the moon because a black woman finally had been nominated to be a heartbeat from the presidency. 

Belcher adds

I'd put her resume up against any vice president over the last two decades. Who's had a resume that's better than hers? So why is it that this extraordinarily accomplished woman, this groundbreaking political figure, why is it that all of a sudden people are questioning her readiness for the job? Take a man and give him the same resumé as Vice President Harris, his qualifications are never questioned.

There he goes again. After suggesting that Harris wouldn't face as much criticism if she weren't female and black, Belcher refers to Harris as "groundbreaking" because he can't avoid the temptation of defining this vice president as the sum of her sex and race.

Harris matters. Therefore, she has been under more intense scrutiny than previous vice presidents. She matters because Joe Biden is 80 years old and voters not only question his mental and physical health to serve adequately for another four years, they believe he may not survive another four years. And that would mean a President Harris, which is why Nikki Haley is blaring "a vote for President Biden is a vote for President Kamala Harris" (also because as an Asian-American woman herself, Harris feels freer than do other Republicans to attack Harris.)

2024 GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley: “Anyone is better than President Kamala Harris. Anyone.”

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade: “You mean President Biden?”

Haley: “Well, I think it’s President Harris.” pic.twitter.com/XUUdcbO92u

— The Recount (@therecount) July 7, 2023

Against persuasive evidence, Belcher contends that Harris is an "asset" to the her party and the presidential ticket. "She is," he states, "in many ways representative of this new, younger, more diverse America that is coming into its political power." Belcher attributes criticism of her to "racial and sexual aversion" while he himself boosts her on the basis of her sex and ethnic background. Supporters are to applaud the vice president's youth, sex, and status as a racial minority; critics are not permitted to consider those factors.

The strategist argues that Harris is "extraordinarily accomplished," would "put her resume up against any (recent) vice president," and that the qualifications of a man with that resume wouldn't be questioned.

Someone notify Mike Pence. Before becoming vice president, he was a governor and on the leadership team of the House Republican caucus. Nonetheless, his suitability for the position of vice president was questioned and he still, properly, is not being given a free pass, though he does know the difference between North and South Korea, unlike his successor in the position:

So the United States shares a very important relationship, which is an alliance with the Republic of North Korea. And it is an alliance that is strong and enduring. And today, there were several demonstrations of just that point.

Her gaffe is reminiscent of that of Gerald Ford, who had been elected as vice-president, then arguably lost a presidential election when he stated "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." However, Ms. Harris is best known for her word salads, as in

We will assist Jamaica in COVID recovery by assisting in terms of the recovery efforts in Jamaica that have been essential to, I believe, what is necessary to strengthen not only the issue of public health, but also the economy.

Even aside from Donald Trump, who has elevated lying to an art form, every politician lies at one time or another. If one is a Democrat, she must not get caught doing it:

Kamala Harris: I'm here in Guatemala today. At some point, we are going to the border. We've been to the border. So this whole, this whole, this whole thing about the border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border.

Lester Holt: You haven't been to the border.

Kamala Harris: And I haven't been to Europe. I mean (LAUGHS) I don't, I don't understand the point that you're making.

In show business history, it was "how do you solve a problem like Maria?"  Democrats are neither sexist nor racist when they, unlike Cornell Belcher, ponder "how do we solve a problem like Kamala?"

 

Share |

Feminism Misplaced

Nancy Pelosi has been down this road before, such as on November 14, 2012, when NPR reported

There was a bit of laughter but also a lot of seriousness, when NBC's Luke Russert asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi if her decision to seek the House minority leadership again prevents a younger leadership from taking her place.

Pelosi was flanked by the Democratic female members of House and as soon as the question flew out of Russert's mouth, groans filled the room. "Age discrimination," one person was heard screaming.

"Oh, you've always asked that question except to Mitch McConnell," Pelosi said with a laugh.

Russert, 27, pressed his case, saying that she, and Reps. Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn, who round out the House leadership, were all older than 70.

"Let's for a moment honor it as a legitimate question, although it's quite offensive, but you don't realize that I guess," she said. "The fact is that everything that I have done in my decade of leadership is to elect younger and newer people to the Congress.

Age discrimination, my posterior.  If she were concerned with that, Pelosi wouldn't have said "Oh, you've always asked that question except to Mitch McConnell." Pelosi's response had nothing to do with age. It was about gender, and gender alone.

And so it shouldn't have been surprising that Representative Pelosi on Thursday (video below) remarked

Senator Feinstein has been a champion for California for twenty years. I have been the leader or the Speaker of the House fighting for California and I have seen up close and firsthand her great leadership for our country but especially for our State of California. She deserves the respect to get well and be back on duty and, uh, I just, it's interesting to me. I don't know what political agendas are at work that are going after Senator Feinstein in that way. I've never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate that way.

It's just a guess but it may be because we've never had an 89-year-old absent Senator whose vote on the Judiciary Committee was pivotal, a vote without which the President (one of her own party) cannot gain approval of any of his judicial appointments. Since returning to California for surgery for shingles in early March, Feinstein has missed 58 votes and the worst is yet to come.

The "political agendas" are obvious: gaining a recommendation by the committee for full Senate approval of federal judges.  It has nothing to do with gender- nothing.  If a man were in Feinstein's position, the pressure upon the Senator to resign would be as great; probably greater because Democrats would not then have to overcome their fear of being accused of sexism or misogyny.

Hopefully, Feinstein will recover fully from her bout with shingles, a disease striking primarily the aged. Nevertheless,, the clock can't be turned back, she will never recover from being 89 years old and is, as with many elderly people, someone who has exhibited signs of mental decline. It's deeply unfortunate, but it happens with a significant portion of the very elderly.  She cannot do her job, which is more common than not for men and women of her age.

Senator Feinstein reportedly has asked Majority Leader Schumer to replace her temporarily on the Judiciary Committee, which Schumer has agreed to pursue. However, Republicans would have to agree and the price they would exact, if they are willing at all, would be enormous. California's Ro Khanna of California was justified in tweeting

It’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.

Khanna is a Democratic member of the House but unlike Nancy Pelosi, is uninterested in making life far more difficult for the Democratic Senate. There also is an element of California politics involved because, in the race to replace Feinstein (who already had announced her retirement), Khanna supports the bid of Representative Barbara Lee while Pelosi is partial to the less progressive wing of the state party.

Still, given the former Speaker's history, there is an arguably more odious motivation. That would be good old-fashioned bias or what might be called "reverse sexism" which, of course, is simply sexism.. Whether or not he was thinking of Nancy Pelosi, this MSNBC host is right:

I’m sorry but “it’s feminist to stay in a critically important job long past when you are capable of doing it” is a ludicrous argument. I can’t tell if people are really making it or just kinda trolling.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 14, 2023

" 

Share |

No Equivalence

CNN This Morning is a train wreck and as Heather Schwedel of Slate explains, last week Nikki Haley announced 

her presidential run. In her speech, the former governor of South Carolina called for “mandatory mental competency tests” for politicians older than 75, and Lemon responded that this made him “uncomfortable.” He then said that Haley, who is 51, should stay away from criticizing politicians for being past their prime—because she’s already past hers. A woman’s prime, he went on, includes her “20s and 30s, and maybe 40s.” Lemon has since apologized for what he said—calling it ”inartful and irrelevant, ” which is not the same as “wrong”—but the moment was so bizarre that it’s worth lingering on.

Lemon’s two female co-anchors reacted immediately to his initial comments, asking what exactly he meant, but he doubled down with the following bit:

I’m just saying what the facts are. Google it. Everybody at home, when is a woman in her prime? It says 20s, 30s, and 40s. I’m just saying Nikki Haley should careful about saying that politicians are not in their prime, and they need to be in their prime when they serve, because she would not be in her prime according to Google or whatever it is.

Schwedel found that Google "does not, in fact, have an authoritative answer to when a woman is in her prime" which means it may be  "Her sexual peak? Her most beautiful? Her most fertile? Her most satisfied with her life? Her most capable in her career?"

Lemon's rant rivals in ludicrousness the comment from Nikki Haley which prompted it and Schwedel observed "it was jarring that Lemon made his point so confidently, like it was an open-and-shut case." Regrettably, "he 100 percent just heard that old saw about how a woman reaches her sexual prime in her late 30s (which is itself ill-defined and of unclear origins), took it as fact, and decided it also applied to politics."

However, Schwedel then went ludicrous herself, remarking "This also isn’t his first instance of making chauvinist comments on air—in December, he got in trouble for arguing male athletes should get paid more than female athletes."

"Chauvinist?" On that December 1 show

Lemon adamantly argued that the U.S. men’s national soccer team should get paid more than the women’s team despite their lack of comparative success, telling his female co-hosts Poppy Harlow and Kaitlin Collins that the men are simply “more interesting to watch.”

Co-hosts Poppy Harlow and Kaitlan Collins disagreed with Lemon, as did CNN data reporter Harry Enten, who argued

The women’s World Cup titles—they have won four since 1991. The men’s World Cup titles? They have won zero since 1930. So yes, the men’s tournament brings in more money, but when it comes to the U.S., I make the argument the women’s team is far more responsible for the boost in popularity in soccer.

The women have been more successful against their competition- much weaker competition- than men have been in theirs and Enten believes they have boosted the popularity of soccer more than have the men.

The latter claim is questionable, and virtually irrelevant to salary, as is the success of the women's national soccer team.  Lemon noted that the men are better than the women, also of little significance. However, he pointed out

But the men’s team makes more money. If they make more money, then they should get more money,” the veteran CNN host stated. “The men’s team makes more money because people are more interested in the men!

That would have been understood by Harlow, Collins, and Enten, had they maintained a semblance of objectivity. If they had decried the situation as unfair, they would have on firmer footing (especially as compared to State Farm Stadium in Glendale, AZ) but instead chose to deny the obvious. 

In the private sector, employees aren't paid for being successful against lesser competition or for making all the other industries in the industry more popular.  They're paid more when they make more money, in this case greater revenue for the team. 

Americans commonly complain about professional athletes in the major sports- football, baseball, basketball and, to a lesser extent, hockey- are paid a huge salary.  In concept, those complaints are completely justified. Professional athletes are paid tremendously ell for adding nothing to the welfare or benefit of the country.  Sports are a game, and we all would survive without it.

Nevertheless, the owners are fabulously wealthy and become far wealthier once they buy a team while the players make them more money.  They produce for the owners, making them gobs more of money and are handsomely rewarded. Given the profit of the owners, the employees (players) probably are paid insufficiently, at least those who have not signed the most recent contracts. However, boosting their pay if they increase the profit of the owner and value of the business is the rational response of the business owner, however displeased it makes individuals who believe women and men should be paid equally no matter the circumstances.

Don Lemon should have kept quiet about women's prime time, whatever "prime" he was referring to. Women's soccer- and women's sports generally- are less profitable than the equivalent men's sport and therefore women are paid less than the men.  When Lemon compared salaries in women's and men's soccer, he was merely making an observation, and one which should have been offensive to no one. Facts matter, and so does accuracy.

 

Share |

A Leading Abortion Opponent

In one of those cliched "shocking, but not surprising" moments:

A horrible person. https://t.co/cHofJ2ASXs

— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) July 23, 2022

As of a few months ago, the federal government still was investigating the congressman for allegedly having sex with a minor and obstructing justice. Joel Greenberg, once labeled Gaetz's "wingman, " was offered a plea deal in return for cooperating with federal authorities but sentencing has been delayed a few times, presumably while the authorities try to pry sufficient information from him.

Which begged the question(s):

Where are the leaders of the party?? Sure they will condemn THIS. Right? I mean, they have women in their party, right?? This is mean and ugly.

— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) July 23, 2022

:

The GOP does have women in their party, even in such elected positions as governor, US Senator, and US Representative. In the latter category lies an individual in caucus leadership, House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York.

It would be especially meaningful and helpful if the ambitious and opportunistic Representative Stefanik, a personal favorite of Donald J. Trump, were to denounce Gaetz's comments. She will not, of course, especially because she is unusually ambitious and opportunistic.

But this is the time, or should be the time, for a woman- any woman- inside the GOP to stand up.  Matt Gaetz and other men are responsible for monogamy inside the Republican Party today. However, the primary responsibility for calling it out belongs to the women of the party.

Men should condemn it. Yet, we should not expect men to denounce what women, who are the target, appear to find acceptable. If a man did so, we should expect a Republican woman such as Stefanik (and did I mention that she is ambitious and opportunistic?) were to step in and defend Gaetz, leaving the gentleman exposed. 

If a Democrat had made a similarly offensive remark, GOP women probably would jump to the front of the line to denounce the sentiment and the speaker.  It's time for those women, if not completely lacking in integrity, to make their opinions known, publicly and definitively.

 

 

Share |

Into Trump And Herself

The offensive joke comparing rape and bad weather, "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it," was made in 1990 by the Republican candidate for governor, Clayton Williams. Williams, partly as a result, then lost the election to Ann Richards.

Alas, his spiritual heir, Donald J. Trump, who once bragged of sexual assault "[W]hen you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." has been far more successful. Trump went on to win a presidential race he had been losing and now is clearly the leading GOP candidate for the party's nomination in 2024.

That shows us how far we've come- backward, in some sense- in the last 32 years.  There are reasons for this, and here is one of them:

Ronna McDaniel to Trump on her new podcast: “You’re such a wonderful person, you’ve been so great to women.” pic.twitter.com/dXSNTWGrsI

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) March 9, 2022

 

McDaniel (whose maiden name, dropped at the request of President Trump, is "Romney"), had her reason.  “I’m only the second woman to be RNC chair, Kellyanne [Conway] the first to run a successful race," she told her guy.

Lest we forget, in only his first year as President, Trump had

already decimated reproductive rights and access to family planning in the U.S. and around the globe. He reinstated and massively expanded the Global Gag Rule, restricting $8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid funding for international health programs that provide or even mention abortion. He defunded the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a global maternal health organization that provides contraception and pregnancy care to low-income women in 150 countries. The group had relied on U.S. money to help to prevent 295,000 unsafe abortions ― a leading cause (13 percent) of maternal deaths around the world.

He wasn't done in being so great to women.  In March of 2019 the Administration

issued its final draft of a rule that makes sweeping changes to Title X, the federal program that provides birth control and other reproductive health services to millions of low-income Americans.

Under the new rule, posted Friday by the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs, any organization that provides or refers patients for abortions is ineligible for Title X funding to cover STD prevention, cancer screenings and contraception. Federal funding for abortion already is illegal in most cases.

However, President Trump gave Romney McDaniel an excellent job. So he has been "great to women," or at least to one woman.

Share |

Staggering Contrast

I was going to say that, three days after Cori Bush was confronted on CBS about supporting defunding the police while enjoying private security, she had no answer on CNN's Reliable Sources. (Full transcript of this segment is below.)

Cori Bush was not confronted about being hypocritical Instead, Dana Bash merely diplomatically asked whether her comments the congresswoman made, the focus of attack ads against her fellow Democrats, might be harmful. A couple of minutes later, the congresswoman still had not addressed that concern.

Criticism against Democrats for being sanctimonious supporters of defunding the police (largely unjustified) are likely to be more effective, more determining, in swing districts than in Bush's own urban district in the St. Louis area.  Unconcerned with members of her own Party, she is selfish, hypocritical and consumed with herself.  "My job is to save lives," boasts Bush, equal parts police officer, firefighter, and heart surgeon.  

Dana Bash asks Rep. Cori Bush to explain comments she made endorsing defunding the police while also talking about having private security for herself pic.twitter.com/OQqbnAAUCG

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 8, 2021

But then Andrew Cuomo resigned.   Immediately, his critics eased up, recognizing that, while investigations must continue, he is deserving at least of a little credit for realizing that it was in his own, and the state's, interests to go relatively promptly and quietly, maintaining a modicum of dignity.

Of course I'm kidding.  Within minutes, Cuomo was being castigated while denunciation of Cori Bush is abating.  She is still in the US Congress, grandstanding, with no Democrat willing to take her on for anything. Yet, Al Franken, Eliot Spritzer, Anthony Weiner, Katie Hill, and now Andrew Cuomo, all resigned, albeit the latter's transgressions clearly the worst. Their colleagues, some of them even supporters, fled like rats from a sinking ship.

Perhaps it's because those four committed sexual improprieties or (at least in the case of Franken) alleged sexual improprieties, while Cori Bush advocates leaving communities defenseless from violent crime. Still, it's stunning that they all fell on their sword and Cori Bush is unrepentant and openly defiant. There may be a lesson in that for Democrats.

BASH: Congresswoman, I want to ask about the criticism that you're facing about comments you made in an interview this past week.

I want our viewers to listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I'm going to make sure I have security because I know I have had attempts on my life. And I have too much work to do, there are too many people that need help right now for me to allow that.

So, if I end up spending $200,000, if I spend 10 more dollars on it, you know what, I get to be here to do the work. So, suck it up. And defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So, I know you have seen that Republicans are pointing to the fact that you said you have your own security, while, almost in the same breath, advocating for defunding the police.

Now, I do want to emphasize I understand you have security protection because you have received multiple death threats. But the clip that I displayed is being used in attack ads against not you, but -- not just you, but other Democrats.

So, could those comments end up being harmful to your fellow Democrats, politically speaking?

BUSH: I think what we have to look at is the fact that I made it to Congress in 2020, I was elected to Congress, and we are still fighting this same fight. We're still fighting to save black lives.

That was not -- that work was not done before I got here. This is the reason why I ran, was to save lives, to save my son's life. It was because Michael Brown, who we're fighting for, and still trying to get justice for. It's because he didn't get justice, and Vonderrit Myers didn't get justice, and Kajieme Powell didn't get justice, and so many others. That is why.

And because that was not -- that was not fixed before I got here, to then come at me and say you're the reason why we have these problems, no, the reason why we have these problems is because those that were in power and could have fixed this problem before now didn't and cost -- it cost lives.

And so now that I'm here, I -- we just -- we just introduced the People's Response Act to make sure that we are looking at the money that -- the money that should be going to social safety nets to make sure that our community members who are living with mental health issues are able to function and live in society... BASH: So...

BUSH: ... the way that anyone would ask to.

So, I don't believe -- as far as my -- as far as my colleagues, I absolutely empathize. I empathize. But you know what? The same thing that the Republicans will do, which is figure out how to work with this on the comms spaces, that's what we have to do.

My job is to save lives, the lives of my community, because, when we're when we're talking about every single year increasing the budget for police, and then the budget for, like, Health and Human Services continuing to shrink, and St. Louis being number one for police violence year after year after year, number one, number two for homicides year and year, after year...

BASH: Congresswoman...

BUSH: So, when we're adding more money to the police, but we're still dying.

BASH: Congresswoman, I...

BUSH: So, something has to change.

BASH: Congresswoman, I -- yes. And I hear what you're saying. But I also heard you say that you think it's a comms problem.

Is it that? Because...

BUSH: No, I'm saying that we can also -- that that's another way that you can tackle this.

You have to tackle it from more than one place. We have to work on what we want to say, what is our message, but then we also have to understand that we have to save lives too. St. Louis can't keep being put on the back burner. And I'm here to stand up for my community.

[09:40:12]

BASH: Congresswoman Cori Bush, thank you so much for joining me this morning.

Share |

Where "Patsy" Is Not "Cline"

The editors of The New York Times deserve credit.  On Saturday, The Times called for the resignation of New York governor Andrew Cuomo, whom it acknowledged it had endorsed for re-election, including for re-nomination.  Its twelve paragraph editorial not only emphasized the charges of sexual harassment against the governor but said nothing about his nursing home scandal.

The Times thereby avoided egregious disingenuousness. As policy, the decision to send Covid-19 patients from the hospital to nursing homes, then hiding statistics about the deaths of nursing home residents, was atrocious. As scandal, it didn't amount to much.

Without the sex charges leveled against the governor, the nursing home disaster would be an occasional topic for the Times and even less often a topic for The Washington Post and other great newspapers.  There would have been relative silence except for a few calls from New York state legislators for Cuomo to step down because they have their own, generally justified, beefs with the governor.

Neither Majority Leader and New York senator Chuck Schumer nor New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand would have proposed he resign, nor would there have been speculation that President Biden would do so, and The New York Times itself would have been reticent. After an initial uproar, social media would have gone on to other things and the unnecessary deaths of many elderly New Yorkers would have been forgotten.

So make no mistake: pressure is mounting on Governor Cuomo to quit because of terrible behavior toward women and for (virtually) no other reason. As marketing professor Scott Galloway remarked in a discussion (in a video no longer available; I've substituted another) on Bill Maher's Real Time

But at the same time, they trigger me because women and people of color lost one of the most powerful advocates when Kristen Gillibrand decided to disappear Al Franken so she could have a seven minute run for President. And we're in the midst of a pile on and here's the reality: voters get to decide in 18 months. The majority of- of- 48% of white people, 63% of non whites believe he should not resign. We as Democrats need to be the party of women but we also need to be the party of due process. We need to slow down, let those women be heard and let due process occur here and not just pile on.

Twenty-three years ago, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, Democrats understood that sex improprieties were insufficient cause for dismissal short of an election.  That has radically changed as many, boasting enlightened thought, rush to judgement because they fear the opprobrium of mainstream media and the outrage of a portion of their base.

If Democrats continue to succumb to pressure and demand ouster of their own elected officials, they will not earn respect from Republicans. They will receive passing praise from the media, which will do Democrats no good. And that portion of their base demanding the man's scalp will move on to the next outrage. On a positive note, they could begin wearing bright blue jerseys reading "patsy."

Share |

Hit Piece Falls Short

There is no reason Democrats should eat their own when Republicans glorify theirs. Mike Allen of Axios may be auditioning for a stand-up gig when he writes

Gov. Andrew Cuomo should be facing explicit calls to resign from President Biden on down, if you apply the standard that Democrats set for similar allegations against Republicans. And it's not a close call.

I don't remember Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asking for Donald Trump's resignation.  It's true that the all 26 women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment or assault allege that the misconduct took place before Trump was elected President. It's also true that he ordered payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Clifford shortly before that election so that he might become President Donald Trump.

Why it matters: The #MeToo moment saw men in power run out of town for exploiting young women. Democrats led the charge. So the silence of so many of them seems more strange — and unacceptable by their own standards — by the hour.

The most notable man "run out of town" for sexual impropriety was Al Franken after charges of sexual impropriety, behavior which would have taken place before he was a US Senator. He was run out of town by Democrats, because that's what Democrats do.

Their only plausible explanation would be to argue that three women are exaggerating or misremembering things. This is precisely what Democrats said was unacceptable in GOP cases.

Democrats didn't say the behavior was unacceptable because they were committed by Republicans. They said it was unacceptable regardless of party. And they were wrong- wrong because each case deserves to be considered on its own merits rather than a blanket "believe women."  Men don't always tell the truth.  Unless women are of a super gender, they, too, are capable of exaggerating, forgetting details, or- occasionally- lying. It's the human condition.

One top New York Democrat told me the reaction has been "disheartening" — an approach by both parties of believing women "except if they accuse a member of your party."

As pointed out by Axios Sneak Peek on Sunday: Democrats hammered Donald Trump after "Access Hollywood," pilloried Brett Kavanaugh over Christine Blasey Ford and defended Joe Biden when he was accused of inappropriate touching.

The reference to Brett Kavanaugh is the most telling in this hit piece. Were Andrew Cuomo to have a sense of humor, he would urge an investigation of the allegations against him similar to the one conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of charges against Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh was not serving in an elected position, had never served in an elective position, and had been nominated for a lifetime appointment. It would be (is) a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court, to serve alongside a mere eight other individuals to make rulings which are not reviewable.

If ever there needs to be a thorough review by law enforcement of a nominee for any position, it would not be of an individual who was elected to his position and could not continue in the position without again facing the voters.  It would be of someone tapped to serve on the High Court.

Nonetheless, the FBI "investigation" of accusations against Brett Kavanaugh took a mere five days in which neither of the two principals- Kavanaugh and Ford- was interviewed. . One of the accusers, Deborah Ramirez, had been at a drunken dormitory party at Yale when, according to the authors of "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,"

a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

Therefore, Ms. Ramirez's legal team

gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

Nonetheless, maybe Donald Trump is a victim, as Jonathan Allen seems to believe.

Trump was a victim who bragged about routinely sexually assaulting women. He then got elected President, tried to pressure a foreign government into investigating his political rival, then obstructed an investigation into his actions, and gained nearly nearly unanimous support from his party's members of Congress. On his way out the door, he incited an insurrection against the United States government, receiving the support of the vast majority of those members of Congress. He now is extended the privileges of all former Presidents:  office space and staffing allowances; travel expenses (up to $1 million in costs annually); health annuities, lifetime Secret Service protection, and the right to burial with full honors at Arlington National Cemetery, next to individuals he has called "losers" and "suckers."

Whatever the future may hold for him, Trump has enjoyed a charmed life- and charmed presidency, thanks to a party whose leaders have found no crime, no grift, and no contempt for Americans unacceptable as long as it's committed by Donald Trump. When the governor of New York gets 5% of the breaks the 45th President has, or 20% what Brett Kavanaugh has, Mike Allen can legitimately accuse Democrats of hypocrisy.

Share |