Those For Whom Losing Is Not An O;tion

Were I Blair LM Kelley, the African-American historian who is an assistant dean at North Carolina State University, I would have written the same article that she did. But I'm not, and I will tell you what she- and others- won't.

Kelley echoes the concerns of many Democrats about the  "harsh policing tactics and gentrification policies" New York City mayor Bloomberg imposed and which he defended "as recently as five years ago." She recognizes that Bloomberg's apology for stop-and-frisk "felt staged — and it came well after a change of heart would have made a substantive difference." Moreover, she understands

most of my neighbors don't track NYC politics as closely as they do local politics (and) their focus is often on their place in a city and the state, not urban politics hundreds of miles away. They have probably heard the term "stop-and-frisk," but it likely isn't as front of mind as the coming school board election.

That's a sound, important point to make. However, she ultimately argues

Bloomberg's strength, surely crafted by some smart and experienced staffers, is the direct appeal to black people. Black voters don't want to be taken for granted. They don't want to be ignored. They don't like campaigns where none of the issues affecting their lives are addressed. They like campaigns that talk about investing in black communities that have been poisoned by pollution and neglect. They care about investments in our schools. They desperately want to see an end to gun violence. They want to close the racial wealth gap. They like to be recognized and heard.

Crass calculation or not, Bloomberg has been putting black voices front and center in his advertising.... The time to invest directly and boldly in engaging black audiences is past due for the rest of the Democratic field.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that the other candidates have but a small fraction of the money Bloomberg has to invest in the campaign.  They cannot have the a staff as large or as well paid, nor saturate the air waves as Bloomberg has done, nor serve swanky hors d'oeuvres at campaign events. Money talks- and sometimes it says "I'm a winner."

Black voters are recognized and heard in the Democratic process. As a white, let me assure Kelley: white voters know that African-Africans are front and center among the concerns of white Democratic politicians.  There is a reason more whites have voted for the presidential nominee of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party in the last twelve (12) presidential elections and that no part of what may be considered the civil rights, or black, agenda ever is directly opposed by any Democrat in any presidential nominating contest. Blacks are not stupid, and neither are whites.

The popular base of the Republican Party is white evangelicals, who were wary of Donald Trump in 2016 until he emerged as the clear favorite to win the party's nomination. Now, they are his most loyal constituency- not only because they approve of his policies but also because he is their president. He attacks their enemies- Democrats, liberals, the media, and others- constantly and has demonstrated that he can win. 

A similar dynamic holds sway in the Democratic Party. The popular base is generally black voters. It is, more specifically, non-young African-American women.

Bernie Sanders clearly is the favorite of young blacks, for whom party- the Democratic Party- is not the highest political priority. (Not coincidentally, young whites also are particularly fond of the Vermont senator.)

Joe Biden  was the early and undisputed favorite of middle-aged and elderly blacks. He had been not only the loyal vice-president to the first black president, he was more than any candidate the face of the Democratic establishment.  More than anyone, he represented the party of which blacks are the most loyal supporters, and for which they are the party's popular base.

Way back then- a few months ago- Biden also was widely (though not here) viewed as the most electable Democrat and the one most feared by the incumbent GOP president. He was the one seen as most likely to bring it on home, to secure victory for the Democratic Party. It was only logical and reasonable that African-Americans, the engine of the party, were partial to the Delawarean.

No longer.  There now are serious doubts about Biden's electability.  Further, as his numbers decline, he now is no longer perceived as the face of the party, nor even the figure clearly representing the party establishment.

Enter Mike Bloomberg, with his billions to spend on nomination and election, which in turn persuades voters he can win.  In general, the election is viewed by fewer blacks as a theoretical exercise or one that must be dominated by ideological preference.  Call it "white privilege" or whatever you will, but many of us whites have the luxury of supporting the more progressive candidate (which is certainly not Bloomberg), who is most likely to enact policies which are beneficial, especially fopr African-Americans

However, among a significant percentage of blacks, victory is key.  A political scientist lays out the perspective of many Bloomberg supporters and- although unspoken- that of black voters especially:

Its not just the ads guys. Yes, the ads matter in terms of their base existence. But what is really mattering is the message of the ads- we are in an existential crisis & I can destroy Trump.

That's the message voters are hungriest for- even if they don't consciously know it. https://t.co/ZRr55CbhvL

— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌 (@RachelBitecofer) February 14, 2020

Share |

Think Education

You'd never know it from the media obsession about the stop-and-frisk policy of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, but the worst of Bloomberg is missed by this:

IMO here’s one of the most racist stats ever:

In 2011, the NYPD stopped & frisked 168,126 black men between the ages of 14 - 24

In 2011, there were only 158,406 black men in NYC between 18-24

Yes, they stop and frisked more black men than actually existed!

90% were innocent

— michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) February 13, 2020

No, in isolation, they are not "one of the most racist stats" ever. Even excluding Nazi Germany, and slavery in our own country, they are not near the top. We don't know, among other things:

- how many white people were stopped- and what percentage of them were innocent. (The percentage of whites who were stopped undoubtedly is lower than of blacks, perhaps even at a statistically significant level. However, it's conceivable that

- on what basis were blacks stopped? (It might have been simply because of their color, a bulge in their pocket, or suspicious behavior- whatever that might have been.)

- in what neighborhoods the stops took place- and at what times of the day.

- of those individuals of whatever race who were not innocent, for what they were found guilty. (Possession of marijuana for personal use does not rise to the level of illegal possession of a weapon.)

Stop-and-frisk, about which Bloomberg is legitimately questioned, took place from 2003 to 2010. However,  in 2014 the New Yorker

criticized the large fines meted out to banks in recent years. "Some of these fines I think are outrageous and shouldn't be allowed to take place," he said.

Bloomberg adamantly defended the industry in the face of its pre-and-post crisis scandals. "Things have chagned dramatically for the better for the public," he said, but "you wouldn't believe that if you read the newspapers." And he said more regulation could mean a financial system that does less to stimulate the broader economy. "If you reduce the risk, they can't make the money, they can't provide the financing that this country and world needs to create jobs and build infrastructure and all of those things."

That was merely five years ago (video, from 2010). Further, we learned only last month

Bloomberg will soon roll out an education plan that will include backing the privately managed schools as an option for families, his campaign office told The Post — drawing a contrast with other top-tier Democratic presidential rivals.

“Mike’s education plan will absolutely promote charter schools,” Bloomberg campaign spokesman Stu Loeser insisted.

“The record number of charter schools opened under Mayor Bloomberg is clear. That isn’t changing.”

“Few if any people in the country have opened more charter schools than Mike Bloomberg,” he continued.

Under pressure, the former mayor has walked back advocacy of his stop-and-frisk policy.  But it was less than six weeks ago- as a presidential candidate in America's reputedly liberal party- that Bloomberg's campaign has bragged about plans which will further undermine the public school system in the USA.

Put Bloomberg's support of for-profit educational enterprises together with his record of running interference with large financial institutions, we may have the beginning of a pattern of support for continued privatization of the economy, a subject which disturbingly has gotten no attention in the Democratic primary race.

People care about education, as do even voters. Most understand it plays a greater role in their lives than does race. If other Democratic campaigns confront Michael Bloomberg about his promotion of the destroy public schools movement, it probably would help derail his primary campaign. And if it doesn't, it will at least have the benefit of proving wrong my hypothesis in the first sentence of this paragraph, and give us yet another reason to fear for the future of politics in the country.

Share |

Not With A Thunderbolt

No worries, it just blows my mind how much the extreme abnormal has been normalized.

This has taught me how civil society in Germany failed as Hitler came to power. Not w a bang, but a whisper.

— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌 (@RachelBitecofer) February 11, 2020

Bitecofer's recollection is the point Bill Maher made in his closing commentary on Friday when he noted beginning at 52:16 of the video (albeit with bad sound) below:

....that's in the old American- the nation of laws. We're living in the new America with only one law- make me. You know, when a country slides into authoritarian rule you don't get a text alert. Things will look the same on the surface. The buses will still be running. The cops will still be patrolling. You can still get your hair done. Your favorite show is still on TV- unless maybe it's this one.

Americans are always worried that we lose our freedom it'll look like the movie Red Dawn with tanks in the streets. That's not how our republic ends. We keep the names on the institutions, we just change what's inside. We still have trials- we just put up witnesses and you still subpoena people. They just don't show up. There's still an EPA; it just works for the coal companies.

Now it's like the way TV channels sometimes completely change format but keep the name. MTV- music television- hasn't had music videos for years. The Learning Channel has no learning; The Learning Channel has Honey Booboo and America's Worst Tatoos and Family by the Ton. That's us now.

When Rome stopped being a republic it didn't stop having a Senate and neither have we. It's just more like student government now because that's what dictators do. Russia has a pretend parliament; so does China and North Korea. Just about every week here I ask some Democrat "what's the plan for dealing with this new paradigm that I believe we're already living and invariably they just laugh it off.

Here's Mayor Pete last week. (Maher) "You win but Trump says there are irregularities and he can't give up the office. What do you do?" (Buttigieg) "Well, it's gonna be awkward when Chasten and I are moving into the White House."

And I like Pete, I'm a big fan and I'm glad he sort of won Iowa. But this is not funny.

Maher then went on to place faith in the Bernie mobs to force a defeated Trump out of the White House. That strategy is the one least likely to force Trump to vacate, but that's an issue for another day (maybe).  Nonetheless, Maher points out what few if any people have. If President Trump is re-elected, the "slow-moving coup" (as Maher has at other times put it) will be well on its way to completion.

And as explained, it generally won't be with soldiers in the streets or a declaration by the Attorney General that the Constitution is no longer operative. The buses will still be running while most individuals still will be driving their car to work.  The cops will still be patrolling, probably with a more widespread stop-and-frisk procedure than Mayor Bloomberg ever dreamed of.  You will still be able to get your hair done, then shop for the latest fashions. Your favorite television program will still be telecast- even if it's a news program, although only with hosts and guests the regime approves of.

The roughly 245-year old experiment in representative democracy will end not with a bang but a whimper, and so only occasionally will we stop and call up memories of the way we once were.

Share |

Unity Fetish

In this excerpt  of the Democratic presidential debate, ABC News; Linsey Davis can be seen asking

We come to you, of course, just 48 hours after the acquittal of President Trump. A process that has certainly crystallized the divide in our country. Senator Warren, want to start with you. You have said that on day one of your presidency, one of your first orders of business will be to order your justice department to launch new investigations into the Trump Administration. After a grueling impeachment, and what is likely to be a polarizing election, is investigating President Trump the best way to try to unify the country?

Warren responds

I believe in an independent commission, in our justice department that investigates crimes committed by our own government. It is an important part of accountability. It is an important part for every administration, that we hold ourselves accountable to the American people

Unfortunately, only three other candidates, two with no chance of winning the nomination, responded to this question.  Tom Steyer, asking "is he (Trump) a crook?" answered his own question with "Of course he is. But the job of the people on this stage is to beat him in November, and that’s going to be based on what we can deliver for the American people."

His answer to Davis' question, obviously, is a "no." Worse was Andrew Yang, arguing "We move the country forward. We don’t focus on the mistakes of the leaders that are leaving office."

That leaves Bernie Sanders, the leading candidate, who at a huge rally in New Hampshire on Monday evening declared (as seen at 1:55 of the "Morning Joe" video here)

The reason that we're going to win is that the American people, no matter what their political views may be, are sick and tired of a president who is a pathological liar, who is running a corrupt administration, who is a bully and a vindictive person, who is a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, and a religious bigot.

Strong words- strong words, and largely empty. Sanders' response to the debate question, which impelled Warren- alone among her colleagues- to say "no one is above the law"- was

Along with Elizabeth and Amy, we sat for two weeks listening to the impeachment process, and here’s what I think the horror and the danger of what happened was not only the acquittal of Trump, who in fact committed impeachable offenses, and obstructed Congress. It is the precedent that it set. The precedent that it set. And what that precedent is about now is in the future, you’re going to have presidents who say, “Hey, governor, you want highway money? You better support me, or you’re not going to get it.” Because I am the president, I can do anything I want.

 Hey, Congress, you want to investigate me? Don’t be ridiculous. Who cares about the Congress? Who cares about the separation of powers? Who cares about the constitution of the president? I’m the President of the United States. I have all of the power, and I’m able to intimidate members of my own party. The saddest aspect of this whole thing, is you have Republicans in the Senate who knew better. They knew that Donald Trump is a crook. They knew that Donald Trump is a cheat, but they didn’t have the guts, with the exception of Romney to vote against him. That is a sad day.

And what that precedent is about now is in the future, you’re going to have presidents who say, “Hey, governor, you want highway money? You better support me, or you’re not going to get it.” Because I am the president, I can do anything I want.

No Democratic president will do that. But that's not the issue. Sanders uttered 17 sentences, In none was he sufficiently bold to assert "no one is above the law" or "I expect the Attorney General in my administration to treat Trump as she would any apparent lawbreaker" or anything else to suggest that there will not be a carve-out in a Sanders administration for Trump's transgressions. This is the "authentic" candidate in a Democratic primary campaign- and he won't commit.

Richard Nixon was pardoned by President Gerald Ford. Later, Barack "We don't look backwards, we look forward" Obama turned a blind eye to possible crimes committed by members of the Bush Administration. As Sanders might say- but evidently won't- these set a bad precedent. Nonetheless, thus far we have only one presidential candidate in a Democratic campaign willing and able to state definitively that election to the presidency does not shield an individual from consequences..

Donald Trump may be defeated at the polls, but it appears he nonetheless will be riding off into the sunset, unscathed.

Share |

Vice-President Klobuchar

After Friday's debate in New Hampshire and before he transitioned into a rant against socialism, Chris Matthews gushed about Amy Klobuchar

I'm with the people here so far. I thought Klobuchar was wonderful. I'd never seen her this good. I think she's shown in this last week audacity. What you want to see in a politician is audacity, spontaneity.

You don't have it on a damn script. Be someone home with the lights on, somebody who's there, a human being and that's how she came across tonight. She never raised her voice. She was confident. She looked- I'm sorry it's weird to say this- she seemed like a President tonight. She seemed like the President I would like to have as President.

It was weird, Chris- but only because Amy Klobuchar is not running for President.

Oh, she'd take the nomination if it were handed to her. It is her goal- but has not been, and still is not, her intention. In Westerville, Ohio in the fourth Democratic debate of this presidential cycle, the Minnesota senator slammed her colleague from Massachusetts, the "capitalist to the bone," with "I want to give a reality check here to Elizabeth, because no one on this stage wants to protect billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires."

A few minutes earlier, after Warren had made the (strategic) error of vouching for Medicare for All, Klobuchar had stated

At least Bernie's being honest here and saying how he's going to pay for this and that taxes are going to go up. And I'm sorry, Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we're going to send the invoice.

Responding to the bait from Klobuchar, a couple of weeks later Warren did explain how she would finance her health care plan.

We still don't know the details of Bernard Sanders' health care plan and partly as a result, Sanders now leads the Democratic field. His main rival currently is Pete Buttigieg, like Klobuchar a center-left candidate whose health care notion is closer to that of the Minnesota senator than to that of either Sanders or Warren.

When Warren was Sanders' main challenger, Klobuchar took on Warren rather than condemning Sanders, with whom she also has major disagreements. While Warren and Sanders have avoided criticizing each other, Klobuchar has charged after Buttigieg

At the debate in Manchester on Friday, Klobuchar took a quick shot at Sanders and Warren for their health care plans, then argued

And Pete, while you have a different plan now you sent out a tweet just a few years ago that said, henceforth, forewith, indubitably, affirmatively, you are for Medicare for All for the ages. And so I would like to point out that what leadership is about is taking a position, looking at things and sticking with them.

Later in that debate, she commented

Okay, there you go. Meeting the moment, meeting the moment, we had a moment the last few weeks, mayor, and that moment was these impeachment hearings. And there was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. There was courage from Doug Jones, our friend of Alabama, who took that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney, who took it very, very difficult vote. There was courage, as I read today, about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman being escorted out of the White House, what he did took courage. But what you said, Pete, as you were campaigning through Iowa, as three of us were jurors in that impeachment hearing, you said it was exhausting to watch, and that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons.

It is easy to go after Washington, because that’s a popular thing to do. It is much harder, as I see Senator Shaheen in the front row, such a leader, it is much harder to lead, and much harder to take those difficult positions. Because I think this going after every single thing that people do, because it’s popular to say, and makes you look like a cool newcomer. I just, I don’t think that’s what people want right now. We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us. I think having some experience is a good thing.

At a party dinner on Saturday

Sanders' supporters were quiet or applauding during most other candidates' remarks. Amy Klobuchar even played along during her remarks, turning to the Sanders section and saying, “Hi, Bernie people!”

Amy Klobuchar may look like a President to Chris Matthews, and she wouldn't mind reaching that office. However, playing second fiddle to an elderly president from Vermont is not a bad gig and her audition has been going quite well lately.

Share |

He Has Only Begun

Wishful thinking.

Politico noted "The purge of impeachment witnesses has begun" as it reported

Late Friday, news emerged that Trump had ordered the recall of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union — "effective immediately," the ambassador noted in a statement. Hours earlier, the White House escorted out Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine policy officer on the National Security Counsel — along with his twin brother Yevgeny, who was not an impeachment witness.

It won't be only impeachment witnesses. Five days prior to the Politico story, investigative reporter Gabriel Sherman had written

With Senate Republicans on track to acquit Donald Trump on Wednesday, Washington is bracing for what an unshackled Trump does next. Republicans briefed on Trump’s thinking believe that the president is out for revenge against his adversaries. “It’s payback time,” a prominent Republican told me last week. “He has an enemies list that is growing by the day,” another source said. Names that came up in my conversations with Republicans included Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mitt Romney, and John Bolton. “Trump’s playbook is simple: go after people who crossed him during impeachment.”

Several sources said Bolton is at the top of the list. Trump’s relationship with Bolton was badly damaged by the time Bolton left the White House in September. Trump has since blamed his former national security adviser for leaking details of his forthcoming memoir that nearly derailed the impeachment trial by pressuring Republicans to call witnesses. In the book Bolton reportedly alleges Trump told him directly that Ukraine aid was tied to Ukraine announcing investigations into the Bidens (Bolton has denied being a source of the leak).

The campaign against Bolton has already begun. On January 23, the White House sent a cease and desist letter to Bolton’s lawyer demanding that Bolton’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, not release the book in March without removal of certain information. Trump intends to ratchet up the pressure, and some Republicans close to the White House fear how far Trump will take things after he’s gotten off for a second time (Trump famously made his July 25 call to Volodymyr Zelensky the day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress.) “Trump has been calling people and telling them to go after Bolton,” a source briefed on the private conversations said. The source added that Trump wants Bolton to be criminally investigated. A person familiar with Trump’s thinking said Trump believes Bolton might have mishandled classified information. According to a former official, the White House is planning to leak White House emails from Bolton that purportedly allege Bolton abused his position at the National Security Council. The official said that West Wing officials have discussed releasing emails “showing [Bolton] was doing pay-to-play,” the official said. A person close to Bolton dismissed the story. “John plays things straight,” the person said.

The White House declined to comment.

Now we learn that Trump has started to put his plan into action:

Firing an Inspector General for processing a whistleblower complaint would be an extraordinary blow to whatever shred of government integrity remains. It would be an atom bomb. https://t.co/muWxuoZq2E

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 8, 2020

Four days before the latest event, Sherman was ahead of the curve. Now a CNN legal analyst, who is likely to be proven prescient:

I'm sounding this bell now. It is disgraceful and criminal to demote / fire witnesses - as we are seeing with Vindman, his brother, Sondland.

But this could get even worse - including bogus criminal charges against perceived Trump enemies in FBI and elsewhere. Watch for this.

— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) February 8, 2020

This probably won't be immediate. It's more likely that the President, who needs to be re-elected to carry out his full autocratic agenda, soon will pull back before eventually resuming his purge.

But even Honig's tweet doesn't get at the full extent of the police state Trump is planning to impose. First, he's coming after the witnesses against him. Then it will be (perceived ) enemies in federal law enforcement.  Then, politicians and afterward, journalists, after which we won't know what happens.

Share |

This should not go unnoticed:

I don’t know who needs to hear this but the president said “bullshit” yesterday on network television https://t.co/roeRHWcV6E

— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) February 7, 2020

To be fair (as I always am to Donald J. Trump), the full context of use of a common profanity by the President should be presented. Therefore

We can take that home, honey, maybe we’ll frame it. It’s the only good headline I’ve had in the Washington Post. Every paper is the same, does anybody have them, because they’re all like that and I appreciate that. Some of the people here have been incredible warriors, they’re warriors. And there’s nothing from a legal standpoint. This is a political thing, and every time I say this is unfair, let’s go to court, they say, sir, you can’t go to court, this is politics. And we were treated unbelievably unfairly, and you have to understand we first went through Russia, Russia, Russia. It was all bullshit....

We then went through the Mueller report, and they should have come back one day later...

Wikipedia notes

Free-to-air networks in the U.S. can be divided into four categories:

Commercial networks – which air English-language programming to a general audience (for example, CBS);

Spanish-language networks – fully programmed networks which air Spanish-language programming to a primarily Latin American audience (for example, Telemundo and Univision);

Educational and other non-commercial broadcast networks – which air English- and some foreign-language television programming, intended to be educational in nature or otherwise of a sort not found on commercial television (for example, PBS);

Religious broadcast networks – which air religious study and other faith-based programs, and in some cases, family-oriented secular programs (for example, Daystar)

.

Each network sends its signal to many local affiliate television stations across the country. These local stations then air the "network feed," with programs broadcast by each network being viewed by up to tens of millions of households across the country. In the case of the largest networks, the signal is sent to over 200 stations. In the case of the smallest networks, the signal may be sent to just a dozen or fewer stations.

Most notably missing are Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. That is of no little import because as cable networks, they are broadcast on the basis of subscription services. Therefore, the Federal Communications Commission does not regulate cable networks.

Still, it wouldn't be wise for a host, or even a contributor, on a cable news network to begin spewing profanity.  But that is not what happened yesterday. The President of the United States of America, until at least recently the leader of the free world, uttered a profanity in the opening scene of his victory lap following failure of the US Senate to convict him of abuse of power or contempt of Congress. Moreover, he did it in context, denouncing the probe of the Special Counsel into interference by Russia in the 2016 election.

It's not as if Donald Trump's response to the Mueller probe is being ignored by cable news. We've heard, both in his own words and those of reporters, that he believes it was a "hoax" or a "witch hunt" and yesterday that "we went through hell unfairly." The President thus gets his point across and he does so forcefully, reinforcing his image as a guy who won't back down to his enemies- whom he defines as enemies of the USA.

It's a masterful strategy, demonstrating yet again that Donald Trump is not stupid and probably not deranged.   Cable networks which should know better- MSNBC and CNN- broadcast President Trump's message delivered with what appears to be righteous indignation- and without profanity.  He gets to have it both ways, with his supporters, disproportionately elderly, exposed to his storyline without being exposed to the crass language.

The public needs to hear the President's words, unsanitized. Reporting that Donald Trump used profanity, blotting out part of the word- as in "bull****," doesn't get it done.  He has said it, and he's President of the United States of America, president of the 359+ million people of the country.

Cable news networks could ignore the President's speeches entirely, which understandably they won't do. So they should broadcast all of it and treat Trump's use of obscene language as newsworthy- because it is. They do sometimes but far too infrequently (video from March, 2019).

To do less is to give Donald Trump a free pass. They normalized him in 2016 and repetition in 2020 likely would have far greater, more devastating, consequences.

<
Share |