Skip to content

Month: November 2015

Polling the Turkey pardon

Polling the Turkey pardon

by digby

It’s hard to believe this is real except well, I guess it is:

The examples of the GOP’s reflexive opposition to President Obama’s agenda are many but this may be the best one yet: by a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President’s executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President’s executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that’s a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama’s name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there’s 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.

They prefer their leaders to babble incoherently in front of Turkey killing machines. I get that. But what the hell is wrong with all those Democrats who disapprove?

The rest of the poll is kind of fun too. They ask which presidential candidate is the most likely to ruin Thanksgiving. I think you can guess who that is. By a mile.

By the way, the Turkey pardon tradition was started by President Reagan when Sam Donaldson was asking him if he planned to pardon his partners in Iran-Contra crime while he was walking past the White House turkey and he quipped, “maybe I’ll pardon this guy.”

.

Your wingnut uncle and the liberal brownshirts

Your wingnut uncle and the liberal brownshirts

by digby

You know all those articles you see every year about how to argue with your conservative uncle at Thanksgiving?  Well, unsurprisingly, the conservative uncles are very upset about it.  I wrote about it for Salon this morning:

The Thanksgiving holiday seems like one of those rare occasions in American life where virtually everyone shares a similar experience, the traditions of the family gathering, the food, the football, the sometimes contentious discussions among people who love each other but nonetheless have different worldviews and political beliefs. It’s become something of a cliché, in fact, with an annual flurry of tongue-in-cheek articles in newspapers and other publications giving advice on how to handle that obnoxious uncle’s unpopular opinions at the Thanksgiving dinner table.
And yes, these articles are usually aimed at liberals trying to deal with that drunken Limbaugh-listening relative who insists on baiting everyone at the table by going on about the pet right-wing outrage of the moment and passing on talk radio propaganda as if it had been delivered directly from God. These stories are so ubiquitous that it’s fair to assume this must be a fairly common experience.
It’s undoubtedly also true that conservative families often have to deal with the college kid who’s home for Thanksgiving break and decides to regale the table with her newfound knowledge that everything they believe in is the result of corporate brainwashing and that Ayn Rand turns out to be a fraud. These days there will likely be a lot of talk at those tables about trigger warnings, cultural appropriation and safe spaces, all things that will sound to the drunken uncles as if they are being discussed in a foreign language. (National Review would-be humorist Charles C.W. Cooke tried to tackle this last year with mixed results.)
The difference between these two phenomena is best illustrated by the massive whining and tantrums that result from any joking around about it. And no, I’m not talking about the college kids. Yes, they might get frustrated and call their parents “haters” and flounce off to their rooms, but they are, after all, still kids.  No, the people who are hysterical over this are conservatives who have worked themselves up into a full-blown hysterical meltdown over it.
This year, the Democratic National Committee put together a funny little website called “Your Republican Uncle” in which they use this annual holiday trope as a way to explain some of the issues important to Democrats in a mildly amusing format. Evidently, the right has been unaware up until now that Democrats don’t agree with them, because this clearly hit a very sensitive nerve. Even as they dismiss it all as inane folly, they went to incredible lengths to angrily debunk the “talking points” in lengthy blog posts on such major websites as Hot-Air, where chief writer Allaahpundit was spitting mad:
The takeaway from these sites is that liberals are so cloistered from interaction with conservatives and so insecure in their own basic political beliefs that they actually need to be prepped before the most basic social engagement with the enemy. If you think that’s a good look for your movement, you do you.
I’m fairly sure that he’s taking this a lot more seriously than any liberal takes it. But he wasn’t alone on his righteous indignation. Conservative blogger Ace of Spades wrote an entire treatise on how to deal with the miscreant liberals in your family when they use any of these “Vox explainer” talking points. It’s very elaborate and very, very serious:
I herewith humbly submit these first sketches of a new branch of Lifemanship I call “Thankgivingmanship,” which I define as the gentle art of insulting the stupid without alerting them to the fact that they’ve been insulted at all.
It is the goal of the dedicated Thanksgivingman, then, to achieve the sublime art of giving offense without offense being taken.
My basic strategy is thus: It would be as rude of you as it is rude of your cretinous grownchildren kin to allow a Thanksgiving dinner into a stupid game of Rachel Maddow Talking Points and their rebuttals.
So, rather than confront the unemployed idiots who will be assailing you, I propose instead to superficially avoid conflict and engagement on their dummy mouthflappings, and appear instead to agree with them.
But — and here is the point — a skilled Thanksgivingman will only appear to agree with the grownchildren to feeble intellects, such as those possessed by the grownchildren themselves. Instead of disagreeing with them — which will cause argument and anger — you will instead claim to agree with them, while in fact contradicting them, subverting them, of baffling them with statements that nearly, but do not quite, make sense.
As I said, it’s all very elaborate. He goes on to lay out a complicated set of tactical arguments designed to tie the foolish liberal up in knots. It is obviously something that merits a lot of serious thought and preparation. Clearly, it’s extremely important.
But nobody is more intent upon taking up the momentous challenge of the Thanksgiving liberal talking points conspiracy than the man who says his talent in on loan from God, Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh was hopping mad about all this on his show yesterday and he didn’t mince words. He went on for about half an hour on the subject, very upset and disturbed by what these liberals are doing to the institution of the family:

Click over to read the rest. Rush even starts babbling about liberal brownshirts at the table.
I’m not kidding.

.

A Thanksgiving thing I did not know

A Thanksgiving thing I did not know

by digby

I bet many of you didn’t know it either.  From James Ledbetter:

You hear a lot these days about how much businesses dislike “uncertainty.” It’s too hard, goes the refrain, to figure out how financial reform is going to play out, or how much heath care reform is going to cost. Better to play it safe and not hire anyone.

But at least today’s businesses are reasonably assured of a stable calendar. During the latter years of Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, this was not the case. In August of 1939, President Roosevelt was taking a brief summer fishing trip on Campobello Island in New Brunswick, Canada, just over the border from southeastern Maine. A handful of journalists were gathered in the living room of the red cottage that had belonged to the president’s mother. After some discussion of the tensions in Europe—this was August 14, less than three weeks before the German invasion of Poland—FDR said to the newsmen: “Oh! I will give you a story I had entirely forgotten. I have been having from a great many people, for the last six years, complaints that Thanksgiving Day came too close to Christmas. Now this sounds silly.” But the president went on to explain that the tradition that had begun with Abraham Lincoln of annually celebrating Thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November created a time window between Labor Day and Thanksgiving that was too long without a holiday, and a time window between Thanksgiving and Christmas that was too short.

The first issue the President had already fixed, by making Columbus Day a national holiday in 1937. To address the second one, he would simply move Thanksgiving to an earlier date. “The stores and people who work, retail people, etc. are very anxious to have [Thanksgiving] set forward,” he explained. And 1939 provided an ideal opportunity for shifting what FDR labeled “a perfectly movable feast.” There were five Thursdays in November that year, and so moving Thanksgiving from the 30th to the 23rd would make it not much earlier than it had been the previous year (the 24th), and yet give the retailers the extra week between Thanksgiving and Christmas they were clamoring for.

In keeping with the light, summer mood, there was only one question from the press: “This year, Mr. President?” The answer was quick: “This year, yes,” and then the President went back to arguing that there is “nothing sacred about” the date of the celebration, noting that “in the early days of the Republic, it was held sometime in October.”

The seeming spontaneity of the announcement belied the fact that the remarks had been scripted for FDR a week before. One of his aides, Lowell Mellett, a former Scripps-Howard newsman who would go on to head the movie division of the Office of War Information, had in fact provided the President with different versions of how he might present his plan to the public. Moreover, as FDR indicated in his press conference, the issue had come up before. In 1933 and 1934, November also had five Thursdays, and a diverse group of merchants had conducted a public campaign to have the date changed; the most prominent push had come from the National Retail Dry Goods Association. But the administration was far too busy trying to implement the National Industrial Recovery Act, and rebuffed requests to change the date.

For all the years of considering the question, however, no one in the administration seems to have given much thought as to the logistics of moving a major holiday. This left them stunningly, comically unprepared for how the country would react, especially given just three months notice. In early July, the President drafted a letter he wanted to send to each state Governor asking “your personal thought” about moving the holiday—not to the second-to-last Thursday of November, but rather to Monday, November 15th. (FDR had long held that Mondays made the best holidays, because workers could get a three-day weekend.) “I am saying nothing about it until I have heard from the Governors,” FDR wrote.

The Governors’ responses would likely have kept FDR from making the change, or at a minimum persuaded him to begin the new observance in 1940 rather than immediately. But the letters were never sent. And so prior to Roosevelt’s Campobello bombshell a month later, essentially no one—not Governors, not clergymen, not even the retailers who’d dreamt up the idea—knew that Thanksgiving in 1939 would come a week early.

It’s hard to name a group of Americans who weren’t thrown off by the change in date. Pleasing businessmen had been FDR’s stated goal, and many of the large department stores hailed the move; the president of Lord and Taylor predicted that the shift could create an extra billion dollars in additional commerce. But business rarely speaks with a single voice, and FDR angered quite a few industries by giving so little advance notice. Food distributors, for example, had production and shipping schedules set for months, and in some cases they couldn’t be moved. A week makes a difference in the lifespan of an early navel orange, noted the Chamber of Commerce of Lindsay, California, which complained that the crop would not be ready in time for the earlier date, and thus no one would be eating oranges on Thanksgiving. “Cutting off one week of this valuable holiday market will cost shippers of this and adjoining districts many thousands of dollars,” its telegram said.

More urgent complaints came from companies that printed and distributed calendars. Their 1940 products had already been produced, and they now faced the prospect of selling calendars with the wrong date for an important national holiday two years in a row. “This is a great hardship on our part as we have already printed over three million Calendar Pads for 1940 with the date as the custom had been, the last Thursday in November,” wrote the president of APT Lithographic. The president of the Symphony Orchestra of Albany—where FDR had served as governor—tried to speak for many, writing the President: “Literally thousands of organizations throughout the country who are forced to arrange definite dates, often a year in advance, will suffer by this unexpected change.”

Some of the loudest grumbling came from colleges and high schools that had scheduled Thanksgiving football games and other festivities, and now scrambled to see if different plans could be made. The coach of Ouachita College made his protest explicitly political, telling the Associated Press “We will vote the Republican ticket if he interferes with our football,” which, in what was then solidly Democratic Arkansas, bordered on treason.

Even ordinary citizens were baffled and outraged; thousands wrote and sent telegrams to the White House to complain. Many had given little thought to why this quasi-sacred holiday was celebrated on the day that it always had been, and thus expressed disbelief that the President—or indeed anyone—had the power to shift the day. “You can no more change my day of Thanksgiving than you can change the shape of the moon,” wrote a man from Darby, Pennsylvania.

But one group was in a position to do more than gripe: the 48 state Governors. Since there had never been federal legislation making Thanksgiving a holiday, the existence of a presidential proclamation was not binding on the states. Governors could declare a day of Thanksgiving any day they wanted to, as many states had done going back (at least in New England) to the 17th century. And so nearly half the states simply ignored the White House plan and observed Thanksgiving on the 30th. Thanksgiving 1939 was the most chaotic, most fractured celebration the holiday has ever seen, in the 150 years that it has been observed nationwide. The country was almost evenly split between the two Thanksgivings: 26 states and the District of Columbia carved their turkeys on the earlier day, while 21 states did so on the later day. In Texas, where they both raise turkeys and love football, Governor Lee O’Daniel decided that both days would be official holidays.

In keeping with the polarization that characterized Roosevelt’s entire tenure in office, the split was largely partisan. In New England, where Thanksgiving had been celebrated the longest, all of the governors stuck by the traditional date; then again, all the New England governors were Republicans. Only five Republican governors—in Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—joined with the Democratic governors celebrating Thanksgiving on the 23rd. Perhaps inevitably, the two days became known as “Democrat Thanksgiving” (the 23rd) and “Republican Thanksgiving” (the 30th); some referred to the 23rd as “Franksgiving.” A Peter Arno cartoon in The New Yorker captured the divide perfectly. At an upper-crust Thanksgiving dinner, a woman tells her turkey-toting butler: “Bring Mr. Rogers some bacon and eggs, Bassett. He’s not celebrating till next week.”

Actually, for butlers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, the situation was even more complicated. Thursdays were traditionally the day off for domestic workers—butlers, chauffeurs, maids—employed by wealthy Californians. To make up for the fact that many would have to work two consecutive Thursdays they declared a third celebration—dubbed Domestic Workers’ Thanksgiving—on November 16th. English actor Arthur Treacher—the most famous onscreen butler of the day—was the guest of honor at a seven-course dinner and floor show at the Biltmore Ballroom in downtown Los Angeles.

Despite all the confusion, Roosevelt stuck to his guns and insisted that 1940’s Thanksgiving also be moved up a week—that is, on November’s third Thursday (the 21st) instead of the fourth. With Roosevelt resoundingly re-elected in 1940, a few more governors came on board that year; a total of 32 states observed the holiday on the 21st. Yet the bifurcated holiday only added to the strife and confusion. In part because so many 1940 calendars had been distributed showing November 28th as Thanksgiving, surprising numbers of people—state governors, university presidents, schools, lodges, church groups, families planning reunions—were unsure when the “real” Thanksgiving would take place, and wrote the White House to ask. As late as July 1940, the head of the marketing department at Birds Eye Quick-Frozen Turkeys found himself having to politely ask the White House about the right date, “so that we will be able to make some decision as to the purchase of turkeys and to plan our advertising activities more accurately.” The 1942 Fred Astaire and Bing Crosby musical Holiday Inn introduces a Thanksgiving scene with a November calendar with a cartoon turkey sitting comfortably on the last Thursday, who then switches back and forth between that day and the previous week, until he gives up and faces the audience with a shrug.

And after all that strife, the plan didn’t work. New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia was generally a supporter of the president’s, and was concerned that FDR was taking all the political heat. So he instructed the city’s commerce commissioner to launch a study into whether sales had gone up or down. When LaGuardia’s comprehensive survey was finished in the spring of 1941, he wrote to the president: “There is no indication from the aggregate sales figures that the Holiday trade during November and December was greater with the observance of the new Thanksgiving date in 1939 and 1940, respectively, than with the date heretofore observed.” What retailers wanted—overwhelmingly—was a single national day, regardless of whether it was the last or second-to-last Thursday in November.

And thus, the administration was forced to retreat. On May 21, 1941, the President admitted in a press conference that his Thanksgiving shopping stimulus experiment “did not work.” Roosevelt had made a firm commitment to the calendar makers to keep 1941’s Thanksgiving where it had been planned, but 1942 would see the restoration of the traditional date. Meanwhile, Congress was motivated to ground Thanksgiving with an official, national piece of legislation. Yet here, too, there was a faction that advocated a simple return to the last Thursday, against those who saw an opportunity to address permanently the issue of late Thanksgiving that had so perturbed America’s retailers. In November, the Senate Judiciary committee changed the wording in a law that had been passed by the House, substituting “fourth” Thursday for “last.”

Although Roosevelt was no longer directly involved in the Thanksgiving debate, the country’s political division clouded the seemingly simple task of picking a Thursday. In Senate debate, veteran Roosevelt nemesis Robert Taft argued that the proposed fourth Thursday raised the question of “whether we are now compromising between the Executive and history.” However, those who agreed with Taft had little stomach for fighting over the day of Thanksgiving once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Both houses agreed to the fourth Thursday, and President Roosevelt signed the bill into law on the Day after Christmas. Even then, a few states stubbornly refused to acknowledge anything but the last Thursday. As late as 1950, five states chose the fifth Thursday in November as their Thanksgiving; only with the nation at war in Korea in 1951 did all Americans once again sit down to the Thanksgiving table on the same day. On the list of things to be thankful for, knowing in advance when a holiday will take place ranks fairly high.

Nothing is ever easy.

Your Thanksgiving Turkeys by @BloggersRUs

Your Thanksgiving Turkeys
by Tom Sullivan

News reports of the annually banal pardoning of the White House turkey triggered memories of that video where Sarah Palin blathers on about whatever Sarah Palin was blathering on about, word-salad-wise, while behind her a workman looks on while he slaughters a turkey.

Several of our current GOP presidential candidates thought it might look more dignified if the turkey they were mock-pardoning was in black tie:

Gotta say the hands visibly holding the turkey’s legs from underneath a velvet cushion are bit of a distraction, if not quite as Palinesque as a workman holding a turkey’s legs while bleeding it out into a trough.

It got me thinking about other “turkeys.” Martin Longman at Political Animal recalls how Palin’s run for vice-president meant her party had to — en masse — spend two undignified months pretending that the truth doesn’t matter, nor any standards for holding high office:

And so, now, seven years down the road, it’s gotten to the point that Republicans have realized that they can say anything they want and just blame media bias if anyone calls them on their lies.

Palin basically invented this is a survival strategy after she fell on her face in her first big interview with Katie Couric. It’s now more than a survival strategy. It’s the Republican Party’s modus operandi.

Politico lists some of the looniest quotes from the 2016 campaign trail so far, including Jim Webb’s grenade story and Donald Trump’s “blood coming out of her wherever” smear of Megyn Kelly.

And Peace on Earth and Good Will towards y’all too:

The organizer of a recent armed anti-Muslim protest at an Irving mosque published the names and addresses of dozens of Muslims and “Muslim sympathizers” online Wednesday.

David Wright III copied an Irving city document that included the personal information of people who signed up to speak before the City Council voted in March to support a state bill aimed at blocking Muslim influence.

Wright, who organized Saturday’s armed protest against the “Islamization of America” outside the Irving Islamic Center, posted on Facebook “the name and address of every Muslim and Muslim sympathizer that stood up for … Sharia tribunals in Irving.”

David Dayen found this turkey buried in the Times:

Finally, Stephen Colbert gets to the bottom of how one securely ships a specially stuffed turkey:

Happy Thanksgiving.

QOTD: politically correct protest behavior edition

QOTD: politically correct protest behavior edition

by digby

Via TPM:

During a panel discussion on her show, Kelly interrupted when she saw an image of a man staring at a police officer in Chicago during the protests.

“I just want to jump in as we’re seeing an extraordinary moment. Look what’s happening here,” Kelly said.

Former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik told Kelly, “Listen, you’re going to have guys like this. You know, they want to instigate.”

Richard Fowler jumped in to protest Kerik’s comment and said, “What is he instigating? Bernie, I’m sorry I’ve got to interrupt.”

“But Richard look at him,” Kelly responded. “This is a cop out there accused of doing nothing wrong, trying to keep the peace.”

Fowler said that it was the protester’s First Amendment right.

“This guy is having a silent protest with this police officer,” he said.

“He gets right in his face and stares him down? This cop hasn’t done anything wrong,” Kelly replied.

“You think that’s fine? You have no problem with this?” Kelly later asked Fowler after he maintained that the protester had a right to stare down the officer.

“This is his first amendment right. This biggest problem here is…” Fowler said in response.

“It’s not a question of what his constitutional rights are. It’s a question of what’s appropriate,” Kelly hit back.

Recall how Kelly covered the armed Bundy protests. Let’s just say she wasn’t all that concerned about the “appropriateness” of it all.

.

The birther is back

The birther is back

by digby

Trump was the King of the Birthers going back at least five years. He’s back in the saddle:

We can’t close our eyes. I don’t know what’s wrong with Obama, he wants to close his eyes and pretend it’s not happening. Why is he so emphatic on not solving the problem? There’s something we don’t know about. There’s something we don’t know about.

This follows on a conversation he had with the reprehensible Michael Savage last week:

Yesterday, Donald Trump spoke with right-wing radio host Michael Savage about his plan to take on ISIS, bragging that he came up with the U.S. plan to attack the group’s oil infrastructure, which he said only started “about two days ago.” (The U.S. has actually launched hundreds of attacks against the so-called Islamic State’s oil infrastructure since last August.)

“Does anybody say, ‘Thank you Donald?” he asked. “Nobody. I’ve been the only one.”

Savage went on to ask Trump what he believes is President Obama’s “real reason for flooding America with Muslims from Syria,” which Trump said was “hard to imagine.”

“Obviously some people think it’s evil intentions, I think it’s incompetence, regardless, a lot of people think it’s evil intentions.”

He’s being unusually cagey there. Normally he would just come right out and accuse someone of being a terrorist loving Muslim. I expect it won’t be long before he does. He’s getting there.

.

That pumpkin cake

That pumpkin cake

by digby

Many years back on Thanksgiving eve I ran this recipe for Pumpkin Cake and received a very nice note from Washington Post journalist Karen Tumulty saying that she’d been tooling around the web for something to bake and tried it and liked it. Ever since then I’ve called it Karen Tumulty cake. And I run it every Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

It’s easy even for non bakers and it really is very good.

For cake

* (3/4 cup) softened unsalted butter.
* 2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour plus additional for dusting pan
* 2 teaspoons baking powder
* 1 teaspoon baking soda
* 1 teaspoon cinnamon
* 3/4 teaspoon ground allspice
* 2 tablespoons crystalized ginger, finely chopped
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 1 1/4 cups canned pumpkin
* 3/4 cup well-shaken buttermilk
* 1 teaspoon vanilla
* 1 1/4 cups granulated sugar
* 3 large eggs

Icing

* 2 tablespoons plus 2 teaspoons well-shaken buttermilk
* 1 1/2 cups confectioners sugar,
* 1/4 cup chopped walnuts
* a 10-inch nonstick bundt pan

Preheat oven to 350°F. Butter bundt pan generously.

Sift flour (2 1/4 cups), baking powder, baking soda, cinnamon, allspice, and salt in a bowl. Whisk together pumpkin, 3/4 cup buttermilk, ginger and vanilla in another bowl.

Beat butter and granulated sugar in a large bowl with an electric mixer at medium-high speed until pale and fluffy, add eggs and beat 1 minute. Reduce speed to low and add flour and pumpkin mixtures alternately in batches, beginning and ending with flour mixture, just until smooth.

Spoon batter into pan, then bake until a wooden pick inserted in center of cake comes out clean, 45 to 50 minutes. Cool cake in pan 15 minutes, then invert rack over cake and reinvert cake onto rack. Cool 10 minutes more.

Icing:

Whisk together buttermilk and confectioners sugar until smooth. Drizzle over warm cake, sprinkle with chopped walnuts (keep a little icing in reserve to drizzle lightly over walnuts) then cool cake completely. Icing will harden slightly.

Easy as pie (easier, actually.)

.

“They’re all gay!”

“They’re all gay!”

by digby

Brian Beutler at TNR catches National Review’s Kevin Williamson calling Donald Trump names:

What is truly remarkable about the Donald J. Trump presidential phenomenon is the aesthetics of it, which are gay in a way that not even Trump’s own gilt-rococo/Louis XIV taste in interior decorating can quite match.

In other words, Trump’s gay. Of course. Beutler sees this as a PeeWee Hermanesque rejoinder to the group of online Trump fans who like to insult Republicans who don’t like Trump as “cuckservatives” — an awkward melding of the words cuckhold and conservative.

But this is really just standard schoolyard stuff that’s been part of GOP politics forever. This is actually nothing compared to my favorite example:

.

Deportation, torture, summary execution. What would you call it?

Deportation, beatings, torture, summary execution. What would you call it?

by digby

I wrote about Trump and “f” word today for Salon:

Over the past week or so, something unusual has happened in American politics: political figures, mainstream scholars and commentators are describing a leading contender for president of the United States as a fascist. Sure, people on barstools around the country have done this forever but it’s unprecedented to see such a thing on national television and in the pages of major newspapers.
For instance, take a look at this piece by MJ Lee at CNN:
[I]t it was after Trump started calling for stronger surveillance of Muslim-Americans in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks that a handful of conservatives ventured to call Trump’s rhetoric something much more dangerous: fascism.
[…]
“Trump is a fascist. And that’s not a term I use loosely or often. But he’s earned it,” tweeted Max Boot, a conservative fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who is advising Marco Rubio.
“Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious identity, is fascism. Period. Nothing else to call it,” Jeb Bush national security adviser John Noonan wrote on Twitter.
Conservative Iowa radio host Steve Deace, who has endorsed Ted Cruz, also used the “F” word last week: “If Obama proposed the same religion registry as Trump every conservative in the country would call it what it is — creeping fascism.”
Yes, this is a hard fought primary campaign with insults flying in every direction. But ask yourself when was the last time you heard Republicans using the “F” word against someone running in their own party? I can’t remember it happening in decades. It’s possible that some members of the GOP establishment called Barry Goldwater a fascist in 1964 (Democrats did, for sure) but that was half a century ago. In recent years this just has not been considered politically correct on left or right.
The CNN story goes on to interview various scholars who all say that to one degree or another Trump is, indeed, fascistic if not what we used to call “a total fascist.” Historian Rick Perlstein was the first to venture there when he wrote this piece some months back,
It’s hard to understand why this has been so difficult to see. On the day he announced his campaign, Trump openly said he believed that undocumented workers are not just criminals (that’s a common refrain among the anti-immigrant right which fatuously chants “they broke the law by coming here”) but violent rapists, killers and gang members. He said he wants to deport millions of people, including American citizens. In fact, he wants to restrict American citizenship to people whose parents are citizens, and thus are guaranteed citizenship by the 14th amendment.
For months Trump has been saying that we cannot allow Syrian refugees into the country and promising to send the ones who are already here back. He has indicated a willingness to require American Muslims to register with the government and thinks they should be put under surveillance.
He condemns every other country on earth as an enemy, whether economic, military or both, and promises to beat them to “make America great again.” Despite the fact that the U.S. is the world’s only superpower, he says he will make it so strong that “nobody will ever mess with us again” so that it was “highly, highly, highly, unlikely” that he would have to use nuclear weapons.
And he said quite clearly that he believes,
“we’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule… And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago…”
Does that add up to fascism? Yeah, pretty much. In his book, “Rush, Newspeak and Fascism” David Neiwert explained that the dictionary definition of the word often leaves out the most important characteristics of the philosophy, which are “its claims to represent the “true character” of the respective national identities among which it arises; and its mythic core of national rebirth — not to mention its corporatist component, its anti-liberalism, its glorification of violence and its contempt for weakness.” If that’s not Donald Trump I don’t know what is.

More at the link.

He’s also encouraging his followers to beat up protesters and routinely claims the military should have summarily executed Bowe Bergdahl — which he says the country would have done in the past “when we were strong.” Call him whatever you want but it doesn’t change what he is.

.