A Passel Of Moderates

This is not a post extolling the virtues of Planned Parenthood. It is not about breast exams, HIV testing, cervical cancer screening, sex education, thyroid, diabetes, or high blood pressure screening, and other popular services it provides. It is not about the critical impact of Planned Parenthood in lowering unwanted pregnancies, even among teens, and incidence of HIV. It is not about how only 3% of its services are in providing abortions.

Rather, it pertains to a claim made by Digby in her piece appearing today, March 31, 2017. She writes

On “MTP Daily,” Michael Needham of Heritage Action called the health care bill a disaster, saying, “This is a great opportunity to take a pause and get the policy right and that is what the House Freedom Caucus is doing. Talk about grown-ups, they’re the one who are saying, ‘We want to get the policy right, we’re willing to negotiate,’ and it’s the moderates who say they literally won’t pick up the phone if they call.”

First of all, can we dispense with the idea that any Republican who isn’t a member of the Freedom Caucus is a “moderate”? I’m not sure any House Republicans can be called moderate, but if there are some they represent a very small faction. They’re conservatives. The Freedom Caucus is extremist or, if you want to be polite about it, ultraconservative. The rest are conservatives.

Digby's post did not specifically refer to how

The Senate voted Thursday to let states block federal family planning money from going to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers. 

Senators approved the Republican legislation 51-50. Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote after two GOP senators, Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, voted with Democrats against the measure.

The bill erases a regulation imposed by former President Barack Obama that lets states deny family planning funds to an organization only if it is incapable of providing those services.

Senate approval means the measure will be headed to President Trump, who was expected to sign it. The House voted its consent last month.

In related news, a Quinnipiac University Poll released January 27, 2017 found

In a question with no mention of abortion, American voters oppose 62 - 31 percent cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. 

After respondents are asked, "If you knew that federal government funding to Planned Parenthood was being used only for non-abortion health issues such as breast cancer screening, would you still favor cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood," the result is 12 percent in favor of cutting funding and 80 percent opposed to a funding cut. 

There are undoubtedly more Americans who realize Planned Parenthood refers for, and sometimes provides, abortions than realize that (extreme circumstances excepted), no federal funding is permitted for abortions (chart below from Planned Parenthood of Michigan via Vox).  Unless people are aware of the latter retriction, it is difficult to determine the breadth and  depth of support for the organiztion.

But, okay: we'll fight with one hand tied behind our back and ignore the 80% to 12%. Even with some people believing Planned Parenthood gets federal funds for providing abortions, twice as many respondents opposed cutting off funding than supported eliminating funding..

Yet, Considering the House and the Senate, 280 members of Congress (plus VP Pence) voted against Planned  Parenthood.  In the House, six Republicans voted against the bill (and one as "present"). In all, eight Republicans voted in favor of the organization.

The congressional vote was a vote for extremism and was opposed by two GOP Senators and less than 3% of its House caucus. Digby was wrong, unreasonable and intolerant when she suggested no House Republican can be considered moderate. Almost 3% can.






Share |

If Only I Could Have Posted This On St. Patrick's Day

He talks! He has a squeaky clean image! He leads!

Meat Loaf was wrong when he sang "two out of three ain't bad" because two out of three can be very bad.

Lawrence O'Donnell appears to have been the first person (and confident he was) to have noticed that Devin Nunes dropped the name of Paul Ryan when he gave an impromptu news conference on the White House lawn after the committee chairperson dropped by to give to the President, a possible target of the investigation his committeee was to hold, intelligence he would offer no one else. On March 22 O'Donnell explained (best to start at approximately 4:48 of video below)

Donald Trump is the second person that Devin Nunes gave that information to 
today. The first was Paul Ryan, his boss in the House of Representatives.
And Paul Ryan then told Chairman Nunes to bring it to the president. To 
completely bypass his committee, to completely ignore the tradition and 
practice of sharing that with the Ranking Member of his committee, Adam 
Schiff.

Just run it right down to the White House. And so Paul Ryan left Devin 
Nunes wide open to accusations that he was running down to the White House 
to offer some political protection for the damage his committee did to the 
president on Monday.







O'Donnell returned to the topic Monday, observing "And as more inexplicable than him running first to the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, which is the single most under reported stop on Devin Nunes` tour that day on his way to the White House." Doggedly, he wouldn't let go of Ryan, on Tuesday remarking

He is afraid to talk about Devin Nunes. Afraid. He would 
rather talk about the most colossal legislative failure any speaker of the 
House has ever had, his first big bill as speaker.

The Trump-Ryan healthcare bill. That healthcare bill is the single, 
biggest, public professional embarrassment in Paul Ryan`s life.

And he would rather talk about that now and has said more publicly about 
that than he has said about Devin Nunes and that scandal.

And the reason Paul Ryan is afraid of talking about Devin Nunes is because 
the way-over-his-head chairman put Paul Ryan dead center in this scandal on 
the first day when he told reporters something none of them have noticed 
that first stop that he made before going to see the president at the White 
House, was Paul Ryan`s office.

The MSNBC anchorperson added "And I don`t know what I have to do to get any reporters to notice this, including the ones who were standing there in the White House driveway and
heard him saying that."

Finally, someone else did, and it took another O'Donnell for it  to happen. In an interview conducted with Ryan Wednesday but telecast Thursday on "CBS This Morning,"  Norah (unrelated) O'Donnell

 asked him what he knew about Nunes’ source and what other evidence he’s seen.
“You were among the first that [Nunes] briefed. What did he tell you?” O’Donnell asked.

“He had told me that — like, a whistleblower-type person had given him some information that was new that spoke to the last administration and part of this investigation,” Ryan said. “He briefs me about it, didn’t know the content of it, only knew the nature of it and that he was going to brief others.”

“Did you ask to see the documents yourself?” O’Donnell asked.

“He didn’t have the documents, so I didn’t,” Ryan responded.

“Did you encourage him to then go tell the president about it?”

“No, but I told him to just add it to his investigation,” Ryan said.

“So you at no time said, ‘Whatever you find out, you should probably go tell President Trump about it?’” 

“Oh — he was gonna brief everybody. He — I already knew he was going to go and brief. So the — what Chairman Nunes said is he just came into possession of new information that he thought was valuable to this investigation, and that he was going to go and inform people about it,” Ryan said.

“But he hasn’t. I mean, he hasn’t even informed the Republican committee,” O’Donnell said.

“Yeah, I have seen the actual documents. I don’t know that he’s been in possession of them yet. Let me say this: It’s very important that we allow and encourage whistleblowers to talk to Congress,” Ryan said.

You probably caught Nunes was going to go inform people about it. .  Reliable sources have confirmed that Representative Nunes did not cathch the plate number of that bus Speaker Ryan sent to run over him.

Norah, evidently in some sort of "O'Donnell tradition," wouldn't let it drop:

“Can you just help me understand that, though? Because if it’s a whistleblower, why wouldn’t that information then be shared with the Democrats on the committee, and even the other Republicans who haven’t seen it?” O’Donnell asked.

“I don’t know the answer to that question, you’d have to ask that person. I don’t even know who this is,” Ryan said.

“I mean, you’re a member of the Gang of Eight. You can see the most classified intelligence that our government has, right? You could request this information,” O’Donnell said.

“Yeah, we want this information to be provided to Congress and we’re waiting for it to be provided to Congress,” Ryan said.

The speaker also said he has no knowledge of whether President Trump is under investigation for ties to Russia.

"We're waiting for it to be provided to Congress", saith the guy who was allegedly assured that Nunes "was going to go and inform people about it."  If up to him, he'd wait forever. The Speaker made Nunes and can break him because he appoints committee chairpersons and can replace them.If he wasn't informed, he chose not to be informed.

Therefore,  notwithstanding (Lawrence) O'Donnell harping on an issue when no one cared about it and (Norah) O'Donnell interrogating Ryan about it, we still don't know what the Speaker was told by chairperson Nunes. He may have been selling him out or buying time for both of them.  Either way, however, as Lawrence O. noted on Tuesday

That`s why Paul Ryan is not ordering Devin Nunes to recuse himself because
Paul Ryan is in this thing as deep as Devin Nunes is. And if Devin Nunes
can lose his chairmanship over it, then Paul Ryan can lose his speakership
over it.

While precious little is known, two things are clear: Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House, but no leader. And there is something about an O'Donnell.







Share |

No, Sir, I Won't

First Lady Nancy Reagan's advice in the drug war applies to dealing with Donald Trump: just say no.

Three days before the demise of the GOP's health care plan, President Trump had members of the Freedom Caucus  over to the White House for a little cajoling and arm-twisting. He promised to campaign for any of them who voted for the bill. And Chris Collins, the first member of Congress to endorse Trump for the GOP presidential nomination, commented afterward "the president is very adroit at putting somebody on the spot and he did that today with Mark Meadows."

Or maybe not, because

when he rose to address the GOP conference, the president made it clear there would be no further modifications, and said he expected Republicans to rally around Ryan's bill.

Then Trump made a mistake. After singling out Meadows and asking him to stand up in front of his colleagues, Trump joked that he might "come after" the Freedom Caucus boss if he didn't vote yes, and then added, with a more serious tone: "I think Mark Meadows will get on board."

Representative Meadows didn't get on board and the measure had to be pulled by Speaker Ryan, either at the initiative of the President or with his consent.

Then it was Sally Yates' turn.  The Assistant Attorney General was scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee this week about the connection between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The Justice Department wrote Yates' attorney, David A. O'Neill, on March 24 "such communications are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. The President owns these privileges."

Own? It sounds like this is one of Donald Trump's properties he intends to run into the ground or one of his ex-wives (or girlfriends).  O'Neill was having none of it, responding that his client intends "to provide information" to the committee about "Russian cyber activities directed against the U.S. election, potential links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, the U.S. government's response to these Russian active measures and related leaks of classified information."

Trump's Justice Department could have claimed executive privilege in court, thereby at least delaying the testimony.  But the DOJ instead issued a statement: " The Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible." Spicer later remarked "we have no problem with her testifying, plain and simple."







Donald Trump folded, in what may have been rare common sense from the Administration.  More likely than judiciousness, however, is an inability to respond in kind when challenged. When the emperor is confronted, we find he has no clothes. Heading into a fight over Judge Gorsuch, infrastructure, health care (again) or anything else, it's something the Democratic Party ought to consider.







Share |

When A Stopped Clock Is Right

As a former head of the Club for Growth, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey has precious few good ideas. But if a stopped clock can be right twice a day, Senator Toomey can be right once in his career, and he is. And if I recognize Toomey's good idea, I can quote from the conservative Weekly Standard, which writes

On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned states and localities that claim to be sanctuary cities and refuse to comply with federal immigration laws that they risk being deemed ineligible to receive money from the central government.

“Today, I’m urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws, including 8 U.S.C. Section 1373. Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department of Justice grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards,” Sessions said.

He then pointed out that according to a report released by Homeland Security, in just one week, “there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor ICE detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime.”

“The charges and convictions against these aliens included drug-trafficking, hit-and-run, rape, sex offenses against a child, and even murder. Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets,” Sessions said.

The Attorney General's policy less extreme than that of the President, who has ordered withheld any federal grants from a jurisdiction considered by the Department of Homeland Security to be a "sanctuary city" (whatever that might be).  Still, the reaction was heated. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti proclaimed "L.A.'s values are not for sale" while the state's Senate leader called it "race-based scapegoating."  Seattle's mayor termed the Administration's policy "bigotry" and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel labeled it "unconstitutional."







The perspective of these critics and of the Administration is overly simplistic (although, given there is no legal definition of "sanctuary city," it may be unconstitutional).  The Morning Call in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania reminds us

In 2014 the county declared it would no longer hold inmates past their county release dates even if asked to do so by ICE. It enacted the policy as part of a $95,000 settlement of a federal lawsuit filed by Ernesto Gallarza, a man the county kept in prison over a weekend at the agency's request, only to learn later that ICE had the wrong guy.

Gallarza's case was bolstered by a 2014 federal court decision. The court determined that immigration detainers like the one issued by ICE after Gallarza was arrested in a 2008 drug raid are the only requests local jurisdictions like Lehigh County can be held liable for honoring.

The three-judge panel held that federal code establishes an immigration detainer as a "request" rather than a requirement, a (barely) plausible, yet disturbing, interpretation which discourages law enforcement agencies from cooperation (9/11, anybody?).  Therefore

U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who said he supports Trump's executive order as a good first step, said Wednesday in a statement that local officials need to be protected from being sued simply for cooperating with federal immigration authorities. He has introduced legislation that would put the federal government, not local officials, on the hook for errors in the issuance of detainers.

"We need legislation to ensure local police are not subject to lawsuits for good-faith efforts to cooperate with federal law enforcement to remove dangerous criminals and terrorists from our streets," Toomey said.

In the same statement, he said only Congress has the authority to withhold millions of dollars in federal grants that would hold jurisdictions' feet to the fire, so there is some question about what money the Trump administration could order to be withheld.

AG Sessions referred to the horrid case of Francisco Sanchez, a convicted felon who murdered a young woman after "Customs Enforcement officers had filed a detainer requesting..." The distinction between a "request," as an immigration detainer is now oddly considered, and a legally-binding directive turns out to be critical.

Nonetheless, it is truly remarkable that if a suspect detained by a local jurisdiction in response to a request by a federal law enforcement agency is found to have been wrongly held, the municipality, county, and/or state can be held liable.    The federal government issued the "request" (!) pursuant to federal policy, made the mistake, and should alone be held responsible.

If you're a Pennsylvania resident, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Patrick Toomey, who is not up for re-election until 2022. However, this obvious notion of holding the government of the United States of America accountable is assuredly not one of them.












Share |

The Greatest Dealmaker Ever

When you are bankrolled by Robert Mercer and daughter Rebekah and your former chairman is a close presidential adviser, the pieces you publish are significant.  And when the report pertains to Donald Trump's favorite female talk-show host, we should take notice that

During her opening statement on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” host Jeanine Pirro ripped House Speaker Paul Ryan, calling for him to step down after his healthcare bill to replace Obamacare failed miserably.

“Paul Ryan needs to step down as speaker of the house,” Pirro began. “The reason? He failed to deliver the votes on his healthcare bill, the one trumpeted to repeal and replace Obamacare, the one that he had seven years to work on, the one he had under lock and key in the basement of Congress, the one that had to be pulled to prevent the embarrassment of not having enough votes to pass.”

Later, Pirro said, “I want to be clear, this is not on President Trump. No one expected a business man to completely understand the nuances, the complicated ins and outs of Washington and its legislative process. How would he know which individuals upon which he would be able to rely?”

Paul Ryan will not be replaced any time soon, in part because he owns with the President the failure to overturn the Affordable Care Act.  Fortunately for people who rely on such frivolities as hospitalization, maternity care, and laboratory services, Trump hasn't learned how to steer legislation.

Trump, who has told us "I comprehend.... better, I think, than almost  anybody," works alone. Rim Alberta of Politico writes 

For starters, Trump kept the GOP health care bill at arm's length for more than a week, offering a smattering of favorable remarks but failing to embrace it in convincing fashion. Ryan's rivals on Capitol Hill got the message: The president was lukewarm about the legislation. According to interviews with officials in all three camps—the White House, the Republican leadership and the Freedom Caucus—conservatives saw a schism between Trump and Ryan, and seized on the perceived opening.

Someone should have told Trump that the good-cop, bad-cop routine works only if both teammates know the game is being played. Instead

Early last week, during a budgetary meeting at the White House, the two leaders of the Freedom Caucus—chairman Mark Meadows and former chairman Jim Jordan—kept diverting the discussion to health care, much to the annoyance of Budget Committee chairwoman Diane Black. When the meeting broke, Meadows and Jordan swiftly sought an audience with the president to discuss Ryan's bill. Trump granted them the meeting, during which the conservatives complained that Ryan was presenting them with a "binary choice"—either vote for the bill that had been introduced, or vote to preserve Obamacare—that was doing the president a disservice. Trump replied that he was open to negotiation and new ideas, and Meadows and Jordan left the White House thinking they had a powerful ally. Ryan’s team was less than thrilled at the narrative of a good cop, bad cop routine.

If the other team believes it is getting played, it's not likely to end well for you.  Compounding the error by publicly embarrassing a potential ally- especially someone with clout- is a classic mistake of the haughty, so it's not surprising that

After singling out Meadows and asking him to stand up in front of his colleagues, Trump joked that he might "come after" the Freedom Caucus boss if he didn't vote yes, and then added, with a more serious tone: "I think Mark Meadows will get on board."

He may have thought a humiliated Meadows would "get on board," but he almost asked him not to, given that Meadows

has been determined to please both the White House and his conservatives colleagues on the Hill. Upon assuming the chairmanship of the Freedom Caucus earlier this year, Meadows was viewed suspiciously by some of his members who worried that the North Carolina congressman is too cozy with Trump and would hesitate to defy him. Meadows campaigned extensively with Trump last fall and struck up a relationship with White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who communicates with him almost daily by text. Meadows knew the health care fight would be viewed as a test of his independence from Trump, and the moment the president called him out, he was boxed in.

Trump may not sincerely be displeased with Ryan. If he is, and somehow is able to effect his removal from the position of Speaker, it will be both a loss to the GOP and (not coincidentally) a boon to the country.  It probably is a more patriotic move than we have any right to expect Donald Trump to make.








Share |

A Presidential Pledge To Make America Worse

Jim Harbaugh, head football coach for the University of Michigan Wolverines, also is associated withf the Legal Services Council, which provides legal aid in civil cases to poor people. He recently tweeted “I hope reports that White House trying to defund Legal Services Corp aren't true. LSC is CRUCIAL to making justice system fair. #LSCmatters."

Interviewed recently for Politico Magazine, Harbaugh (brother of John) denied that his involvement is either political or as a football coach, instead insisting "I'm saying this as an American. I'm for America first."  He wasn't even aware that "America First" is frequentlycited by Donald Trump.

Harbaugh may be excused because the term was dragged is not original to the real estate tycoon turned politician, but was introduced into the lexicon by William Randolph Hearst.  Before the USA entered World War I, the publichsing magnate argued

[K]eep every dollar and every man and every weapon and all our supplies and stores AT HOME, for the defense of our own land, our own people, our own freedom, until that defense has been made ABSOLUTELY secure. After that we can think of other nations’ troubles. But till then, America first!

In the runup to the second world war, "America first" was popularized by isolationist, anti-Semite, amateur eugenicist and famous aviator Charles Lindbergh.  The term had meaning- however noxious- for Lindbergh, unlike for Donald Trump.

It does not apply to the domestic steel required for U.S. pipelines, which does not include those already under construction, which conveniently include Keystone XL. It does not apply to the Donald J. Trump Collection of shirts, suits, ties, and accessories, some of them made in mainland China.  Nor does it apply to Trump son Eric, whose Trump Winery in Virginia is eager to import workers from abroad through the H-2A visa program.  And all that is apart from the undeniable Trump-Russia connection and the possible Trump-Kremlin connection.

And it is dramatically inapplicable to health care reform.   After defeat of the GOP's Let Them Die bill, the President, who is doing his best to undermine the Affordable Care Act, stated

I've been saying for the last year-and-a-half that the best thing we can do politically speaking is let Obamacare explode. It is exploding right now. Many states have big problems, almost all states have big problems...

Now the Democrats own Obamacare 100 per cent. They own it. It's exploding now and it's going to be a very bad year. There are going to be explosive premium increases.





It's going to get worse, more people will suffer, and ain't it great! The strategy of the "America First" pol now is transparent.  "Make America Great Again" turns into "Make America Even Worse,"as Trump undermines the ACA.  Striving to make of Obamacare a failure, people will, he calculates, beg for his right-wing agenda.   It's the same Trump as "We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, “Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.” And I’ll say, “No, it isn’t!”  (It's also part of the classic GOP strategy of running government so poorly that voters turn to the anti-government party.)

So Jim Harbaugh- like many Americans- is not fully and consciously aware of Donald Trump's "America First" slogan. But he'd remember it if, to capture its essence, "first" were replaced with "last."






Share |

With All Due Apologies, He Must Be Rebuked

These guys can't be let off the hook.

Politico claims

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes apologized to members of his panel Thursday for not informing Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat, before going public with allegations that Trump transition messages were inadvertently intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

A committee aide said Nunes (R-Calif.) apologized "for not sharing information about the documents he saw with the minority before going public” and that “he pledged to work with them on this issue.”

Reuters believes

The Republican head of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee apologized on Thursday for the way he handled sensitive allegations about U.S. spy agency surveillance of President Donald Trump's team.

Representative Devin Nunes was criticized by colleagues on Wednesday for calling a news conference to announce that the communications of members of the team that ran Trump's transition to the presidency were swept up in incidental surveillance targeting foreigners...

A Republican intelligence committee aide said on Thursday that Nunes had apologized to Democrats on the panel.

"Yes, he apologized to the minority on the committee today for going public and to the (White House) with his announcement yesterday before sharing the information with the minority. He pledged to work with them on this issue and share information with them about it," the aide told Reuters.

CBS News maintains

The chairman of the House Intelligence committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), apologized to committee Democrats in a meeting on Thursday morning according to Congressional Democrat on the panel. 

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) told reporters waiting outside of the meeting that Nunes apologized to the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), during the meeting. A senior Republican committee staffer confirmed that account and said that Nunes pledged to work more with committee Democrats.

And while referring to Politico, News Corp's New York Post claimed

The House Intelligence chairman has apologized to his members for not informing them of new information about government surveillance of President Trump and his campaign team before sharing it with the press and the president.

Specifically, Devin Nunes apologized for going public before telling the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

"Specifically,"  he did not. Yet even Mother Jones' David Corn comments "On Thursday morning, at a private committee meeting, he apologized to his colleagues." However, the sentient, Corn adds "but, according to a committee source, Nunes would not say what he thought he had done wrong or explain his actions."

Nunes would not say what he thought he had done wrong or explain his actions.  Here, I must interject with my own "apology": I'm sorry if anyone has taken offense at anything I may have written here.

Similarly sentient, two Washington Post reporters wrote Nunes "made his apology" but added

Nunes’s apology was “generic,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said on CNN, adding that it was “not clear” precisely which actions his apology covered.

Not surprisingly, the broadcast media was worse, in most instances lazily accepting the meme that committee chairman Nunes had "apologized" or issued "an apology."

Not at all.  Representative Speier not only referred to Nunes' remarks as "generic" but realizes "he just apologized- he didn't specify what his apology was about."





That, as the gentle and diplomatic lady from California seems to understand, is no apology at all. This failure to understand that an apology must include an actual statement of regret for having erred extended even to Lawrence O'Donnell, who stated Thursday night "Chairman Devin Nunes apologized to the committee for delivering intelligence information directly to the President in the White House."

And that is remarkable, O'Donnell recognizing- as seen in the video below- that the biggest villain in the drama occasioned by Devin Nunes' reprehensible behavior is the Speaker of the House, the big fake, Paul Davis Ryan, who approved the congressman's action.  "You got to stick by the judgements you make," Nunes says, in defense of his action.    His decision cannot be tolerated and he can be removed only by the Speaker from the chairmanship, and demanding no less of Paul Ryan is an act of capitulation.











Share |