Tweet Of The Day- Strategic Bunk

This tweet from Sunday says a lot about Kevin McCarthy, and as much about his Party.

There’s a word that comes to mind … what is it … oh yeah, I know: BENGHAZI https://t.co/zkqYJceKAJ

— Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) January 10, 2022

 

In June, John A. Tures of the Ohio Capital Journal recalled

As of October of 2012, there were more than seven Congressional probes of the Benghazi attack, mostly led by Republicans.  These included (1) the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, (2) The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, (3) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (4) The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, (5) The House Committee on the Judiciary, (6) The House Committee on Armed Services, and (7) The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There’s also (8) The House Select Committee on Benghazi. This list does not account for non-Congressional investigations of the terror attack. 

The Poynter Institute’s Politfact found this of Hillary Clinton’s view of the findings: “As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate.”

Don't make me say it, but the investigation into Hillary Clinton was bunk.

Greater attention should have been paid when in September 2015 U.S. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California admitted

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.

If GOP hypocrisy cannot be overestimated, as Bardella accurately suggests, neither can its radicalism.  The Ohio journalist Tures noted also

U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., rushed to insist that these hearings unbiased, but the damage by McCarthy was done. It was a major reason why McCarthy was pushed aside as a replacement for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, by Republicans who selected Paul Ryan instead.

Similarly, at the time of McCarthy's statement, veteran syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne wrote

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been lucky over the years in having a cast of characters arrayed against them who always overplayed their hand. McCarthy, who kept a poker table in his Sacramento house during his days in the California legislature, went all in a bit too early.

That turned out to be wishful thinking as McCarthy's remark has not appeared to hurt the Republican Party at all. Instead, Mrs. Clinton almost unbelievably lost an election she was heavily favored to win.  And McCarthy, pushed aside for Paul Ryan to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House of Representatives, since has become the leader of House Republicans.

The poker player whom E.J. Dionne described seems to be playing the long game.  While a few Republicans concede that Joe Biden fairly won in 2020, McCarthy attacked formation of the 1/6 commission, never has explicitly conceded the legitimacy of the election, and continues to blast out his radical partisanship.

Bardella exposes the hypocrisy of the Minority Leader. But Republicans are favored to take over the House of Representatives after November's elections, Kevin McCarthy is determined to become Speaker, and the Californian appears to know what it takes to rewarded by the anti-democracy party.

 

Share |

In the video to which Matt Stoller has linked, centrist Democrat and veteran syndicated columnist Jennifer Rubin, delighted at President Joe Biden's speech of January 6, remarks

But I would like to see him do much more of what he did last week. I think it was very effective. It was incredibly reassuring for Democrats, who have kind of bemoaned the fact that he really hasn't taken on Trump and I think you'll see Democrats' approval of him go up when he does this and we're going to see him again next week (or the upcoming week)....

This is how he won the presidency, fighting for the soul of democracy and when he does it, you can just feel him getting that Irish up, as they say, and become feisty and I think that's the face he has to show to the American people.

It would matter whether Democrats approve of Biden today if the election were next Tuesday, January 12.  However, it is not, and approval of a Democratic president is insufficient at any time unless there is enthusiasm for him.  Democrats must not only approve, but be energized to vote for one of their own.

That's obviously missing now and, much less obviously, still will be missing for a president who is afraid to call a Trump a Trump.  It's understandable that Rubin wouldn't recognize this because, when talking to Velshi, Rubin maintained also

If the economy is not better and covid is still raging, the Democrats are in deep trouble. But frankly, I'm not sure the President, who is going to be setting the tone for the election, can do a whole lot about either one of those. The economy is kind of baked in....

I'm so old I remember when President Trump was an all powerful being. https://t.co/1QAacfGOFG

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) January 9, 2022

Clearly, if at that time the economy is viewed as negatively by the public and the media as it is now and Covid-19 is still raging, congressional Democrats are not in "deep trouble" but will be routed. If the economy is pre-determined, Rubin should be able to tell us what it will look like in 9-10 months.

The President has less control over the economy than most people believe but is not baked in. If Democrats  they are powerless, voters have little reason to trust them with power.

Democrats tend to be averse to exercising power and no amount of shouting by the incumbent President about the "former President" can cover that up. Though they won the White House largely because the incumbent president seemed powerless- or unwilling- to end the pandemic, a Democratic president allegedly can exert little influence over it; ditto, the economy.

And so that same President seems "feisty"- or as Biden probably would prefer it- "tough" when he criticizes an ex-President for leading a coup  but avoids uttering his name. It's a little defensive, a little defeatist, and will impress only those who don't need to be further impressed.

Share |

Reprise

This guy is old, and informed, enough that he should know better:

 

I've never been prouder to not be a Republican.

— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) January 7, 2022

Lest he- and we- have forgotten:

On November 22, 2000, a group of well-dressed Republican protesters descended on a government office building in Miami. They were there to protest the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board's recount in the disputed presidential race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. They wanted to stop what they regarded as a steal, and they were prepared to resort to violence to do it.

The Brooks Brothers riot revived a new blueprint for electoral disputes, one that openly deployed violence and intimidation to frighten officials into discarding legitimate votes. Like the January 6, 2021 pro-Trump siege on the US Capitol, it was sought to replace the rule of law with mob rule.

And like that brazen assault on democracy, it was orchestrated at the top levels of the GOP. The weapon-toting, MAGA hat-clad insurrectionists of 2021 directly descend from the buttoned-down, stop-the-steal rioters of 2000.

The participants of the demonstration, primarily organized by senior Bush campaign official Brad Blakeman, became irate that the three-member canvassing board had gone to an upstairs room out of the public view and entered the building to vocally protest the process.

When local Democratic official Joe Geller went downstairs to get a blank sample ballot to demonstrate something to his colleagues, he was surrounded by the protesters who loudly accused him of stealing a voters' ballot and hounded him all the way back upstairs.

Both he and then-Democratic operative Luis Rosera got caught up in a scuffle and described being kicked and punched by the increasingly unwieldy crowd, The New York Times reported, with sheriffs' deputies having to intervene to quell the brouhaha and escort the canvassing board to safety.

The incident, which is now often referred to as the Brooks Brothers riot or rebellion, intimidated the board into suspending their already-scaled back recount altogether, resulting in many votes going uncounted and lost in the "what-ifs" of history.

The insurrection waged by Trump supporters on Congress' joint session to count electoral votes, while significantly more physically violent and destructive, harkens back to the echoes of that day in downtown Miami.

No doubt Pavlovitz, an author and Unitarian-Universalist minister, means well. However, the Republican Party he recognizes as deeply flawed is the Republican Party of 2000 and even the GOP of 1980. It's the Republican Party of George W. Bush, Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), Joe Scarborough, and even Dick Cheney. Donald Trump has taken the reins of that same party and put it on steroids, enhancing its corruption and bringing it into public view..

Share |

Say His or Her Name

The reviews are in, and from Democrats, the left, and most of mainstream media, they are very positive about President Biden's speech on Thursday, January 6, 2022 about Wednesday, January 6, 2021.  Even a resident scholar at Harvard, former Department of Homeland Security official and national security consultant for CNN was impressed.

That speech was a counterterrorism speech. That's how this ends, treating the elements that support violence or the threat of it for political gain as illegitimate. Biden didn't try to negotiate; he sought to isolate. No other alternatives will work. #January6th

— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) January 6, 2022

With all due respect to that  expert in national security, the January 6 event was not a terrorist attack. Had the perpetrators been successful, their goal- keeping Donald Trump in the presidency- would have been met that very same day.  They did not try to attack people uninvolved in their beef, such as family members of Congress members (perhaps to take hostages), but rather the men and women who themselves were expected to certify the results of the Electoral College. It should be enough to recognize the episode as an "attempted coup" or "violent insurrection." But, hyperbole.

Also very positive, but more characteristic of the reaction, this:

Exactly the right tone. https://t.co/jvlwLaybCH

— Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat) January 6, 2022

If by "tone," the tweeter means that the President appeared passionate, even emotional, well, yes.  Thus, he also appeared sincere because an emotional mien comes across as authentic and can accomplish one's objective. 

But Joe Biden on nineteen (19) occasions cited "the former President" or "the former President's." On no occasion did he mention the name "Trump" or "Donald Trump," an omission which sent starbursts ricocheting. 

He actually didn't mention his name once which is even better. He did call him out directly as the Former President, Previous President, etc. But "Donald" and "Trump" were not mentioned. Donald has to be burning sh*t down rn

— Ashleigh (@BTW4change) January 6, 2022

The wisdom of this approach should have come as quite a surprise to reform activists responding to the killing by police of Breonna Taylor, a young black woman in Atlanta. A name, used in strategic context, has power.

So say it: Donald Trump. Avoiding this does not make him go away or erase history. If Democrats would prefer to cower and not use the name "Trump," they can call him "Individual 1."

It at least would have the advantage of not being inaccurate and giving the wrong impression.  President Biden was so determined to avoid naming names that he referred to the "former President" even when he was referring to the President, as in "We didn't see a former president, who had just rallied the mob to attack..."; "Not to strengthen and protect our democracy, but because the former president lost..."; "Judges appointed by the former president himself..." In each instance, Trump was President, not a former President; a significant distinction when considering an insurrection.

Whether the President was wise or foolish not to have named the ex-President, Biden's demeanor may have served the purpose intended. Angry, emotional self-righteousness sometimes is tactically effective. After all, it worked for those two famous men of feigned sincerity, Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

 

Share |

The Harvest That Is Reaped

Here he goes again, with a twist, remarking "My low-skilled work is my cooks, my dishwashers, my messengers, my shoe shine people, those who work in Dunkin' Donuts."

Umm, how are “Essential workers” of 2020 now the “low academic skill” workers of 2022? 🤦🏻‍♂️

NYC mayor @ericadamsfornyc says “Low skill workers like cooks, messengers and Dunkin’ Donuts employees don’t have the academic skills to sit in a corner office”. 👀 pic.twitter.com/BJobdmPVym

— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) January 5, 2022

My cooks, my dishwashers, my messengers, my shoe shine people. How many cooks, dishwashers, messengers, and shiners of shoes does one person need? Plenty, apparently, if that man is the New York City mayor. Better had he referred to "the residents of our city who are cooks, dishwashers...."  Better yet had he cited them and then "all the others who do the  hard work for often inadequate wages."

If he had, Adams probably wouldn't have made himself an easy target for the individuals who are slamming him for asserting these poor and working-class individuals "don't have the academic skills."  Presumably, they are not sufficiently higher-educated to warrant that corner office but they may possess intelligence and skill the mayor is implying they lack. Also:

I’m trying my damndest to figure out how and why New York City Democrats chose a got damn fool like Eric Adams over an accomplished, brilliant scholar like Maya Wiley. Seriously WTF?!?! pic.twitter.com/OvCXVBf8JC

— Kenny BooYah! 🖖🏾 (@KwikWarren) January 4, 2022

  

It is worth considering how and why Adams, someone who often seems more a Republican than a Democrat, was nominated by the dominant party for the highest office in the nation's largest, and solidly liberal, city.  One reason is tht he set himself apart as a "law and order" kind of guy in a primary field whose major candidates otherwise were perceived, accurately or not, as being insufficiently concerned about violent crime. Additionally, there is the case of Scott

Stringer, the city comptroller who was considered a presumptive front-runner at the beginning of the Democratic primary, saw his campaign crash and burn after two women came forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct.

He got just over 5 percent of first-choice votes, finishing behind Eric Adams and three other candidates. He emerged early for a concession speech, opening with a quip that he was surprised “you all came"....

Stringer’s campaign was just beginning to pick up steam this spring, winning the endorsements of the Working Families Party and the United Federation of Teachers.

Then Jean Kim, a volunteer on his 2001 campaign for public advocate, accused him of repeatedly groping and kissing her without her consent. He denied the allegations, but the WFP and a host of progressive elected officials and advocacy groups that had gotten behind his campaign quickly withdrew their endorsements.

Stringer pressed on with his campaign, and continued to show some strength in polls even after his institutional support collapsed. But then a second woman, Teresa Logan, told the New York Times that Stringer groped her and made unwanted sexual advances when she was an 18-year-old waitress at a bar he ran three decades ago. After that, the longtime politician was largely written off.

Progressives, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, eventually coalesced behind attorney Maya Wiley, who came in second to Adams in first-choice votes and remains in the running for a ranked-choice tally next week.

You'll remember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the "AOC" of rock-star fame, leader of the "Squad" in the House, and prominent leftist. In the 2020 presidential primary campaign, she faced the difficult choice of endorsing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. She chose the latter, whose candidacy briefly soared (while Warren's plummeted), then (unfortunately) crashed to earth when he faced Joe Biden one-on-one. In so doing, Ocasio-Cortez may have burnished her reputation while ultimately destroying the candidacy of the individual who would have been the stronger candidate when the field narrowed to the moderate Biden and a progressive.

Ocasio-Cortez may have the nearly unique quality of mobilizing the hard left to support a candidate while somewhat alienating voters not similarly ideologically inclined.

No one found that Stringer did not perform in a competent fashion as controller, nor that his views placed him in a position unacceptable to New York's Democratic primary voters. Rather, it was because of improper personal behavior he allegedly took part in... 20 and 30 years earlier. Allegedly. Decades ago.

This is a problem few if any Democratic officials or pols, some of them intimidated by the identity warriors currently dominating the Party, want to take on or even acknowledge.  It may be facilitate the loss of the White House, or a Senate and House majority, or failure to win elections from statehouses down to local school boards. Where exactly is unknowable, but the damage won't be negligible.

Democrats and social media leftists can continue to lament the GOP's continuing effort to drive a wedge between groups of Americans by exploitation of the "culture war."  However, they simply will not confront the electoral danger they face in submitting everything to acceptance by the race and gender left.  Until they acknowledge they need to do so, the ground will remain fertile for Eric Adams, Donald Trump, and other egomaniacal candidates who will damage the wide-ranging interests of liberals and progressives.

 

Share |

Tweet Of The Day- An Act We've Seen Before

Why did grandma not have enough swagger to survive Covid??! What a foolish man. https://t.co/1zSzO3a9EQ

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) January 3, 2022

Foolish being "lacking good sense or judgement," it is foolish. It would be wise, though a little loathsome, were Eric Adams to have an election in the near future rather than one in the recent past. People love the macho persona, whether genuine or as in the case of Donald Trump, completely manufactured.

It seems that New York City's new mayor has more in common with the 45th President of the USA than imprudent recklessness.  "I am keeping my schools open," vows the egotistic mayor who confuses "my" with "our" and believes he reigns supreme over the vagaries of an epidemic. And whether talking about swagger or city government, Adams inspires a blind fealty and fanatic devotion:

But just as important politically, Mr. Adams and his allies have adopted the language of destiny to explain his health reversal and subsequent successes, suggesting that higher forces were steering his story.

“The hand of God,” Laurie Cumbo, a Brooklyn councilwoman, said of his primary victory.

“That’s a new lease on life,” Mr. Adams said of his recovery. “Everything becomes possible.”

Financial improprieties are also a common thread insofar as

For years, he did not register his rental property in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, with the city, as required. He also failed to report rental income to the federal government and blamed his accountant, whom Mr. Adams said last year he had had difficulty finding because the man was living in a homeless shelter.

Not everyone can pick out an accountant who ends up homeless. It takes a special kind of guy, what someone would call a foolish man.

 

Share |

Tweet Of The Day- Covid 19

Don’t forget, as the Covid tragedy rolls on into 2022, that it was aided immeasurably by China’s coverup and manipulation of WHO, which continues today. https://t.co/QtJpFhsX41

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) January 1, 2022

From an article (updated since March) published in October by The New York Times, we learn that the World Health Organization's

expert team offers a long list of recommendations for additional research: more testing of wildlife and livestock in China and Southeast Asia, more studies on the earliest cases of Covid-19 and more tracing of pathways from farms to markets in Wuhan.

But it is unclear whether China, which has repeatedly hindered the W.H.O. inquiry, will cooperate. Chinese officials have sought to redirect attention elsewhere, suggesting that the virus could have emerged in the United States or other countries.

Experts say the delays in the inquiry have hurt the ability to prevent other pandemics.

“This delay has obviously compromised the ability of the investigation to reconstruct the origins of Covid-19 and identify ways of reducing the risk of such events happening again in the future,” said Michael Baker, a professor of public health at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

The world- aside from mainland China- probably will never know for certain the origin of Covid-19, thus increasing the risk of such future events. It will never know, and not be able to plan properly, because that's how the Butchers of Beijing wanted it.

As we pass from one year to the next, therefore, it's time to remember one individual who tried to alert the world to something the Butchers wanted hidden. Twenty-three months ago we read

A whistleblowing Chinese doctor who tried to raise the alarm about the coronavirus outbreak has died, a Communist party-controlled newspaper has confirmed.

Li Wenliang, 34, was declared dead at 2.58am local time on Friday morning after “emergency treatment” at a hospital in Wuhan, the Global Times reported, following hours of confusion over his fate....

Chinese police had targeted Li for “spreading rumors” in late December 2019 after he posted a warning on social media about a cluster of cases of a flu-like disease that had been treated at his hospital. Seven patients were in quarantine and the disease symptoms reminded him of Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome), he said. He urged colleagues to wear protective clothing at work.

Four days later he was summoned to the local public security bureau, accused of “making false comments” and disturbing the social order. He was told that if he continued to talk about the disease, he would be “brought to justice”.

Li was one of eight people authorities targeted for “sharing false information”, in a heavy-handed approach that China’s supreme court later criticized. He agreed not to discuss his concerns in public again.

But in early January he treated a woman with glaucoma without realizing she was also a coronavirus patient; he appears to have been infected during the operation.

Li broke his silence to give interviews from his hospital bed.

“If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency,” he told the New York Times.

Officials did not disclose information earlier and actively blocked openness and transparency because that's how the Butchers of Beijing wanted it.

Our national government here in the United States of America did little to stem the widespread outbreak of Covi-19.  But it didn't start here. Washington is pushing for a real investigation (video below from 4/2021), and voters decided to toss the previous government out some 14 months ago. It's a safe bet that Xi Jinping won't suffer the same fate.

 

Share |