Month: August 2018

Friday Night Soother: tiger cubs!

by digby

I think we need some adorablw kittehs tonight:

Four endangered Amur Tiger cubs at ZSL Whipsnade Zoo have finally taken their first steps outside.

The cubs, born June 23, were finally snapped stepping out as a family after mum, Naya, spent several days carrying them around in her mouth, one-by-one, to help them discover their surroundings. (ZooBorns shared photos of their first outing in a July feature: “Amur Tiger Mum Takes Cubs for First Outing”)

Team leader, Donovan Glyn, said, “Seeing all four of these endangered tiger cubs out and about, playing in the grass together, is the perfect way for us to begin the summer here at ZSL Whipsnade Zoo. They are just as energetic and playful as one-month-old kittens would be, and we can’t wait to watch them learn and grow under their mum and dad’s watchful eyes over the next few months.”

“Naya has been such a patient, dedicated mum, picking up each cub in her mouth, and giving them little one-on-one tours of the enclosure, to help them get to know their surroundings and build their confidence.”

The cubs were born only 121 days after seven-year-old tigress, Naya, arrived at the UK’s largest Zoo and was introduced to male mate, Botzman, as part of the European Endangered Species breeding Programme (EEP) which works with zoos across the continent.

Donovan Glyn continued, “There are only 500 Amur Tigers left in the wild, so we are delighted to have four incredible little Amur cubs here at ZSL Whipsnade Zoo. It’s great news for the breeding programme, and we know our visitors will be thrilled to see them for themselves and learn more about the importance of protecting endangered species like these.”

The Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) is classified as “Endangered” by the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species. Thanks to the conservation efforts of organisations like ZSL (Zoological Society of London), which works with Amur Tigers in the Russian Far East, there are now an estimated 500 Amur Tigers left in the wild, ten times the number that were estimated to exist in the 1940s.

.

What did Senators know and when did they know it?

by digby

This seems … important:

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, has reaped the political whirlwind in the 10 days since he proclaimed that Russian hackers had “penetrated” some of his state’s county voting systems.

The governor of Florida, Rick Scott, a Republican who is running against Nelson for his U.S. Senate seat this fall, has blasted his claim as irresponsible. The top Florida elections official, also a Republican, said he had seen no indication it’s true. And The Washington Post weighed in Friday with a 2,717-word fact check that all but accused Nelson — without evidence — of making it up.

However, three people familiar with the intelligence tell NBC News that there is a classified basis for Nelson’s assertion, which he made at a public event after being given information from the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The extent and seriousness of the threat remains unclear, shrouded for reasons of national security.

The episode illustrates the extent to which secrecy, politics and state-federal rivalries can stand in the way of a unified response to the threat from Russian attacks on a diffuse U.S. election system run by state and local officials. Through a spokesman, Nelson declined to comment.

The government is legitimately worried that if they talk about penetration of he actual voting systems that nobody will ever accept he outcome of an election again.

But what if it’s true and the party that is benefiting from the penetration refuses to do anything about it?

.

He likes Admirals who don’t kill bin laden, ok?

by digby

This is all the president had to say today about the op-ed by Admiral McRaven, the man who commanded the bin Laden raid,  in which he tells the president to take his security clearance too:

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know McRaven.  I know that I’ve gotten tremendous response from having done that, because security clearances are very important to me.  Very, very important.  And I’ve had a tremendous response for having done that.

It’s not surprising that he didn’t know who McRaven was. He is a self-centered moron after all. It is not believable that nobody has told him since then. And yet, the best he can come up with is “I don’t know McRaven” as if he’s some obscure nobody with whom he needn’t concern himself.

One of my favorite revelations about the Trump presidency is how it has exposed the utter bullshit underlying the GOP’s image of the past 60 years: the very moral and patriotic conservative movement. What a bunch of liars. They have flushed that image down the toilet and anyone who lets them get away with pulling the religion or patriot card in the future needs to be immediately shut down. (The press will be anxious to give this image back to them and it will be important to insist that this monster be hung around their necks until the end of time.)

.

by digby

JULY 12, 2017

So according to Donald Trump Jr.’s own emails it looks like he, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort knowingly met with a woman said to be representing the Russian government who was peddling derogatory information about Hillary Clinton. Whether that constitutes a crime is still unknown, but it proves that the Trump campaign was at best dumb as rocks, and at worst willing to collude with a foreign government to win an election in return for God knows what.

That story has sent an electric shock through Washington with tales of a White House in chaos and a Shakespearean family drama unfolding before our eyes. The president has uncharacteristically withdrawn from public sight as his son and son-in-law become the central players in the scandal with speculation running rampant about who is leaking the information and why.

Ever since President Trump’s inauguration there has been a tremendous amount of palace intrigue with factions loyal to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon fighting for influence alongside whichever policy advisers and cabinet officials happen to be relevant that particular week. The Russia scandal has implicated Kushner in ways that make him especially vulnerable, however, and Bannon appears to be filling the vacuum.

According New York Magazine’s Joshua Green, who has been following Bannon for years and has a new book coming out on the subject called “Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency,” Bannon is fully back in the fold after a few shaky months and he’s advising Trump to fight and win by any means necessary. Green reports that the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, the recent moves on immigration and Trump’s Warsaw speech are all signs that Bannon’s influence is once again on the rise. He notes that Bannon, so far, is personally untouched by the Russia scandal:

Bannon’s feud with Kushner has quieted down. And so far, while at least ten White House officials and former aides, including Kushner, have retained lawyers in the special counsel’s probe, distancing themselves from Trump, Bannon is not among them. 

Instead, he’s back in the bunker alongside a boss who is often angry, always under fire, and, on the matter of Russia, increasingly isolated from all but a handful of advisers and family members.

Green calls Bannon “Trump’s indispensable henchman, the man he turns to when everything’s going to hell,” and says he is in charge of Trump’s “war room.” That has largely been concentrated on assassinating the character of Robert Mueller, which Bannon evidently sees as the fight’s most important priority.

In a startling story that got overlooked this week amid all the Don Jr. email excitement, the New York Times reported that Bannon and Kushner have been dabbling in real war planning as well:

Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, and Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who owns the giant military contractor DynCorp International, have developed proposals to rely on contractors instead of American troops in Afghanistan at the behest of Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, and Jared Kushner, his senior adviser and son-in-law, according to people briefed on the conversations. On Saturday morning, Mr. Bannon sought out Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at the Pentagon to try to get a hearing for their ideas, an American official said.

I wrote about Prince’s relationship with Trump a few months ago. They’re close enough that Prince was with Trump and the family on election night. Prince has also been implicated in the Russian scandal, according to the Washington Post, having arranged a secret meeting in the Seychelles Islands with an emissary from Vladimir Putin to set up a back channel between the two presidents. Prince is also currently under investigation by the Justice Department and other federal agencies for money laundering and attempts to broker military services to foreign governments. His history of running a criminal operation in Iraq is well known, but he seems to have landed on his feet. It’s easy to see why Trump has such a high regard for him. He’s almost like family.

Prince wrote about his plan in the Wall Street Journal in May, suggesting that the president appoint a “viceroy” for Afghanistan, using the colonial model of the East India Company to illustrate his idea. Salon’s Matthew Pulver explained how Prince planned to bring this idea up to date:

The British East India Company was not simply a mercenary army like his Blackwater but an armed corporation that colonized like a state power. It was not merely a government contractor like Blackwater but an autonomous military and administrative entity sharing the worst aspects of both the corporation and the imperial state. So, Prince’s first innovation is to do away with civilian-military control administered by the Department of Defense and overseen by civilian, elected leadership, as is currently in place, and replace that apparatus with an armed corporation.

The second innovation will be to use cheap local labor paid for by resource extraction. Pulver wrote:

“There’s a trillion dollars in value in the ground: mining, minerals, and another trillion in oil and gas,” Prince says of Afghanistan. This would provide the revenue stream to replace government contracts. Prince’s firm would be self-funded, self-reliant, and thus autonomous to a degree more similar to a nation-state than a military contractor like Blackwater serving under a defense department.

I have long believed that the notion Trump is an isolationist is a grave misunderstanding. He’s a crude imperialist, who believes we should “take the oil” because “to the victors belong the spoils.” Lately, it’s become less clear that Bannon’s “nationalism” is aligned with America rather than some vague (and racist) notion of “the West.” It looks more and more as if Trump’s loyalties lie wherever the Trump Organization has a real estate or licensing deal. Prince’s plan sounds like it’s a perfect fit for both of them.

Thankfully, according to the New York Times, Secretary Mattis “listened politely” but told Bannon that he had no intention of including this daft idea into the review of Afghanistan policy that he and national security adviser H.R. McMaster are leading. Let’s just hope that Bannon and Trump are now so immersed in their Russia scandal “war” plans that they lose interest in privatizing a real one.

Trump’s deportation force is the cult’s federal uniformed agents:

The Trump White House is planning an event next week to honor federal immigration agents — even as more than 500 migrant children remain separated from their parents after being separated at the border. 

The “Salute to the Heroes of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs [and] Border Protection” is scheduled for Aug. 20 in the East Room, an administration official confirmed, in the latest signal that the Trump administration anticipates the midterm fallout from its zero-tolerance border policy very differently from its critics.

Tyler Moran, managing director of the D.C.-based Immigration Hub, said the White House plans to honor ICE and CBP agents are “a ploy to use culture wars to divide people.” 

Trump touted the work of ICE officers at the Cabinet meeting Thursday, saying they “have been absolutely abused” and have done an “incredible job” combating MS-13 and other gangs. 

“They are tremendous people,” the president said. “They’re brave, they’re strong, they’re tough and they’re good. … Do you think you’re going to send just regular people in to take care of MS-13 and these gangs? Not going to happen.”

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies, cheered the planned White House event for ICE and CPB officials. “They don’t get enough recognition, and I don’t think there’s enough public awareness of the dangers they face,” she said.

This is pure trolling. But it has a purpose too. He’s building a loyal police force. He’s been doing that from the beginning. It’s always been scary how many cops are big supporters.

This conversation between Ron Brownstein and Bill Kristol brings that into focus.

Brownstein concludes with this observation about 2020:

Trump “essentially runs as a wartime President—only the war is against Blue America.”

And he’s got the troops to fight it.

Trump wants to “swing around the circle”. That didn’t work out so well the first time.


by digby

My Salon column this morning is about the GOP’s various plans to lose the election in November:

On Thursday, Salon’s Matthew Rozsa reported that Steve Bannon, the man Trump fired for shooting his mouth off to “Fire and Fury” author Michael Wolff, is back on the scene plotting to save the midterm elections for the Republican Party. How is he going to do that? By motivating Trump supporters to show up to the polls to save their president from impeachment.

As Rozsa points out, Bannon neglects to mention that Trump would almost certainly survive an impeachment trial in the Senate, due to the two-thirds requirement for conviction. But if there’s one thing Bannon understands, it’s the needs and desires of Trump voters, so it’s safe to assume that won’t stop them from rushing to the polls. A threat to their president is a threat to them.

On the other hand, according to Politico, other Republicans are quietly hoping the Democrats will win the House. If Trump is impeached, their thinking goes (but not convicted in the Senate, as above), they think it will assure his re-election in 2020. This counterintuitive notion is based on their experience with Bill Clinton whose popularity reached new heights as Republicans doggedly pursued him through the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They’re assuming that the country would be so impressed by Trump’s heroic survival that his approval rating would similarly skyrocket and he would win re-election easily.

This ignores the fact that Clinton was known for his ability to compartmentalize; he pretty much ignored all the hubbub of the scandals, repeatedly assuring the public that he was concentrating on the job of president. Trump’s daily tantrums on TV and Twitter convey the opposite impression, to say the least. And the difference in the scope and seriousness of the two scandals — a lie about a consensual affair, versus a conspiracy with a foreign power to sabotage the presidential campaign — is profound. Trump and Clinton are very different animals, but many Republicans fail to see the difference and it’s leading them toward self-destruction.

Trump himself is bullish on the coming election. He believes all the polls are fake and constantly predicts a “red wave” that will defy the usual midterm shift toward the opposition party and prove his massive popularity throughout the nation.

“It’s very Red Square”

by digby

This is planned for four days after the election:

President Donald Trump’s military parade this fall is shaping up to cost $80 million more than initially estimated.

The Department of Defense and its interagency partners have updated their perspective cost estimates for the parade, according to a U.S. defense official with firsthand knowledge of the assessment. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The parade, slated for Nov. 10, is estimated to cost $92 million, the official said. The figure consists of $50 million from the Pentagon and $42 million from interagency partners such as the Department of Homeland Security. An initial estimate last month pegged the prospective cost for the parade at $12 million.

A Pentagon spokesman said in an email to CNBC that the Defense Department expects to make an announcement soon, but he would not comment further. The White House referred questions to the Defense Department.

The $92 million cost estimate includes security, transportation of parade assets, aircraft, as well as temporary duty for troops. The official also noted that while the size and scope of the military parade can still shift, the plans currently include approximately eight tanks, as well as other armored vehicles, including Bradleys, Strykers and M113s.

The official also said that experts put to rest concerns about whether the Abrams tank, which weighs just shy of 70 tons, would ruin infrastructure in Washington. Their analysis found that, because of the vehicle’s distributed weight and track pads, the streets of the nation’s capital would not be compromised.

The parade is also expected to include helicopter, fighter jet, transport aircraft as well as historical military plane flyovers. Troops in period uniforms representing the past, present and future forces will march in the parade, as well.

The ceremony is said to be largely inspired by Trump’s front-row seat at France’s Bastille Day military parade in Paris.

In September, Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron and recalled how much he enjoyed watching the parade. “It was a tremendous day, and to a large extent because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July 4 in Washington down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump said.

“We’re going to have to try to top it, but we have a lot of planes going over and a lot of military might, and it was really a beautiful thing to see, and representatives from different wars and different uniforms,” he added.

FYI: He was not inspired by the Bastille Day parade. This was reported before the inauguration:

Part of being a great president is showing off America’s military strength, according to President-elect Donald Trump.

The military “may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump told the Washington Post in an interview published Wednesday. “That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military.”

Trump spoke about his vision of military parades in vague terms, suggesting it was something he might oversee in the future. But according to several sources involved in his inaugural preparations, Trump has endeavored to ensure that his first day as commander-in-chief is marked by an unusual display of heavy military equipment.

During the preparation for Friday’s transfer-of-power, a member of Trump’s transition team floated the idea of including tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade, a source involved in inaugural planning told The Huffington Post. “They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade,” the source said, referring to massive military parades in Moscow and Pyongyang, typically seen as an aggressive display of muscle-flexing.

The military, which traditionally works closely with the presidential inaugural committee, shot down the request, the source said. Their reason was twofold. Some were concerned about the optics of having tanks and missile launchers rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue. But they also worried that the tanks, which often weigh over 100,000 pounds, would destroy the roads.

“I could absolutely see structural support being a reason [not to use tanks],” a Department of Defense official said. “D.C. is built on a swamp to begin with.”

Defense Department spokeswoman Valerie Henderson declined to comment on the request for tanks and missile launchers, referring questions to the Trump transition team. Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn told HuffPost that the presidential inaugural committee worked closely with the military “to render appropriate honors” for Trump’s swearing-in. But he directed questions about “specific aspects” of the military’s support to the Defense Department.

The Pentagon didn’t reject all of Trump’s ideas. At the request of the president-elect, there are five military flyovers ― one for each branch of the armed services ― planned for Friday’s inaugural parade, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Jamie Davis told HuffPost.

The Air Force plans to fly four fighter jets: an F-35, an F-16, an F-22 and an F-15E. The Navy will fly four F/A-18 combat jets. The Army will fly four UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. The Marines will fly four V-22 Ospreys. And the Coast Guard, which is still finalizing plans, is looking at flying four MH-65 rescue helicopters, Davis said. The number and type of planes used could change, depending on Friday’s weather, he added.

Military flyovers are not typically part of inaugural parades. Outgoing President Barack Obama did not use any military aircraft at either of his inaugurations, the Defense Department official said. There were no flyovers at President George W. Bush’s 2005 inauguration, but he did have a flyover during his 2001 opening ceremony, which occurred two days before the inauguration. President Ronald Reagan considered including flyovers in his second inauguration in 1985, but one never materialized, the official said. Before that, the last president to include military flyovers as part of his inauguration was President Harry Truman in 1949.

Stephen Kerrigan, who held top positions in Obama’s first and second presidential inaugural committees, said he was “shocked” to hear about the planned flyovers for Friday. “It seems unnecessary and the optics don’t seem appropriate. … It’s very Red Square,” he said.

Update: Awwwww

Pentagon says Trump’s military parade has been postponed: “We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now
agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.”

— Will Rahn (@willrahn) August 17, 2018

Home Alone 3: Friendless in Washington, D.C
by Tom Sullivan

Being chief executive of an entire country is getting to our sitting president. The pressures of the job (if one can call watching Fox News morning and evening work) are visible for all to see on Twitter. On Thursday, Donald J. Trump unleashed a torrent in two volleys. Several in the morning he aimed at the press for the more than 300 editorials across the country in defense of press freedoms and coordinated by the Boston Globe. Thursday night, Trump’s “fresh from Fox News” tweets attacked several figures connected with the Russia investigation and former CIA director John Brennan whose security clearance Trump revoked on Wednesday in retaliation for Brennan’s criticism on Monday. Trump’s tweeting lately has increased in frequency and fervor.

Trump’s critics were not to be silenced.

In solidarity with Brennan, a retired admiral on Thursday invited Trump in an open letter in the Washington Post Thursday afternoon to revoke his clearance as well. William H. McRaven oversaw the 2011 SEAL raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. McRaven wrote:

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

Like many former service members, Fred Kaplan reports, McRaven had refrained from public criticism of Trump. Until now.

Thursday night, a bipartisan dozen former top intelligence officials, former CIA directors and deputy directors, issued a statement written in parallel with McRaven’s defending Brennan’s integrity and service. The idea of requesting revocation of their security clearances had not come up in their conversations, Kaplan writes. He includes their full statement:

August 16, 2018

STATEMENT FROM FORMER SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS

As former senior intelligence officials, we feel compelled to respond in the wake of the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House regarding the removal of John Brennan’s security clearances. We know John to be an enormously talented, capable, and patriotic individual who devoted his adult life to the service of this nation. Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless. Since leaving government service John has chosen to speak out sharply regarding what he sees as threats to our national security. Some of the undersigned have done so as well. Others among us have elected to take a different course and be more circumspect in our public pronouncements. Regardless, we all agree that the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances – and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech. You don’t have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, subject to his obligation to protect classified information. We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case. Beyond that, this action is quite clearly a signal to other former and current officials. As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech – even when that right has been used to criticize us – that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable. Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views.

William H. Webster, former Director of Central Intelligence (1987-1991)

George J. Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence (1997-2004)

Porter J. Goss, former Director of Central Intelligence, (2005-2006)

General Michael V. Hayden, USAF, Ret., former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2009)

Leon E. Panetta, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2009-2011)

General David H. Petraeus, USA, Ret., former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2011-2012)

James R. Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence (2010-2017)

John E. McLaughlin, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (2000-2004)

Stephen R. Kappes, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2010)

Michael J. Morell, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2010-2013)

Avril Haines, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2013-2015)

David S. Cohen, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2015-2017)

Just before midnight Thursday, former CIA director Robert Gates joined the first dozen in signing the statement.

Not a good Thursday for the real estate heir.

The Pentagon announced Thursday it is postponing the military parade Trump called for Veterans Day. The Defense Department says it has “agreed to explore opportunities in 2019.” Earlier estimates placed the cost of the parade at $12 million, but a Defense Department official told the Associated Press new estimates place the cost at $92 million.

Trump in a tweet this morning blamed “local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly)” for the cost increase. He declared the cost “so ridiculously high that I cancelled it.”

Not a man known for having friends, Trump is busily alienating influential public figures disinclined to kissing his ass just when he needs some to have his back. From Trump’s point of view, Kaplan muses, perhaps the “deep state” is closing in. His most ardent supporters already believe that. But attacking those who have dedicated their lives to public service will not win friends for a man who has dedicated his to serving himself.

* * * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Today I’m grateful for Don Jr.’s arrogance.

By Spocko

The rich and powerful are used to working the refs, greasing the skids, changing the laws, getting rid of the evidence and undermining the Justice system when all their other tricks fail.

Donald Jr. has tried to copy his father’s moves, but he never had the same feral understanding of the world as his father. He also didn’t have the layers of lawyers, accountants and fixers that have assisted his Dad for years.

People say that Trump doesn’t care about anyone but himself or money, but I think he cares about his kids.  Jr’s mistakes and blunders, and his dad’s attempt to fix them, are giving the case against Trump Sr. some solid evidence and leverage needed for impeachment.

It won’t be the whole case, but because the Don Jr. part can be linked to the election, Russia and his Dad, it is strong.

Think about the need for approval that Donald Trump Sr. has shown. It extends to the whole world! It’s a hole he can’t fill. Does his son have the same pathology, or just the need to get his father’s approval that many sons have?

What would the son do to win his dad’s approval? Look at his actions.

I envision Don Jr. as a 5-year old in his father’s workshop.  He holds up a power saw. “Look daddy! I’m helping. I’m helping!” 

“Put that down, you’ll hurt yourself!”
After getting yelled at the boy goes off and sulks, “I’ll show him!”

If Don Jr. was dedicated and smart he could have gone on to learn the trade and rules (and how the crooked break them.) But he took the shortcuts the rich and arrogant use. For this I am grateful.

The good news is that Don Jr.’s desire for approval, combined with his stupidity, laziness and arrogance has made it easier to bust him, and then his father.

We are fighting rich powerful people who lie constantly and break the few laws they haven’t changed to be legal. They have been getting away with it for years.

I can see now that the case against Trump will use the son’s attempt to impress his father, then use the father’s attempt to protect his son to bring down the father.

In another era this would be a Homeric tragedy. In ours it’s an episode of the Simpsons.

.

by tristero

Ginia Bellafante makes good points about how rare it is for male politicians to take female politicians seriously in her essay re: Ocasio-Cortez’s refusal to debate a right winger with a propensity for ethnocentrism and other intolerances. I discussed this situation once before but I’d like to briefly revisit it because I think I missed something quite obvious the first time.

Ocasio-Cortez’s refusal has been wrongly construed as – in Bellafante description of the right wing position — “proof of the left’s antipathy to engaging with ideological difference.” Liberals, progressives, and the left are not adverse to engaging in with ideological differences. What all three groups — yes, they are distinctly different political philosophies — object to is a false engagement with bogus ideas, be they the facts of evolution, climate change, the complexity of gender, the undeniable relationship between the above-ground Republican party and white supremacists, and so on. There is plenty to discuss about each of these issues, and plenty of difference of opinion. However, the modern right wing has nothing important to contribute to these discourses. They are, as Ocasio-Cortez herself put it, merely cat-calling.

Nevertheless, the actual reason why Ocasio-Cortez should not debate Shapiro is even more obvious than the fact that Shapiro does not have a serious intellectual leg to stand on. It’s that he’s simply not in the game. He’s a dilettante and Ocasio-Cortez — who’s a very savvy politician — knows it.

If Shapiro is truly serious about engaging Ocasio-Cortez in a debate, he should move to her district, secure the Republican nomination for seat, and challenge her for re-election when her term’s up.

Let’s not hold our breath waiting for him to do that.