Legitimate Face-Off

A colloquy between presidential Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Fox News' Peter Doocy about energy policy, especially Keystone XL, provoked a whole raft of tweets from both supporters and opponents of the Administration, though the former were more numerous. Transcript of the entire news conference is here, that of the more significant portion below, and video of the entire exchange between Psaki and Doocy further below..

Q    So how about this: The Laborers’ International Union of North America said the Keystone decision will “cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction” jobs.

MS. PSAKI:  Well, what Mr. Trumka also indicated in the same interview was that President Biden has proposed a climate plan with transformative investments and infrastructure and laid out a plan that will not only create millions of good union jobs, but also help tackle the climate crisis.

And as the President has indicated when he gave his primetime address to talk about the American Rescue Plan, he talked about his plans to also put forward a jobs plan in the — in the weeks or months following.  And he has every plan to do exactly that.

Q    But there are people living paycheck to paycheck.  There are now people out of job once the Keystone pipe — out of jobs once the Keystone pipeline stopped construction.  It’s been 12 days since Gina McCarthy and John Kerry were here, and it’s been 19 days since that EO.  So what are these people who need money now — when do they get their green job?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, the President and many Democrats and Republicans in Congress believe that investment in infrastructure — building infrastructure that’s in our national interests, that boosts the U.S. economy, creates good-paying union jobs here in America, and advances our climate and clean energy goals — are something that we can certainly work on doing together.  And he has every plan to share more about his details of that plan in the weeks ahead.

Defenders of the Administration came out in droves, the tweets including:

'Present your data': Jen Psaki smacks down Peter Doocy's gotcha question on Keystone Pipeline jobs

Man, @PressSec came with the damn recipts for Doocy's bad faith question. When you get a heckler at a comedy show, the problem isn’t what the heckler is saying, it’s the nervous, stomach-churning dark energy they bring into the room.

Psaki working on a level or two above Doocy.

This is called "dropping a Doocy."

I’m gonna start calling that feeling a Doocy.

Peter Doocy is clearly a masochist — a normal person would be tired of being smacked down by Psaki on a daily basis by now

Watching Jen Psaki call bs on Peter Doocy is an unrivaled daily pick-me-up.

 "You come for the queen, you better not miss." There is no monarchy in the USA and idolizing someone to the extent of calling her a "queen" should be disturbing.

It should be but it won't, because that's how it is these days. Tweets from critics of the Administration, praising Doocy and blasting Psaki, were about as bad.  

Jen Psaki's response was in fact fairly good. In her final response, she was able to go on for 71 words, effectively denying the mainstream media an opportunity to notice she hadn't answered the question. On Twitter, the left (without a touchdown scored) ignored the issue of energy on environmental policy, instead spiking the football: smacks down; damn receipts; working on a level above a daily pick-me-up; Doocy a masochist; if you come for the queen, better not miss.

Except that Doocy actually asked a well-thought out series of questions about an important topic.  Psaki answered the question in the manner, under the circumstances, she should have. Now that Donald Trump is out of office, reporters should not lay down and act as sycophants to the Administration.  

The response to the practice of the press secretaries of the previous President to avoid questions, insult reporters, and lie to the American people is not to be a stenographer to this one.  Good for Peter Doocy and Jen Psaki; not so good for the partisans who count this as a win or loss for their side.

 

Share |

Do It

Donald J. Trump's legal team has turned down a request by the House impeachment managers that the former President testify in his upcoming trial. Prior to this expected rejection, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig offered a tweet thread in which he observed "Trump might simply defy- ignore- a subpoena," which would "push the limits of the law and look terrible politically."

Issuing a subpoena would put the former President into an even more difficult spot. Yet below, Norm Eisen can be seen remarking 

The House managers sent their letter, made the point, their point to the empty chair. Ah, there's no real, uh, end to be achieved to serving a subpoena that he won't answer.

 

Trump won’t show up live at trial because he can’t defend his own actions. However, the House managers will put him on the stand via his own videos, as I told @VictorBlackwell @CNN @newday pic.twitter.com/6jUFj3Ps9F

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) February 7, 2021

Eisen's argument about "the empty chair" seems to refer to the the remark by the House impeachment manager, in response to Trump's refusal, that "his immediate refusal to testify speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt."

However, "there is no real end to serving a subpoena that he won't answer" suggests a subpoena should be served only on those individuals who are largely cooperative. If they are not, wave the white flag. In response to Eisen, this tweeter understands 

Given the reluctance of conflict-adverse Democratic senators such as Joe Manchin and Chris Coons, the Senate would be unlikely to approve a subpoena. Were Trump subpoenaed, he would tie up the process in the courts. That should not be an impediment to issuing a subpoena, though, because as one tweeter understands "serving him says more about the legitimacy of impeachment than not doing so. And, Trump ignoring the subpoena says more about him delegitimizing the Senate, which should be on the record."

Call it white privilege; more accurately, call it the privilege of the rich and powerful because very few of us of any ethnicity would have the resources or the influence to fight a subpoena.  That would yet again make clear what it takes to manipulate the legal system. It's one of the reasons a request for a subpoena should be made, and why it won't be.

 

Share |

Proudly Insurrectional

Even before Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was removed from the House Education and Budget committees, there was reason for colleagues to realize that the Georgia Republican was not remorseful. She referred to "Democrat colleagues," though- or because- "Democrat" as an adjective is recognized as a slur. She blamed "the left and the right," mainstream media and social media, praised Donald Trump, and made clear she was neither ashamed nor embarrassed but above all, proud to be Marjorie Taylor Greene.

While she condemned "Democrat tyrannical government" and called Democrats "morons," Greene made Republicans who backed her look like saps. She did not praise or even thank those Republicans, the vast majority of her caucus, who voted in her favor. Instead, she embarrassed them, alleging they are impotent with "no say on committees, anyway."  She effectively informed her GOP colleagues that they serve little purpose but to expose themselves to ridicule for her benefit.

Greene now has confirmed the wisdom of the entire Democratic caucus and of eleven Republicans to deny her a seat on the committees. Told on January7 by an adoring interviewer "what you did was so brave," Greene responded "yea, that- it was a hard thing we did yesterday."

Air Force pilot and congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, though a conservative Republican, voted to impeach President Trump and remove Greene, recognizing his colleague's defiance:

Have you seen this, Congressman?
It’s Greene warmly embracing the insurrection and coup attempt the day after it occurred in response to a question from Katie Hopkins.
And she uses the word “we” in her response: pic.twitter.com/nvA2jChJJ7

— LarryGJr (@JrLawrenceG) February 5, 2021

 

Share |

Wait Your Turn

In a New York Times op-ed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar notes that adults under 35 and African-Americans have been farm more reluctant than other Americans to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

The fourth (arguably, third) greatest center ever in the National Basketball Association explains that blacks have received inferior health care because of systemic racism, the Tuskegee study of black men with syphilis, the Trump Administration's awful response to Covid-19, and the recent, vigorous effort of the GOP to suppress the black vote. He believes

N.B.A. players, 81.1 percent of whom are Black, appeal to the under-35 and African-American demographics. LeBron James, whom Forbes called “America’s most popular athlete,” has 72.6 million Instagram followers, and Steph Curry has 30.4 million (compared with Tom Brady’s 8.2 million), so when they and other influential N.B.A. athletes publicly get their shots, they will contribute to convincing Black and under-35 skeptics that the vaccines are safe and necessary. Other role models might be necessary to reach other populations that are reluctant to get vaccinated, like those in rural areas of the country.

Abdul-Jabbar is well-meaning and well-intentioned, unlike Charles Barkley (from whose view Kareem distinguishes himself), who thinks NBA players should be ushered to the front of the line because they pay higher income taxes. That reasoning is reprehensible while Abdul-Jabbar's is merely misguided.

Some people would believe NBA players were receiving priority in vaccination because of race, inasmuch as most of the stars are African-American.  Strictly speaking, they wouldn't be getting preferential treatment simply because they are black but because they are celebrities and the objective would be to induce (especially young) blacks to get the vaccine. The subtlety may be lost on many, however.

More Americans would object because it is a dramatic example of the wealthy convinced they are entitled. It is the privilege of the elite, the (usually) .1% benefitting at the expense of everyone else. Further, there is understandable, albeit unfortunate, envy of individuals who get paid for playing a game, which most of us (men traditionally, increasingly men and women) have done for nothing at some period in our lives.

Most of all, this would be advantaging the wealthy over the non-wealthy. In a nation reeling from income inequality (remember that?), this is not a good look and not good policy.

 

 

 Share |

Ham-Handed

In a study of voters in ten swing states, Trump pollster Tony Fabrizzio found several factors, especially the incumbent's handling of the pandemic, contributing to Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential race. While that's hardly surprising, "The analysis says that voters gave former vice president Mike Pence slightly higher marks over Vice President Harris, but it wasn’t a determinative factor."

Harris got slightly lower marks than did Mike Pence, even though most video of their debate featured a fly perched upon the Vice-President's head. Not a good look.

Four days before that finding was revealed, one of President Biden's surrogates appeared on television in West Virginia, making an argument in favor of the Administration's coronavirus relief package in a state featuring Democrat Joe Manchin, a key figure in the negotiations in the Senate. It didn't go as planned (emphasis the tweeter's).

Kamala Harris joins the late Lady Di's crusade against abandoned land mines pic.twitter.com/PDo5mnKWbg

— moe tkacik (@moetkacik) February 1, 2021

In the video below, Chuck Rocha, organizer for the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, notes

There's a lot of West Virginians that are hurting a lot. The wealth in West Virginia is not really big compared to other states....

Up in the hollers people are hurting so if you go there now do you go there with Kamala Harris (or) do you go there with somebody else? I would have recommended maybe a Bernie Sanders or somebody but this is good.

Going with the guy whose presidential campaign preached the importance of mobilizing the grass roots to support proposed legislation was the obvious move. Not so wise was sending to West Virginia (West Virginia!) an individual who was unpopular as a presidential candidate, not particularly popular as a presidential nominee, and whose election was celebrated by the national Democratic Party and its culturally progressive followers as "historical" and "transformative." Those West Virginians in the "holler" must have been dazzled by the celebrated "rock star" from California.

Even more obviously: call the Senator beforehand to let him know that you're coming, a courtesy particularly important in a state in which the Democratic ticket (as usual) was clobbered. Instead

“I couldn’t believe it,” Manchin said. “No one called me. . . . We’re going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward . . . but we need to work together. That’s not a way of working together, what was done.”

Kamala Harris can be an asset or detriment to President Biden.  The first returns are not favorable, but neither were they on November 3 and Donald Trump is out of office, Joe Biden in.

 

 

Share |

Who?

Sherilynn Ifill is President and Director of the the Legal and Defense Fund of the National Association of Colored People. As an accomplished lawyer and black woman, Ms. Ifill is a leading candidate to become the nominee for a spot on the United States Supreme Court because candidate Biden promised his first appointment to the Court would be a black woman.

 

That should (although it won't) raise the question: why is such a woman tweeting this?

Are you hearing @RepKatiePorter describe how @aoc took shelter in Porter’s office on Jan. 6th on @TheLastWord?
Porter: I’m a Mom. I have enough for us the stay in this ofc for a month.
AOC: I hope I get to be a Mom. I hope I don’t die today.
This country should feel shame.

— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF) February 2, 2021

 

 

First: violent people who threaten an individual's life don't feel shame. One must have a conscience to be ashamed, and it's not how they roll.

Admittedly, we on the left have a soft spot for demanding shame. We're not always right- no one is- and our actions may backfire, but at least we can feel morally superior.

More seriously: "this country." "This country" is a nation of well over 300 million people. Surely Ms. Ifill can be more specific than to blame everyone. She could attribute responsibility to President Trump, Trump voters, white privilege, the mass of protesters that day, the rioters themselves, or any combination thereof.  But "this country" can be anyone or anything.

In decades past, roughly the 1960s and 1970s, arguments among friends or colleagues might devolve into one side blaming "them" or "they." Often, those conservative arguments were directed against city dwellers, poor people, or blacks (Latinos being far less numerous). In all cases, "they" was so much more convenient because the individual was spared the accountability he would not escape if he had specified a group or person.

Ifill has now done the same. Moreover, it is an approach ironically similar in kind to that of House Minority Leader McCarthy, who claimed "everybody across this country has some responsibility" for the January 6 riot.  Ifill's motivation is radically different because she realizes that if nominated for the Supreme Court or another federal court, she would be able to explain "this nation" in whatever manner she wishes.

If Ms. Ifill attributed responsibility to the protesters generally, to Trump or to his voters, or to a far right political party coddling extremists, she would be placing herself into a box from which it would be difficult to escape if she receives a nomination.

If instead she legitimately blamed the rioters, she would be targeting those responsible. However, that might suggest the need for eventual incarceration, hence raising the possibility that imprisonment might be necessary. That is something the left simply does not do.

Admittedly, her tweet may turn out to be wise. As it stands, though, Sherilyn Ifill is blaming you, me, and our neighbors (presumably not herself). It is a cowardly tactic which, if mimicked, could alienate much of the country and is no part of a persuasive argument.

 

Share |

Greene's False God

The woman who once suggested that California wildfires were ignited by space lasers now has a more believable notion:

I only bow to ONE.

He alone sits in the judgement seat.

Thank God, through the blood of Jesus Christ that poured out on the cross, my sins are forgiven!

Praise HIM for loving all of us, even though none of us are worthy! 🙏❤️

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) February 1, 2021

  

That would be "bow to only ONE" and "none of us is worthy."  It may be trivial but if one is to support assassinating FBI agents and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, she at least should be grammatically correct.

For the orthodox Christian, Greene's words are theologically correct. However, she also is vying with the likes of Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan as the staunchest of advocates for Donald J. Trump.

As Chris Cillizza once explained, Trump has repeatedly described himself in terms of excellence and of perfection. He is "not sure I have" asked God for forgiveness and once remarked, and "I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."

Trump stated also "I have great relationship with God."  Many believing Christians claim a "personal relationship" with God but the number who claim a "great relationship with God" lies between -1 and 1.  He contended "I like to be good," a statement uncommon among those taking to heart Romans 3:10, in which the apostle Paul wrote "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one.'"

Moreover, in Trump's favorite biblical book ("Two Corinthians!"), Paul confessed (in 12:9) "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Were Marjorie Greene's bias not so pronounced, she'd recognize "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses" contrasts sharply with Trump's boasts about knowing more than anyone about: campaign finance, "people who get ratings": ISIS; the power of Facebook ("maybe"); courts; lawsuits; the "system"; trade; renewables; taxes; debt; construction; the economy; technology; drones.

And of course, "I am the Chosen One."  Matthew (24:5) quotes Jesus maintaining "For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many." (The same verse, slightly and inconsequentially different, appears in the gospel of Mark 13:6.)  If "many a true word is stated in jest," it is also accurate that much of what one states in jest he believes to be true. Donald Trump may believe he is "the Chosen One," wants his adherents to believe he is, or was joking. Whatever- not good.

Most applicable to Representative Greene, however, is the as the same concept addressed by Luke in his gospel (21:7-8):

“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.

Donald J. Trump came along, proclaimed himself as the Chosen One,  was elected and later defeated- deceitfully in the eyes of many- and has emboldened many of his backers.  They continue to be deceived while he remains a curse upon the nation and the world. Marjorie Taylor Greene- hopefully only figuratively making a pact with the devil- is one among the tens of millions who have chosen to follow him.

 

Share |