Skip to content

Month: February 2018

What is the Resistance anyway?

What is the Resistance anyway?

by digby

I asked that question in my Salon column this morning:
The last couple of weeks have had me thinking about what defines the “Resistance,” the movement that spontaneously sprang up in the wake of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in 2016. It’s hard to know exactly what to make of it, since the Resistance is not a movement with a single charismatic leader, or a specific platform beyond a broad consensus that concerned citizens must do whatever they can to oppose Trump and the Republican agenda. It’s fundamentally a call to action and it is happening in dozens of different ways all over the country. And it’s not just about pink hats and demonstrations.

We’re seeing the birth of a student movement in real time, as high school kids stand up and demand that adults put a stop to mass shootings and the proliferation of guns in the wake of last week’s bloody carnage in Parkland, Florida. We’ve had many such horrible events, some even more overwhelming, just in the last year, with hundreds of people shot at concerts and churches and nightclubs and yes, schools, always schools. We cried out in horror, with most of us feeling we knew what needed to be done. But there was a sense of underlying hopelessness and despair that once again the atrocity would pass and we would be right back where we started. That’s only human. After all, it keeps happening.
ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

But these young people aren’t burdened by those past disappointments, and they are not taking no for an answer. Filled with energy and determination, they are infusing Americans with badly needed hope and inspiration again. They are not afraid of Trump and the NRA. They are the Resistance.

Another movement took shape this year that’s overturning American culture in ways we can’t yet measure. That would be #MeToo, the rallying cry that has opened America’s eyes to the pervasive practice of sexual harassment and the plague of sexual assault. This should not come as a total surprise. After all, a blatant misogynist and serial sexual harasser who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault any woman he wanted and get away with it was elected president. Many woman in this country were deeply shocked and offended by that and realized they would have to take matters into their own hands. They are the Resistance too.

There are the Dreamers fighting for their lives and NFL players taking a knee for Black Lives Matter. There was the Women’s March and yes, even those Republican apostates who are drumming themselves out of their own tribe with their criticisms of Trump and their party. These are all factions of the Resistance, doing what they can to fight back. They are all making a difference. You can’t have civic action without passion and courage, and they and many others are demonstrating those characteristics every day.

But resistance to the current regime also requires nuts-and-bolts electoral politics. The single most important fight of the near term is coming up this November, as Americans have their first chance to change the majority in Congress and exercise real oversight of the Trump administration. That’s happening on the ground all over the country among grassroots volunteers who are working night and day to get Democrats elected on all levels of government. People like my friend, the writer and longtime activist Tom Sullivan in North Carolina, who is getting massive interest from grassroots activists in all 50 states for his logistical primer on local Get Out the Vote drives.

There have been quite a few good articles about these new political organizers and candidates over the last few months. Joan Walsh at the Nation (the former editor of Salon) has followed the story of suburban women around the country who have been volunteering, running campaigns or running themselves. Rebecca Traister of New York magazine (another Salon alumna) has explored similar stories. David Weigel often writes about the emergence of a new grassroots politics for the Washington Post.

Even as it’s being well documented by smart writers, this isn’t a story that gets wall-to-wall coverage on cable news or big Town Hall style events. But this shift toward grassroots politics led by women might just end up being the most powerful of all the Resistance factions.

Academics Lara Putnam and Theda Skocpol have been studying this phenomenon and published a new report in Democracy about it this week. They observed and collected detailed questionnaires from hundreds of political organizers and participants in grassroots groups.

This is not a leftist Tea Party, because newly engaged suburban activists hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left. It’s not a Sanders versus Clinton redux, because that “last year’s news” divide is flatly irrelevant to the people working shoulder-to-shoulder in the present. It’s not an Occupy Wall Street-type questioning of liberal democracy, because these activists believe laws can make good government as strong and transparent as possible. It’s not the 1960s, with young people leading the way — although there are lots of helpful teenagers in the background saying, “Mom, it’s fine: go to your meeting; I’ll get dinner myself.”

The protagonists of the trends we report on are mainly college-educated suburban white women. We tell their stories not because college-educated white women are the most Democratic slice of the electorate (they aren’t) or because they are the most progressive voices within the Democratic Party (they aren’t) or because they have a special claim to lead the left moving forward (they don’t: nor do they pretend to). Rather, what we report here is that it is among these college-educated, middle-aged women in the suburbs that political practices have most changed under Trump. If your question is how the panorama of political possibility has shifted since November 2016, your story needs to begin here.

There’s a reason for that. The country is sharply polarized between metropolitan and rural, red and blue. These suburbs are where the best opportunities for change lie. This group of white, middle-aged women, many of whom normally vote Republican, are one of the keys.

They are working on issues and are highly motivated by everything from the Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act to Trump’s bellicose threats toward North Korea. But I think Putnam and Skocpol have homed in on the reason why this particular element of the Resistance is powerful and important, even beyond its organizing skills: They report that “the common refrain everywhere is about protecting American democracy and reclaiming citizen ownership of public life.”

In resisting Trump’s divisive demagoguery they are, quite simply, trying to restore some basic decency and integrity to our politics. Through their hard work, with little credit or glory, they hope to bring back some sense of civic and cultural unity. They hope to restore what many of us fear has been lost, a social glue that can perhaps remind this angry, polarized nation that Americans are still worthy of self-respect.

.

Learning to fight by @BloggersRUs

Learning to fight
by Tom Sullivan


Still image from Unforgiven (1992)

Little Bill Daggett: It ain’t so easy to shoot a man anyhow, especially if the son-of-a-bitch is shootin’ back at you. I mean, that’ll just flat rattle some folks.

Federal flight deck officer training was the most serious instruction he had ever experienced. He was a skateboarder and a skydiver when we met in college and never served in the military. Instead, my friend worked his way up over the years in the piloting business starting with his first solo flight. From instrument rating to multi-engine, he’d accumulated flight hours flying float planes in Alaska, air ambulance in the Virgin Islands, and air freight in multi-engine jets before he getting his first airline job.

He and other pilots trained at a federal facility in Georgia to use a handgun in the close quarters of an airliner. Learning to operate the handgun was the least of it. Most of the training, he said, was mental. Psychology. It was intense.

Brandon Friedman got his training in the infantry and served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn’t his weapon that saved his life one night. It was the training. He writes in the New York Daily News:

The first (and only) time I was in close-quarter combat, I got tunnel vision. It happened so fast that when I went to squeeze the trigger, my safety was still on. In that instant, I almost panicked, thinking my weapon had jammed. Then the training kicked in. I flipped the selector switch to semi and started shooting.

It was over in seconds. My full field of vision returned, and an otherwise quiet evening in northern Iraq became bodies, broken glass, empty shell casings and ringing ears.

Seven years of training led up to that moment. How to react had been drilled into me. And still, I was caught so off guard by the attack that my reflexes had failed initially. It was nearly fatal.

Which is why Friedman concludes the notion of arming teachers as a way of thwarting school shootings is absurd. There were armed guards at Columbine, he writes. And at the Pulse nightclub, in Las Vegas, and at Stoneman Douglas High School last week. Stopping a mass shooting isn’t as simple as a “good guy” having a gun.

Learning to shoot is one thing. Learning to fight is something else, especially when the target isn’t paper and is shooting at you.

“Anyone who tells you that arming teachers is a solution is clueless,” Friedman writes.

The response to the Parkland shootings feels different from other mass shootings because the aggrieved and grieving students are not just protesting. They are not just arming themselves with facts in usual lefty fashion. They are focusing their anger. They are learning how to fight, and they are learning quickly. Posters and Twitter and Facebook are merely weapons. The mental focus to keep their heads with the NRA shooting back at them (rhetorically) takes training. They will get it. They have allies. Trained ones.

The #Resistance, #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter and other movements have begun to coalesce and show the way. Bishop Dr. William J Barber II‎ of the #PoorPeoplesCampaign leads crowds in chanting, “Forward Together, Not One Step Back!” Together is the key. They have learned an attack on one is an attack on all. Those who understand we are all in this together are more powerful united than those who preach every man for himself. Which is why opponents will try their best to divides us. It has worked in the past.

Maybe not this time.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Whither the generals?

Whither the generals?

by digby

Not that I blame anyone for getting away from Trump but this sounds as though it’s coming from his side:

Longstanding friction between U.S. President Donald Trump and two top aides, the National Security Adviser and the Chief of Staff, has grown to a point that either or both might quit soon, four senior administration officials said.

Both H.R. McMaster and John Kelly are military men considered by U.S. political observers as moderating influences on the president by imposing a routine on the White House. They have also convinced Trump of the importance of international alliances, particularly NATO, which he has criticized as not equally sharing its burdens with the United States.

However, all the officials were quick to add that the tensions could blow over, at least for now, as have previous episodes of discord between the president and other top officials who have fallen out of favor, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Asked about sources saying that either National Security Adviser McMaster or Chief of Staff Kelly, or both, might be leaving, White House spokesman Raj Shah on Thursday did not address the possibility. He said, “the president has full confidence in each member of the team.” Press secretary Sarah Sanders said on Tuesday that Trump “still has confidence in General McMaster.”

Neither Kelly nor McMaster responded to requests for comment on whether they would remain in the administration.

Trump swatted McMaster in a Twitter post after his comments at a European conference last weekend that he was certain Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election campaign, which Trump has been reluctant to acknowledge.

Kelly and McMaster have chafed at Trump’s treatment of them in public and in private, which both at times have considered insulting, said all four officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The current and most potent irritant, they said, is Kelly’s effort, supported by McMaster, to prevent administration officials who have been unable to obtain permanent high-level security clearances from having access to the government’s most closely held secrets.

Under pressure to act last week, Kelly strengthened the security clearance process in response to a scandal involving Rob Porter, a former official accused of domestic abuse by two ex-wives. Staffers whose interim clearances have been pending since June would have them revoked on Friday.

I knew Kushner and Ivanka wanted Kelly out but I didn’t know about McMaster. Maybe it’s the security clearance issue. The article says that there is speculation that if Trump waives the security clearance requirement for his family it may be the last straw.

I have no particular respect for either one but it’s likely that whoever he brings in next will be even worse. I keep seeing John Bolton’s name bandied about on Fox News. And we know who Trump listens to don’t we?

QOTD: Grandpa holding forth at the family reunion

QOTD: Grandpa holding forth at the family reunion

by digby

Seriously, it’s never more embarrassing to have Donald Trump as president than when he tries to talk policy. Here he is today talking about violence and suggesting that we need ratings systems on video games and the internet — and movies. He thinks he just came up with it on the spot. Because he’s like, a genius:

Come on. Give him his executive time and keep him out of this sort of thing. There’s never been a worse president in a crisis.

At least he didn’t throw paper towels at the survivors. Small blessings …

Will Trump remove Lady Liberty’s plaque too?

Will Trump remove Lady Liberty’s plaque too?

by digby

This just makes me sad:

THE LEAD U.S. AGENCY tasked with granting citizenship to would-be Americans is making a major change to its mission statement, removing a passage that describes the United States as a nation of immigrants. In an email sent to staff members Thursday and shared with The Intercept, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director L. Francis Cissna announced the agency’s new mission statement.
It reads:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.

USCIS’s previous mission statement, still available on the agency’s website Thursday, read:

USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

A lot of people seem to be coming around to the idea that maybe Trump is just a buffoon and isn’t really any worse than your average neoliberal shill when it comes to policy. But in a thousand different ways, large and small, he is changing the fundamental way we think about our country. American has never been anything close to perfect. But it had some ideals that made some members of each generation feel they had something to live up to. And in fits and starts, progress was made, however grudgingly.

Trumpist nationalism is changing that and it’s moving very quickly. I wish I understood how people can hate leaders like Obama or Clinton so much that they find Donald Trump and these neo-fascists preferable. They aren’t even the same political species.

.

The NRA’s favorite boy is still with them

The NRA’s favorite boy is still with them

by digby

The Daily Beast reports:

In the days since the 17 students and educators were killed in Parkland, Florida, President Donald Trump has surveyed virtually everyone in his orbit about what should be done to stem the epidemic of mass shootings in America.

Family members urged caution.

Close friends made the case to act boldly.

Advisers reminded him of the political risks while lawmakers on the Hill outlined a variety of legislative proposals.

On Wednesday, Trump took his prolonged listening tour public. He convened a room full of survivors and family of school-shooting victims to, ostensibly, talk about how to protect students from the next massacre. And he kept the cameras rolling.

It was riveting television. But, alas, it was largely pre-scripted for the president. By that point, Trump had already developed his preferred prescription: He would largely toe the gun lobby line, albeit in a kinder, gentler tone.
[…]
White House officials and Trump confidants described to The Daily Beast a president who was determined to do something in the face of the Parkland atrocity, and to not be seen as a feckless leader during a period of heightened anger and passion over the gun debate.

According to a source close to the president, he wants to be seen as someone who could “help prevent more dead bodies [of children] from piling up,” and that Trump has closely tracked cable-news coverage of the pleas from students and survivors. Much of what those students have had to say has been incredibly rough on President Trump and his pro-gun allies.

And yet, senior Trump aides uniformly expressed incredulity that he will have a volte-face on gun control this time around, given his recent track record. Late last year, after Las Vegas suffered the single largest mass shooting in modern American history, Trump stayed on message in the initial aftermath, and managed to stick to it.

“I don’t think it’s even about guns for him,” a senior Trump administration official told The Daily Beast at the time, regarding Trump’s symbiosis with the gun lobby. “[The] NRA put unprecedented support behind him… and that’s the kind of thing he remembers.”

Apparently, it was Geraldo Rivera who pitched the idea of raising the age of legal gun purchase from 18 to 21. The NR doesn’t like that one so I’d be surprised if it holds. The other stuff, from vague promises on bump stocks to “incentives” for following the law on background checks are all NRA approved policies.

Anyway, here’s Trump this morning.

I hope he doesn’t think that Wayne LaPierre will be satisfied with some nice Trump tweets. He doesn’t play that way. LaPierre backed Trump very early and with great enthusiasm. The NRA also seems to be caught up in the Russia scandal. If, for some reason, Trump is either too arrogant or too stupid to understand what he’s dealing with we could be in for a very interesting political confrontation.

Update:
Nah, they’re still besties.

Here’s LaPierre at CPAC:

“I refuse to leave this stage until I say one more time that we must immediately harden our schools every day. Every day young children are being dropped off at schools that are virtually wide-open soft targets for any one bent on mass murder.”

Here’s Trump at another one of his photo-ops today.

“We have to harden our schools, not soften them up … You come into our schools – you’re gonna be dead. And it’s gonna be fast.”

I think he wasn’t talking about students but who knows? They’re going to dead too. And yes, it will be fast.

They want to turn America’s schools into armed prison camps. All so that certain American men and women can keep their toys.

.

.

The Resistance isn’t just marches and pink hats

The Resistance isn’t just marches and pink hats

by digby

A little upbeat news for a mid-winter Thursday:

The 2018 election officially began on Tuesday with the first day of early voting ahead of Texas’ March 6th primaries. Evidently, a lot of people got the message. In Harris County, which includes Houston and is the state’s largest population center, Republican turnout was 25-percent higher than the first day of early-voting in the 2014 primaries. That makes some sense—there’s an expensive state house of representatives race in the county and an open Republican-leaning congressional district.

But what’s more surprising is the turnout jump on the Democratic side—a full 300 percent.


This article in the new Democracy
is another article in a growing body of research and reporting that shows how this is happening. Women all over the country have decided they’ve had enough:

The tidal shift underway has little in common with the precedents pundits lean on. This is not a leftist Tea Party, because newly engaged suburban activists hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left. It’s not a Sanders versus Clinton redux, because that “last year’s news” divide is flatly irrelevant to the people working shoulder-to-shoulder in the present. It’s not an Occupy Wall Street-type questioning of liberal democracy, because these activists believe laws can make good government as strong and transparent as possible. It’s not the 1960s, with young people leading the way—although there are lots of helpful teenagers in the background saying, “Mom, it’s fine: go to your meeting; I’ll get dinner myself.”

The protagonists of the trends we report on are mainly college-educated suburban white women. We tell their stories not because college-educated white women are the most Democratic slice of the electorate (they aren’t) or because they are the most progressive voices within the Democratic Party (they aren’t) or because they have a special claim to lead the left moving forward (they don’t: nor do they pretend to). Rather, what we report here is that it is among these college-educated, middle-aged women in the suburbs that political practices have most changed under Trump. If your question is how the panorama of political possibility has shifted since November 2016, your story needs to begin here.

What’s Going On Out There?
Pundits regularly portray the action underway since November 2016 as a national movement—“The Resistance.” This can enshrine a common misperception, however: an understandable one, though, since the metropolitan advocates to whom the national media turn to explain the “newly energized grassroots” at times exaggerate the left-progressive focus of the activism underway and overestimate their own importance in coordinating it. Moreover, since this mobilization is both decentralized and based in face-to-face rather than virtual actions, it is impossible to scope from a distance. This revolution is not being tweeted; and even in the private Facebook groups most local groups maintain, the most prolific posters may not represent the views and focus of the members most active in real life. Local interviews and observations are, therefore, the best way to understand what is going on.

To be sure, new national resistance organizations like Indivisible, Sister District, Run for Something, Action Together, Swing Left, Women’s March, and many others have stepped up—and staffed up—to offer encouragement and tools via Internet outreach; and many of these national groups aspire to coordinate and speak for more widespread local activism. Most local founders of post-November 2016 grassroots groups say that they did indeed (sooner or later) read the Indivisible Guide; and they also testify to using ideas and tools from many of these national organizations. Nevertheless, it is clear that the national organizations did not themselves create the dizzying array of local groups—the “pop-up groups,” one bemused but grateful Virginia campaign manager called them—that spread like wildfire in the days, weeks, and early months after November 2016.

Though not nationally directed, the new activism cannot be understood as just local, either. As similar small groups have emerged in parallel across America, they have taken inspiration from one another, looked for ways to link up in regions and states, and continued to take pointers from national sources. Still, we know of no local group whose vision, plans, capabilities, or ties are limited to those offered by just one national-level advocacy organization or coordinating framework. Instead, local leaders seek out many ideas, tools, and connections, actively picking and choosing what they and their fellow participants find most helpful in their particular circumstances. We suspect that leaders and funders of national “resistance” organizations may fail to grasp the degree to which local citizen activists are eclectically leveraging varied menus of assistance, taking what they need from various offerings rather than lining up under any particular national flagship.

Again, these local stories have been similar across the country. Regular citizens bitterly disappointed with the 2016 results emerged from what many call a “period of mourning” to start planning activities, coordinated by pairs or trios or handfuls of self-appointed leaders. Some of these sparkplugs already knew one another, while others connected on buses to the 2017 Women’s Marches or “met” online, sometimes facilitated by the PantSuit Nation Facebook group that connected hundreds of thousands of women in anticipation of the first female President. Although men are certainly involved in the local groups that have taken shape since the election, women are indeed very much in the vanguard making up about 70 percent of the participants and most members of the leadership teams.

Often employed or retired from teaching, business, nonprofits, or government social service posts, these organizers already knew how to put out messages, plan gatherings, and share information. Word spread through churches, unions, PTAs, and local good government groups, and dozens of friends, neighbors, and co-workers assembled for founding meetings in living rooms, in libraries or church basements, or at local restaurants. Aware of the homogeneity of their communities, many sought to take on board the calls for attention to race-based disparities that came to the fore around the first Women’s March. In localities where few minority people are directly involved, leaders regularly sponsor discussions of racial justice issues or reach out to cosponsor events or campaigns with NAACP chapters and immigrant-supporting groups.

There’s more and it’s quite inspiring. It’s not telegenic though and it’s a dud on social media so I’d guess we’re not going to see a lot of coverage of this movement. And that’s probably a blessing considering how obnoxiously contentious all these national public forums are at the moment. And, as usual, these people will get no credit it the Democrats win in November. That will go to those who step up and claim leadership after the fact. And that’s probably ok. It doesn’t appear that these women are doing this for glory. They seem to be doing it because they realized that for all the hand-wringing and garment tearing, nobody else was going to get their hands dirty and do the job. That’s how this stuff tends to work.

So good luck to them. I find this to be the most hopeful sign for the Resistance against Trumpism and the global fascist undercurrent that swirls around him. If there’s any vestige left of normal American liberal consensus, this is where it is. We’ll have to see if there’s enough to change the trajectory. I am very cautiously optimistic.

More than a national movement, then, what is underway is a national pattern of mutually energizing local engagement. Sociologically, what we are witnessing is an inflection point—a shift in long-standing trends—concentrated in one large demographic group, as college-educated women have ramped up their political participation en masse. The visible collective protests they have joined in response to national events are just a small piece of a far more consequential rebuilding of the face-to-face structures of political life that the same people have ended up leading. The grassroots are leaning in, and their little-d democratic commitments are as important as their capital-D Democratic alignment.

This is a very good sign as these people are organizing and running for office in local and state elections as well as the congress. That’s how this will seed itself for the future.

Fingers crossed.

.

Putting more guns in schools is insane no matter how he says it

Putting more guns in schools is insane no matter how he says it

by digby

Trump lied about what he said yesterday concerning arming teachers. But it doesn’t matter. What he said yesterday and today are equally daft:

“I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @nbc. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience — only the best. 20 percent of teachers, a lot, would now be able to immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions,” the president wrote on Twitter Thursday morning in a pair of posts.

“Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A ‘gun free’ school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!” he tweeted. “History shows that a school shooting lasts, on average, 3 minutes. It takes police & first responders approximately 5 to 8 minutes to get to site of crime. Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches would solve the problem instantly, before police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!”
Trump’s online explanation of his proposal differs from the language he used Wednesday at a listening session with survivors and victims’ family members from last week’s high school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Addressing the group, Trump suggested that teachers undergo firearm training and be allowed to carry concealed weapons inside schools.
“And this would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun. And it would be — it’s called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them,” Trump said at Wednesday’s event. “They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone.”

Paul Manafort and his tyrants

Paul Manafort and his tyrants


by digby
I wrote about what all of Manafort’s clients have in common for Salon this morning:

On Wednesday morning, “Fox & Friends” must have featured something that particularly annoyed Donald Trump during his “executive time.” The president had one of his frequent Twitter tantrums, tweeting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should investigate Barack Obama for failing to stop the Russians from meddling in the 2016 campaign and should also go after other unnamed “Dems” for “their crimes,” whatever they may be.

Of course, Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation, as Trump knows all too well. And this is the same candidate who publicly begged the Russians to release hacked emails and effusively praised WikiLeaks dozens of times during the last weeks of the 2016 campaign. So accusing Obama of behaving irresponsibly regarding Russian interference is beyond hypocritical.

It’s hard to know exactly what set Trump off, but it’s possible he saw a segment on the new charges by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office against a lawyer named Alex van der Zwaan over some phone calls and other communications with Rick Gates, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager and a close associate of Paul Manafort. It’s always tempting to think that Trump is just too stupid to understand the danger he’s in with the Mueller investigation, but this one might have set off some alarms, since these charges refer to a time when Gates was still with the campaign. But who knows? Trump might just have had too many Diet Cokes and got worked up talking to Sean Hannity on the phone.

Still, Trump should probably be a little concerned about this latest business with Gates, and with the new reports of a possible charge against Manafort asserting that he tried to sell White House jobs in exchange for personal loans after the election. Manafort had been fired in August of 2016, so he wasn’t an official member of the campaign at that time, but he was often seen coming in and out of Trump Tower during the transition. According to Politico, Manafort was advising the Trump team on how to handle the Russia probe. CNN reported at the time:

Paul Manafort has reemerged as a player in the fight to shape the new administration . . . after resigning under pressure as the chairman of Donald Trump’s campaign this summer.

Manafort solidified his ties to the incoming White House when Trump selected Vice President-elect Mike Pence as his running mate in mid-July. Both men are Capitol Hill veterans: Manafort as a lobbyist and Pence from his time as an Indiana congressman, with strong ties to the Republican establishment.

Recall that it was Manafort who engineered the choice of Pence in the first place, by manipulating Trump into dropping his first choice, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

According to the Daily Beast, Rick Gates was also still visiting the White House last spring, usually accompanying Trump’s good friend Tom Barrack, the man who brought Manafort into the campaign in the first place. Until now the White House has been able to say that Manafort and Gates’ legal problems stemmed from their activities years in the past and had nothing to do with Trump. That excuse looks as though it isn’t going to hold.

Rachel Maddow pointed out earlier this week that the indictment of van der Zwaan points directly back to the work Manafort and Gates did to clean up the image of their onetime Ukrainian client, the former president and authoritarian kleptocrat Viktor Yanukovych. That image was particularly tarnished after Yanukovych was accused of poisoning his political rival, Viktor Yushchenko, in an apparent assassination attempt during the 2004 Ukrainian election. Yushchenko survived and won that election, but required extensive medical treatment for facial disfigurement and chronic pain.

Manafort “helped” Yanukovych with his image at home and abroad for years, culminating in his 2010 campaign against another rival, former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Yanukovych won that race narrowly and decided not to take any chances with Tymoshenko, and “locked her up” on trumped-up charges. (So to speak.) Manafort then hired van der Zwaan’s white-shoe New York law firm to write a report exonerating his client of wrongdoing, which they dutifully did — for a lot of money, dirtying their own reputation in the process. That corrupt sideline is apparently common among high-powered law firms, which is truly shameful.

Tymoshenko spent four years in prison before Yanukovych was driven from office when the Ukrainian people got tired of his authoritarianism, corruption and loyalty to Vladimir Putin. Yanukovych fled to Russia and is now wanted for treason in his home county. Manafort was left with a boatload of debt.

As Maddow pointed out on MSNBC, if you wanted to hire someone to fix up the image of a crude, authoritarian demagogue for more civilized consumption, Manafort was your guy. He has worked with such tyrannical luminaries as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Jonas Savimbi of Angola and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines over the years. His company was known in D.C. as the Torturers’ Lobby, a fact which doesn’t seem to have cost him any dinner invitations. His latest client, Donald Trump, has declared that he loves torture and suggested that the U.S. should “take out” the families of suspected terrorists. He and his followers demand to this day that his political rivals be locked up and held accountable for their unspecified crimes. Of course Manafort wound up working for him.

If Trump indeed sees this latest news as a threat and wants to distance himself from Manafort’s shady past, he really ought to stop acting like a tinpot dictator who constantly threatens his predecessor and his political rivals with criminal charges. That’s the kind of thing that Manafort’s previous clients were known for, and it really isn’t a good look for a president of the United States, especially one who is caught up in a counter-intelligence investigation into foreign interference in his election.

.

A pit bull in every classroom by @BloggersRUs

A pit bull in every classroom
by Tom Sullivan

The White House yesterday hosted an emotionally charged meeting billed as a “listening session” with survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shootings. The sitting president clutched staff notes that reminded him to say, “I hear you.” Not surprising for a man who needs the number of his presidency monogrammed on his cuff.

President Trump suggested arming teachers, presumably because having pit bulls in classrooms would be irresponsible. Trump mentioned the football coach slain in the attack, saying, “If he had a firearm he wouldn’t have had to run, he would’ve shot and that would’ve been the end of it.”

Trump’s political development seems to have stopped sometime around the beginning of the Reagan administration. So it is not surprising that he reaches for an idea similar to one Archie Bunker proposed over 40 years ago.

CNN last night hosted a town hall where more students from Stoneman Douglas confronted Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and Rep. Ted Deutch on addressing spree shootings.


The Hill
:

The father of one of the students killed in the shooting at a Florida high school confronted Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) over his statements in the wake of the attack, calling his and President Trump’s statements “incredibly weak.”

“When I like you, you know it. When I’m pissed at you, you know it. Your comments this week and those of our president have been pathetically weak,” Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed, said at a CNN town hall Wednesday.

The cheers were deafening. There were lots of boos for Rubio. But pressed, Rubio eventually agreed he could support raising the minimum age for buying weapons, that he would reconsider regulation of magazine size, and that he supported gun violence restraining orders that allow family members to petition the court for removing a person’s access to firearms. Rubio got credit for just showing up before a tough crowd. Still, these are modest moves.

But E.J. Dionne’s commentary written before both events addresses a big obstacle in the way of safer schools, concerts, and churches:

And as the mass killings continue, we are urged to be patient and to spend our time listening earnestly to the views of those who see even a smidgen of action to limit access to guns as the first step toward confiscation. Our task is not to fight for laws to protect innocents, but to demonstrate that we really, honestly, truly, cross-our-hearts, positively love gun owners and wouldn’t for an instant think anything ill of them.

What is odd is that those with extreme pro-gun views — those pushing for new laws to allow people to carry just about anytime, anywhere — are never called upon to model similar empathy toward children killed, the mourning parents left behind, people in urban neighborhoods suffering from violence, or the majority of Americans who don’t own guns.

They never carry notes reminding them to say they hear us. Instead, they question the motives of those who want stricter control of firearms. Gun fanatics create conspiracy theories about opponents being controlled by dark, anti-American forces. George Soros is always in there somewhere.

The National Review‘s Ben Shapiro maligned students as not developmentally mature enough to have adult conversations about adult topics such as whether they have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of surviving third period. Shapiro wrote, “Children and teenagers are not fully rational actors. They’re not capable of exercising supreme responsibilities. And we shouldn’t be treating innocence as a political asset used to push the agenda of more sophisticated players.”

“Their sorrow can very easily be hijacked by left-wing groups who have an agenda,” former representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) told CNN. “Do we really think 17-year-olds on their own are going to plan a nationwide rally?”

No, independent-minded, fully rational actors would suggest arming everyone in schools and on airplanes. But not with pit bulls. That would be irresponsible.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.