This Should Fool No One

The New York Times' Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin maintain "Republican leaders agree that a wrenching struggle is coming" when in defeat they will have to choose between the "party of white identity politics" represented by Donald Trump and "a broader political coalition by repudiating Mr. Trump’s ideas."

Hogwash.  Or as Steve M. puts it

There isn't going to battle for the soul of the Republican Party after November. The party's just going to be what it was prior to Trump, which was already most of the way to Trumpism, except with a veneer of deniability. The only battle will be over how many coats of veneer should be reapplied now that Trump has stripped them off -- if any.

Even the Republicans who advocate a different approach than Trump's testosterone-fueled white nationalism are trying to tell us that, if we would but listen. For instance

Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a youthful military veteran who has eyed higher office, said he would “push back really hard” on any effort on the right to harden the party’s line on immigration after a Trump defeat.

Mr. Kinzinger said the party would have to reintroduce itself to the American people in less bluntly divisive terms. After 12 years without a Republican president, he said, Republicans would have to “take our conservative principles and re-explain what they are, and attract people that don’t necessarily traditionally vote Republican.”

Reconfigure the rhetoric and improve the branding, Kinziger is arguing.  Reconsideration of ideology is unnecessary, for the Party merely must "re-explain" its conservative principles so that they are less conspicuously inimical to the interests of ethnic minorities, women, and the middle classes.

Burns and Martin point out that Arizona Senator Jeff Flake

suggested a purge of racists from the party that would recall the expulsion of the John Birch Society, a fringe nationalist group, from Republican ranks a half-century ago.

“Those who want a Muslim ban, those who will disparage individuals or groups — yes, we ought to, we need to,” Mr. Flake said.

But he is an outlier, even as many Republicans fear running for office in 2016 while the head of the ticket disparages Muslims, immigrants, and women. However, no criticism has been heard from Republican now that Trump has pivoted to a theme of hate which is not explicitly hostile to persons on the bais of religion, ethnicity, or gender.

"I am the law and order candidate," Donald Trump declared after a black sniper murdered five police officers in Dallas at the tail end of a Black Lives matter demonstration.

After police in Baton Rouge shot and killed 37-year-old African-American Alton Sterling, tension between the community and the Police Department soared. Today, at least three police officers have been murdered there in an apparent ambush and Donald Trump- with few facts yet known- responded "we demand law and order."

After approximately four decades in the public eye and twelve months as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump has discovered the need for "law and order."   He has done so amid crime rates which have been dropping for nearly a quarter of a century, a fact which would be inconvenient were it not convenient for the mainstream, GOP-leaning media to ignore.

With a backdrop of rising street crime, race riots, and disorder at the Democratic National Convention, Richard Nixon parlayed "law and order" to victory in 1968.  The Vietnam War played a role but probably less than the appeal to racial resentment Nixon so skillfully made.

Nonetheless, little note has been taken of this aspect of Donald Trump's effort to stoke fear and hatred, suggesting the emptiness of any belief that Trump's approach will stir a re-examination of the GOP's approach more lasting the Party's "autopsy" following the 2012 elections.

Paul Ryan provides the strongest evidence. When Donald Trump argued that federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, presiding over the Trump University civil suit, could not be objective because of his Mexican heritage, the House Speaker denounced Trump for "sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment."   Soon after, he assurred us that he still supports the racist.

Share |

Constitutional Apathy

Propose extending background checks, banning assault weapons, preventing individuals on the "no fly" terrorism watch list from owning firearms, and the right cries about the Second Amendment. The Amendment at most safeguards the right of militia members to be armed, but few Republicans can buck the NRA.

They are not quite as fond of the First Amendment.  In February, Trump vowed as President to "open up the libel laws" so that "when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money."

In December, his campaign had released a statement including "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."  The remarks were dated December 7, 2015, probably signaling the candidate's admiration for sending Japanese-Americans to concentration camps some 75 years earlier.

Following the horrendous attack in Nice on Thursday night, vice-presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich threw a Hail Mary pass, contending "Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in sharia they should be deported."

After disregarding the First Amendment's first clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," Gingrich went after the second clause, which forbids "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." He contended "anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately.” (He now concedes it would be "impossible" to deport every American Muslim.... improvement, of  a sort).

And now for something different, a Republican (video below from 2014 election campaign) is disregarding a different portion of the Constitution. The Huffington Post reports

Republicans have never made it easy for President Barack Obama to confirm judges. But Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) came up with a new reason the Senate shouldn’t be filling empty court seats: It’s not our job.

Democrats including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) made repeated requests Wednesday to confirm a batch of Obama’s judicial nominees who are ready for votes. Each time they tried, Tillis objected and suggested the Senate shouldn’t be spending time on judges.

“What we get are things that have nothing to do with doing our jobs,” he said. “I’m doing my job today and objecting to these measures so we can actually get back to pressing matters.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 reads

The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

Senators Warren and Hirono pointed out their colleague's confusion but when asked, Tillis' spokesperson changed the subject.

That was probably wise, given that some Republicans have little interest in the United States Constitution other than the Second Amendment.  And given their thorough distortion of that Amendment, it's probably better that they ignore the document altogether.

Share |

Not About The Wall

Donald Trump had reportedly decided on his choice of a running mate, even informing Mike Pence that he was the one, before the apparent terrorist attack in Nice, France Thursday night.

Most speculation had come down to the Indiana governor and Newt Gingrich, with Chris Christie a longshot, in the last few days.

Always a sucker for bad taste, Sean Hannity led off his Thuirsday night interview (excerpt below) with Gingrich by saying "Mr. Speaker, I don't really want to tie this into politics but...." thereby signaling that he wanted to make a political issue, promptly, out of the murder of 75+ individuals. Gingrich replied to Hannity's by maintaining

Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western cviilization is in a war. We should, frankly, test every person from here who is of a Muslim background and if the believe in Sharia law, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Wetern civilization.

Noting the latter statement, Salon's Sophia Tesfaye added of Gingrich's appearance

....the former speaker of the House doubled down on his reckless style of politics in either a last-ditch appeal to Trump or a craven elevation of his longstanding attacks on Islam.

Appearing on his show for the second time in as many days, Gingrich said Thursday that calling Islam a “religion of peace” is “bologna.”

“It’s not that Islamists are necessarily evil, but they’re not necessarily a religion of peace.”










“To suggest that Muslims are acceptable as long as they don’t believe in sharia," The Atlantic's David A. Graham writes, "is a little like saying Christians are OK as long as they don’t believe the Gospel." Lest anyone misunderstand him, Gingrich added "anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately."

Gingrich's proposals are unworkable and unconstitutional. However, it's unlikely that would have been a problem for the presumptive nominee, who wants to build a wall likely costing tens of billions of dollars and to re-open libel laws.  Neither pragmatism nor the US Constitution would be seen by a President Trump as an impediment to his agenda.

But there is an assumption seemingly held by Tesfaye and most other people that  radical prescriptions offered by Gingrich are thoroughly compatible with Trump's intentions.   In that reading, the former House Speaker was bypassed for the Veep position despite, not because, of his approach to immigration.

Although the common view, that might be the reverse of reality.  The  respected and moderately conservative author and commentator Reihan Salam notes

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but one of the biggest reasons Trump won the GOP presidential nomination is that he pledged to strengthen America’s borders, oppose amnesty, and reduce immigration levels.

Salam acknowledges that as Trump's coat-holder, Mike Pence will back Trump's immigration policies to the hilt. However, he reminds us

Back in 2006, when then–President George W. Bush was leading the charge for comprehensive immigration reform, Pence devised an ingenious yet almost certainly unworkable amnesty proposal. Essentially, Pence proposed that unauthorized immigrants return to their native countries and then re-enter the United States as “guest workers.” As guest workers, these women and men would enjoy legal status yet would also be denied various rights and privileges granted to lawful permanent residents. The genius of this proposal, if you can call it that, is that it infuriated every possible constituency: opponents of an amnesty for unauthorized immigrants, conservatives who favor reducing immigration levels, and advocates who want to ensure that poor immigrants are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers.

Trump's hatred for women (without large breasts) and Hispanics may be largely a feint, something which in its vehemence set him apart from his 17 GOP opponents and built him the popular base which has put him on the verge of being crowned presidential nominee.  Even if he is sincere, opposition to the wall combined with pressure from his Party's donor base would give him pause. The outcry from the left over his extravagant, unrealistic immigration policy may be, in a manner unsuspected, just the point: it would not be his priority as President. In its place would be something worse

Upon speculation in August, 2014 that Pence might run for the presidential nomination, two Politico writers explained

A former talk show host who led a crusade to defund Planned Parenthood in the House, Pence has worked to spotlight the fiscal issues that animate the Kochs’ political giving. People close to the brothers say he first earned their network’s admiration during the George W. Bush years, when he opposed what he deemed Big Government policies backed by his own party, including No Child Left Behind and a Medicare expansion, and repeatedly warned that the GOP was veering off course.

“There’s ideological alignment between those two universes,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Texas GOP consultant who was hired years ago to work as press secretary for former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) by Marc Short, who was then her chief of staff. Short went on to become Pence’s chief of staff in late 2008 and now runs the Kochs’ political umbrella group Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. “They wouldn’t have plucked Marc out of that world if they didn’t have confidence in not only Marc, but also Pence, who occupies a unique place in conservative politics right now,” said Mackowiak.

And at the time

“The whole Koch operation has become the shadow headquarters of Pence for President,” asserted a strategist with close ties to GOP congressional leadership and to Koch organizations.

The Kochs’ allies reject this characterization, suggesting instead that they’re merely fans of Pence, as they are of other fiscally conservative politicians, because of his support for the type of small-government and free-enterprise policies they see as key to prosperity.

Freedom Partners spokesman James Davis said, “Many governors, including Gov. Pence, have shown strong support for free-market policies that improve peoples’ lives, and we could use more of that type of principled leadership to drive common sense solutions in Washington.”

But there are few other Republican politicians with as many highly placed allies working in key positions in the Kochs’ political network.

Certainly there are- and many of them would find places in a Trump Administration or be formal (or informal) advisors.  Realizing it helps keep wages low, immigration is not a phobia of the Koch brothers, who do not take a hard-line view of illegal immigration, Further, Trump's brazen assurance that Mexico "will pay for the wall"-  far from evidence of his determination to build a barrier- may be a hint that he isn't committed to it.

Surely, Mexico will balk at paying one cent toward its construction or maintenance. Coupled with the near-certainty the wall would be far more expensive than he is letting on, that might be all a President Trump would need to abandon a drive toward ending immigration and replacing itt with a far more traditional, corporate-friendly Administration. The rejection of Newt Gingrich and nomination of Mike Pence might be only the beginning.









Share |

Love And Hate Crimes

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
                                                                                      -Walter Scott



We can see where the concept of "hate crimes" (as opposed to "love crimes") is leading us. (Below is a video of the Philadelphia District Attorney completely missing the point his interviewer, a fan of his, is trying to make.)

Currently, punishment received by a defendant in New Jersey can be increased if he/she is found to have committed a crime motivated by race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expresssion, national origin, or ethnicity. According to NJ Advance Media, a bill similar to the one introduced in the State Assembly in January is to be introduced Thursday in the State Senate as

In the wake of the deadly shooting of police officers in Dallas, a New Jersey lawmaker wants to make attacks on police and first responders a hate crime.

Sen. Joe Kyrillos (R-Monmouth) said Monday he plans to introduce legislation expanding New Jersey's hate crime statute to include violence against police — attacks he called "especially outrageous."

The proposal comes after a lone gunman shot and killed five police officers and wounded seven others during a protest over fatal police shootings in Texas last week.

Kyrillos, who will never be spotted entering a Mensa meeting, stated "We cannot allow an entire class of public servants to be targeted for violence due to their profession. If such attacks don't qualify as hate crimes, I don't know what does."

We can start with attacks by students, less often by mothers of those students, upon teachers.  Most assaults, especially those between or among acquaintances, would qualify. Even violence resulting from a drug deal gone bad would be motivated in part by hate. And as for domestic violence? Yikes.

NJ Advance Media adds

Patrick Colligan, the president of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association, said police on patrol feel under attack, particularly after the Dallas shooting. He said Micah Xavier Johnson, the shooter who allegedly told police he wanted to killed white police officers, "pointed his rifle with hate."

Robert Lewis Dear exclaimed at a hearing "I am a warrior for the children" after his arrest for evidently murdering three workers at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs in December. He did not shoot to death three strangers out of love. Nor was he charged with a hate crime when he targeted people because of their employment. Colligan, however, applauds Kyrillos' bill because it "sends the message that we're a separate class."

If you think that's a double standard for police officers than for mere mortals, you've been paying attention.   Krystal Marie Campbell, Lu Lingzu, and Martin William Richard belonged to a separate class, also. They were in the class of individuals who got in the way of the bomb planted at the Boston Marathon in April, 2013.  They, too, were victims of "hate," not love, but no one was prosecuted for a "hate crime."

A senior staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey notes Kyrillos' bill is "so broad, and gives law enforcement a great deal of power to charge and, indeed, overcharge people who they perceive as their critics."   Overreacting to criticism of police would constitute a great irony as we hear presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump rail against "political correctness." Little did we expect Republican politicians, such as in NJ and Pennsylvania, to be so exquisitely sensitive about the feelings of government employees.














Share |

Rock On, Mr.President

Maybe it was the unfortunate decision for these five individuals to hold hands (no maybe about it). But credit should go to Joe Biden. Even an aging Protestant has to admit that the Vice-President, the only Catholic or non-Protestatnt on the stage, knew best how to behave upon hearing a verse of"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" sung by a choir at the memorial service for the five slain Dallas police officers.

As the video below displays, the goofy white guy is joyously swaying to the words of the great Civil War abolitionist poem written by Julie Ward Howe to the tune of John Brown's Body. So, too- albeit with more restraint and rhythm- is President Obama. First Lady Michelle Obama and Mrs. Bush, seemingly appropriately amused by Mr. Bush, are allowing him to perform his little dance at the funeral service.







Vice-President Biden gave the hymn the respect it deserves. He can be forgiven for appearing uncomfortable, inasmuch as he was in the presence of a former two-term President who was smiling, almost laughing, while getting a big kick out of a song whose original lyrics were the following:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightining of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him!
be jubilant, my feet! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Share |

The U.S. Supreme Court, Bringing You Politics Since 2000

In a New York Times profile published Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented "I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Then on Tuesday in a previously scheduled interview with Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic

"At first I thought it was funny," she said of Trump's early candidacy. "To think that there's a possibility that he could be president ... " Her voice trailed off gloomily.

"I think he has gotten so much free publicity," she added, drawing a contrast between what she believes is tougher media treatment of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and returning to an overriding complaint: "Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns."









Responding to the Times' report, an uncharacteristically self-righteous Donald Trump, who responded "I think it's highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly."

Some Democrats fretted, as Democrats are wont to do. "We all know that the justices on the Supreme Court have political views. I’m not sure we’re well-served by them airing them out in the open," Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut stated.  Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin added “She may have got out over her skis a little bit and (been) more forthright and political than she should have been. It’s very unusual."  Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii conceded "If it's not over the line, it's very close to the line.”

There is no need to play defense. The answer to any question about the propriety of Justice Ginsburg's remarks is "Bush v. Gore." Five Justices on the Supreme Court shed most doubt they were engaged in the political process when by per curiam decision the concept of equal protection was turned on its head and they stopped the recount in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. Then they eliminated all doubt when they added "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Trump was shocked, shocked! a Supreme Court Justice would't maintain neutrality about a presidential race. He exclaimed "I think it's a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn't believe it when I saw it."

But it is only for the members of a particular family, group, or court to determine whether one of their own should apologize to them. Donald Trump doesn't get to make that determination. Or he wouldn't, except that he so many of his statements are beyond the pale that when he says something normal, the media and political insiders are relieved and impressed. The bar has been set very, very low for this man. "Believe me."










Share |

Giving A Leg Up To Trump

The Orlando Sentinel reports  

Frustrated supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders were dealt a series of defeats as they made their last stand Saturday inside an Orlando hotel, where fellow Democrats refused to adopt several of their candidate’s progressive policies into the party’s platform.

Though they reached some compromises, the ongoing tension between the party’s progressive wing and supporters of presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton was clear throughout the two-day meeting of the Democratic National Platform Committee at the DoubleTree at Universal Orlando.

Early in the day, the committee refused to add language rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which left Clinton-backers applauding and some Sanders supporters streaming for the exits.

US News explains

The panel, which is developing the party's platform ahead of next month's Philadelphia convention, instead backed a measure that said "there are a diversity of views in the party" on the TPP and reaffirmed that Democrats contend any trade deal "must protect workers and the environment."

Given that Bernie Sanders is a staunch, outspoken opponent of the TPP and Hillary Clinton a few months earlier finally was shamed into coming out against the deal (as it stands), this is stunningly vague- and self-defeating.

Monday evening on Hardball, Sam Stein reported that the primary opposition to the anti-TPP plank came not from representatives of Hillary Clinton but from Obama supporters.  That is quite plausible because

On trade, Obama has promoted the TPP despite opposition from rank-and-file Democrats. Members of the panel said it would be wrong to undercut the outgoing president in the platform.

"What I don't want to do is leave this place disregarding the position of the President of the United States," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a Clinton supporter who noted his opposition to trade deals.

President Obama's position shouldn't be disregarded or ignored; only repudiated.








Donald Trump, who has denounced the agreement (without specifying his reason for opposition) no doubt is pleased that the Democratic Party has served him a big, hanging curve.The Party's tepid, meaningless plank (if approved in Philadelphia) will be no match for the vociferous criticism the Republican presidential nominee has leveled. He will be at his demagogic best when he not only rebukes Mrs. Clinton, but blames her for the Trans-Pacific Partnership itself.  The phrase "national sovereignty" may become as familiar as "terrorism."

Barack Obama is not on any ballot this November, and he will be unscathed. It will be left to Hillary Clinton and her surrogates to defend the nearly indefensible

That will not be helpful, and could prove the decisive factor in Ohio, Michigan, and/or Pennsylvania. The Sanders camp was right both on the policy and the politics. The platform committee, however, seems less interested in keeping the presidency and retaking the Senate than in sparing Barack Obama's feelings (video below from 6/15).

Share |