Skip to content

Month: August 2018

Far worse than Nixon

Far worse than Nixon

by digby

QOTD:

Only three members of Nixon’s enemies list are still alive. (Ron Dellums, a former member of Congress particularly loathed by Nixon for his anti-war protests and militant civil-rights activism, died on Monday.) I called one of them, Morton Halperin, to ask what he thought of the proliferating Trump-Nixon comparisons. Halperin, who oversaw the writing of the Pentagon Papers and then served on Nixon’s National Security Council staff before breaking with him over the invasion of Cambodia, sued when he found out that Nixon had secretly taped him and others in the White House. Over the years, he has been one of Nixon’s proudest and most persistent enemies. So I was surprised when Halperin insisted, strongly, that Nixon wasn’t nearly as damaging to the institution of the Presidency as Trump has been.

“He’s far worse than Nixon,” Halperin told me, “certainly as a threat to the country.”

He’s certainly a lot dumber.

.

Pecker backs off

Pecker backs off

by digby

According to the Daily Beast, one of Trump’s most loyal henchman is going quiet:

Shortly after the feds raided the office of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s now estranged personal attorney and longtime enforcer, National Enquirer publisher David Pecker went into a state of calculated retreat.

For years, Pecker’s tabloid had promoted and puffed up Trump’s political rise and his presidency. But once a regular fixture on the cover of the National Enquirer, Trump hasn’t appeared on it since an issue dated early May. That appearance was for a cover story on the various scandals swirling around… Cohen.

In that same issue detailing Cohen’s dirty work—work in which the Enquirer itself played a key role—there was another story showing how the Enquirer’s “lie detector examination” supposedly absolved Trump of any Russia-related collusion. Since then, the tabloid’s approach to the saga has ranged from muted to silent. The most recent issue of the Enquirer, dated July 30, 2018, doesn’t feature a single item on Trump in the entire, 47-page edition—though the issue did have room for a story on how the late James Bond actor Roger Moore “SMELLED BAD!” due to “rampant flatulence.”

The president’s disappearance from the pages of Pecker’s famous, Trump-endorsing supermarket tabloid was no coincidence. It also further demonstrates how so much of what President Trump touches, including the tabloids that relish the drama he produces, seems to suffer under the weight of scandals.

According to multiple sources familiar with the situation, Pecker and the Enquirer’s top brass made a conscious decision to pull back on their pro-Trump coverage, just as Pecker’s media empire found itself increasingly embroiled in Trumpworld’s legal and public-relations woes.

“Pecker made a conscious decision to pull back on his pro-Trump coverage, just as his media empire found itself increasingly embroiled in Trumpworld’s legal woes.”

A month after the Enquirer’s last Trump cover, the Wall Street Journal reported that federal authorities had subpoenaed Pecker and other executives at American Media Inc. (AMI), which publishes the tabloid. They sought records related to allegations that the company purchased the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story of an affair with Trump, then killed the story for Trump’s benefit, a practice known as “catch and kill.” Prosecutors are exploring whether such an agreement may have constituted an illegal in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign by AMI.

Trump’s friends will all pay a big price. Whether he will pay as well remains to be seen. He’s always skated before …

.

No populist, no populist

No populist, no populist

by digby

Krugman:

Message to those in the news media who keep calling Donald Trump a “populist”: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

It’s true that Trump still, on occasion, poses as someone who champions the interests of ordinary working Americans against those of the elite. And I guess there’s a sense in which his embrace of white nationalism gives voice to ordinary Americans who share his racism but have felt unable to air their prejudice in public.

But he’s been in office for a year and a half, time enough to be judged on what he does, not what he says. And his administration has been relentlessly anti-worker on every front. Trump is about as populist as he is godly — that is, not at all.

Start with tax policy, where Trump’s major legislative achievement is a tax cut that mainly benefits corporations — whose tax payments have fallen off a cliff — and has done nothing at all to raise wages. The tax plan does so little for ordinary Americans that Republicans have stopped campaigning on it. Yet the administration is floating the (probably illegal) idea of using executive action to cut taxes on the rich by an extra $100 billion.

There’s also health policy, where Trump, having failed to repeal Obamacare — which would have been a huge blow to working families — has engaged instead in a campaign of sabotage that has probably raised premiums by almost 20 percent relative to what they would have been otherwise. Inevitably, the burden of these higher premiums falls most heavily on families earning just a bit too much to be eligible for subsidies, that is, the upper part of the working class.

And then there’s labor policy, where the Trump administration has moved on multiple fronts to do away with regulations that had protected workers from exploitation, injury and more.

But immediate policy doesn’t tell the whole story. You also want to look at Trump’s appointments. When it comes to policies that affect workers, Trump has created a team of cronies: Almost every important position has gone to a lobbyist or someone with strong financial connections to industry. Labor interests have received no representation at all.

And the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court deserves special attention. There’s a lot we don’t know about Kavanaugh, partly because Senate Republicans are blocking Democratic requests for more information. But we do know he’s starkly, extremely, anti-labor — way to the right of the mainstream, and well to the right even of most Republicans.

The best-known example of his radically anti-worker views is his argument that SeaWorld shouldn’t face any liability after a captive killer whale killed one of its workers, because the victim should have known the risks when she took the job. But there’s much more anti-labor extremism in his record.

When you bear in mind that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will be around for a long time, this extremism is enough to justify rejecting his nomination — especially when added to his support for unrestricted presidential power and whatever it is in his record that Republicans are trying to hide.

But why would Trump, the self-proclaimed champion of American workers, choose someone like that? Why would he do all the things he’s doing to hurt the very people who gave him the White House?

I don’t know the answer, but I do think that the conventional explanation — that Trump, who is both lazy and supremely ignorant about policy details, was unwittingly captured by G.O.P. orthodoxy — both underestimates the president and makes him seem nicer than he is.

Watching Trump in action, it’s hard to escape the impression that he knows very well that he’s inflicting punishment on his own base. But he’s a man who likes to humiliate others, in ways great and small. And my guess is that he actually takes pleasure in watching his supporters follow him even as be betrays them.

In fact, sometimes his contempt for his working-class base comes right out into the open. Remember “I love the poorly educated”? Remember his boast that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters?

Anyway, whatever his motivations, Trump in action is the opposite of populist. And no, his trade war doesn’t change that judgment. William McKinley, the quintessential Gilded Age president who defeated a populist challenger, was also a protectionist. Furthermore, the Trumpian trade war is being carried out in a way that produces maximum harm to U.S. workers in return for minimum benefits.

While he isn’t a populist, however, Trump is a pathological liar, the most dishonest man ever to hold high office in America. And his claim to stand with working Americans is one of his biggest lies.

Which brings me back to media use of the term “populist.” When you describe Trump using that word, you are in effect complicit in his lie — especially when you do it in the context of supposedly objective reporting.

Something going on in Donald’s brain

Something going on in Donald’s brain

by digby

Omarosa’s book:

Omarosa Manigault-Newman is about to rip the lid off what she deems the deteriorating mental condition of President Trump in her bombshell new book.

In an exclusive excerpt obtained by DailyMail.com, Omarosa, 44, who first met Trump when she appeared on The Apprentice and later became an assistant to the president, tells of the dread she felt while watching Trump’s interview with Lester Holt last May.

‘While watching the interview I realized that something real and serious was going on in Donald’s brain. His mental decline could not be denied,’ she writes in Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House.

In an exclusive excerpt of her new book, Omarosa, who first met Trump when she appeared on The Apprentice and later became the president’s Director of African-American Outreach, tells of her dread while watching Trump’s interview with Lester Holt last May

‘Many didn’t notice it as keenly as I did because I knew him way back when. They thought Trump was being Trump, off the cuff,’ Omarosa writes. ‘But I knew something wasn’t right’

Omarosa was beside herself when the president contradicted the White House party line that FBI head James Comey was fired based on the recommendation by the Department of Justice.

‘For the Lester Holt interview, I watched it on a small TV in the upper press room (the lower press room was built on top of the old swimming pool and turned into the briefing room) by the press secretary’s office,’ she writes.

‘Throughout this erratic and contradictory interview, I kept thinking, ‘Oh no! Oh no! This is bad!

‘Donald rambled. He spoke gibberish. He contradicted himself from one sentence to the next.

‘Hope [Hicks, then communications director] had gone over the briefing with him a dozen times hitting the key point that he had fired Comey based on the recommendation by the DOJ which the vice president and other surrogates had been reinforcing for days.’

We know this is total nonsense because Trump had been speaking gibberish during the entire campaign.

Trump has lived by the tabloid, reality show stab-in-the-back ethos for years. He deserves this.
.

Worried about their future by @BloggersRUs

Worried about their future
by Tom Sullivan

“Democracy is on the ballot,” Barack Obama reminded 2016 voters who then did not heed his warning.

Nancy LeTourneau writes at Political Animal:

We have grown immune to politicians telling us that this election is the most monumental of our lifetimes. And yet that has never been more true than it is in 2018. That’s why I have a hard time focusing on all the chatter about which Democrats will be running in 2020. While I agree completely with what Paul Glastris wrote about how winning is not enough, I’m not sure what comes next if Democrats don’t win a sizable victory this November.

There’s good news and bad news in all of that. Because of the shock I experienced on election night in 2016, my trust and confidence in the American electorate has been severely shaken. But on the bright side, the fact that Trump’s consolidation of power is dependent on what happens in the midterm elections tells us that our democracy is still alive.

I hope she’s right.

Writing for Madison, Wisconsin’s Capitol Times, John Nichols reminds us how former state Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz in 2014 bucked efforts by fellow Republicans to game the system in their favor,

…telling Wisconsin radio hosts Mike Crute and Dominic Salvia: “I am not willing to defend them anymore. I’m just not and I’m embarrassed by this.”

“It’s just sad when a political party has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics,” explained Schultz, who did not seek re-election that year. “We should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and trying to suppress the vote.”

LeTourneau’s colleague, Martin Longman, warns that keeping our democracy will be a fight. Republicans view suppressing the vote as their last, best chance for retaining power:

The simplest way of explaining this is that the demographics and voting preferences of the electorate have developed in such a way that higher voter turnout helps the Democrats and hurts the Republicans. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First, it gives the Republicans a strong motivation to discourage civic engagement and participation, and to go after people’s voting rights and all efforts to make voting easier and more convenient. Second, it makes the Democrats look like they’re being partisan when they promote civic engagement and participation and work to protect people’s voting rights. From the Republicans’ point of view, easier registration, more days of early voting, more voting machines/shorter lines, vote-by-mail, etc., are all partisan efforts to take away their jobs and their majorities. And, the thing is, it’s simply true that they’ll generally do worse if more people vote.

Yet, I would argue as the realities of a browning America settle into the Republican consciousness, their efforts to curtail the voting rights of their opponents, while more obvious, are nothing new. From the birth of the republic, opposition to “We the People” including everyone has been present among those who question the central proposition that all were all created equal.

Those attitudes simply remain dormant when “lessers” know their place. They become more pronounced in times such as these.

Longman continues:

It’s a genuine problem that things have developed in such a way that “delivering on the promise of American democracy” by encouraging people to participate in our civic life and protecting their right and ability to do so is synonymous with partisan gain for the Democratic Party. But that’s where we are. Fighting to win elections has become fighting to have meaningful elections at all.

Like a certain graduate, Longman and LeTourneau are worried about their futures. But concerns about meaningful elections and democracy remaining alive are perhaps too abstract for the times. There was a time in this country when we went to war to fight for abstract principles—for freedom and democracy, ours and others’. Now, those who have the gold and make the rules are laboring to ensure they and only they hold power. Principles be damned. This game is about power and for all the marbles. Fortunately for 21st century royalists, they have a population of loyal supporters willing to bow and scrape and chase their carriages hoping for a few coins flung their way.

“The greatest obstacle to voting is the feeling that it won’t matter,” writes George Packer, noting that Democrat’s propensity to sit out mid-term elections has handed power to those who have made democracy a window treatment for the new ruling class. Still, he sees some reason for hope:

This year, something seems to be changing. The new faces among Democratic candidates, the new energy behind them, suggest a party of members, not squatters. But, come November, they will have to vote. It’s the only thing left.

This is a fight to keep that republic Franklin warned us might be hard to keep. Saddle up.

* * * * * * * * *

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

The base is losing it

The base is losing it

by digby

Michelle Goldberg hits on the essential truth about the ridiculous Q Anon conspiracy theory:

On Thursday, the usually even-keeled Mike Allen published a piece in Axios titled, “The case for extreme worry,” about how those close to Trump are panicked by his erraticism. The president’s whims and resentments have led to stock market convulsions and may soon result in painful tariffs that affect American farmers, an important part of his base. Mueller’s special counsel investigation continues to close in. Republicans have lost special election seats in red-leaning areas all over the country. But QAnon offers assurance that everything is under control.

You don’t create a wild fantasy about your leader being a covert genius unless you understand that to most people, he looks like something quite different. You don’t need an occult story about how your side is secretly winning if it’s actually winning. Publicly, many right-wing politicians and pundits disdain the Mueller investigation and pretend to believe that Trump’s ties to Russia are negligible. But among part of the Trump base, the effort to explain them away appears to be creating psychic strain.

“You cannot possibly imagine the size of this,” said a Q dispatch last month. “Trust the plan. Trust there are more good than bad.” Q almost certainly doesn’t know any state secrets, but he, she, or they understand that some fervent Trump supporters require more reassurance than they’re willing to admit. Their desperate conviction that they will be proven right about Trump betrays a secret fear that they will be proven wrong.

The length to which people have to go to convince themselves that Trump is the stable genius he says he is is getting more and more complicated every day. They can’t just take it at face value because it’s absurd on its face. So many of them are having to buy into a ludicrous conspiracy theory that says Trump and Robert Mueller and the military are secretly working together to prove that Clinton, Obama, Pelosi and all the other people they hate are really evil pedophiles.

And frankly, even the ones who aren’t buying into this specific conspiracy theory are buying into a fantasy as well: they are convinced that this cretinous moron is actually competent at the job.

For the first time I’m feeling a little bit of pity for these folks. They have emotional, psychological and intellectual issues that are far more serious than I realized.

.

Aaron Blake at the Washington Post makes a good point about something that’s been driving me nuts for months:

“No actual votes were changed.” This is a regular talking point offered by the White House, and has been for months. At times, officials including Pence and even then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo have wrongly ascribed this conclusion to the intelligence community, which pointedly said it would not offer any such conclusion. But more and more, it’s being thrown out there without such attribution. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) even said a version of it. “It’s also clear that it didn’t have a material effect,” Ryan said.

But here’s the thing: This is a laughable contention. It’s not serious. And any politician with an ounce of campaign experience and logic knows it.

There were nearly 140 million votes in the 2016 presidential election. To make this claim, you would have to get in the heads of virtually every voter (and potential voter who stayed home) in America and psychoanalyze their decisions. It’s impossible. The odds that not a single, solitary vote hinged on anything the Russians injected into our campaign is virtually nil.

That’s especially true given the most recent indictments in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. Last month, 12 Russian military intelligence officers were indicted on a charge of hacking Democrats’ computers and distributing the information during the 2016 election. The emails distributed by WikiLeaks dominated the news for days. This wasn’t just some Russian bots pushing dubious fake news to a few thousand people on social media; this was Russia inserting a major story line into the 2016 election that wouldn’t have existed if not for its efforts.

It would be one thing for Pence to say, “I don’t think Russia changed the winner of the election.” Okay. That’s still complete guesswork based upon nothing, but at least it’s plausible. Yet that’s not the argument here; the argument is that it didn’t change any votes.

Pence and his allies will probably argue that his comment referred only to Russians hacking actual voting machines or changing totals — which the intelligence community has said it found no evidence of. If you were the fact-checker, you’d probably have to knock a Pinocchio or two off for that. But the context of his remarks include nothing about hacking; they’re about influencing the election. The impression that’s left is that he’s talking about Russia being completely unsuccessful in shifting even one vote with its interference.

The full volume of the Trump administration’s comments on this topic can’t be ignored either. This fits neatly with what can only be described as an effort to mislead and obfuscate in the name of keeping Trump happy by downplaying the idea that Russia elected him. Officials have regularly sought to cast doubt upon not just the idea that Russia’s interference mattered, but also that it favored Trump and even that it was ordered by Vladimir Putin. Oftentimes, like Pence, they choose their words carefully so they are at least defensible, while being clearly misleading.
[…]
This might seem like so much nitpicking, but consider this: Our intelligence community evaluates that Russia is still trying to impact American elections. Part of thwarting that effort involves the public bringing pressure to bear on elected officials to take action. If Pence is in one breath saying Russia interfered but also suggesting it didn’t matter one bit, there will be considerably less impetus for action among those who are inclined to believe him.

That’s the real danger of these false and misleading talking points. These officials are undoubtedly trying to avoid alienating Trump, who in recent weeks has demonstrated he still wants to cast doubt on Russian interference. But catering to him and obscuring the truth comes with real-world costs.

I’m not sure they’re just catering to him but be that as it may, he’s right about the impact. If it didn’t change any votes why should we care? And frankly, in an election that was won by the man the foreign saboteurs favored with 70,000 votes spread across three states out of more than a hundred an twenty million cast, it’s more likely than not that it did decide the election. It’s not provable, of course, but it’s perfectly believable. And we know they’re working hard to do it again.

.

Trump’s new fixers

Trump’s new fixers

by digby





Peter Beinert notes that just because Cohen is out of the picture it doesn’t mean Trump isn’t making messes:

What’s striking about all this is that Trump, by becoming president, has turned a great many federal employees into the functional equivalent of Michael Cohen. Last summer, when Trump called journalists “the enemy of the American people,” Vice President Mike Pence was called on to perform a Cohen. “Rest assured,” Pence declared, “both the president and I strongly support a free and independent press.” Last month, after Trump refused to acknowledge Russian electoral interference during his meeting with Vladimir Putin, the Cohen role fell to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whose testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to The New York Times, “amounted to an elaborate cleanup effort by the United States’ top diplomat for Mr. Trump’s performance in Helsinki.”

The day before, it had been Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s turn. By imposing tariffs on foreign goods, the president had provoked the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and China to slap retaliatory tariffs on American farm products. This threatened to ruin Trump’s upcoming trip to Iowa. So Perdue unveiled a hastily conceived subsidy package for farmers victimized by the trade war. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture,” declaredSenator Pat Toomey, “is trying to put a Band-Aid on a self-inflicted wound.” But that wasn’t quite right. The Department of Agriculture may have provided the Band-Aid, but Trump inflicted the wound.

Sometimes, Trump’s messes are so large that vast numbers of federal employees are drafted into the Cohen role. Trump did not consult the Department of Health and Human Services before adopting the “zero tolerance” policy that separated undocumented immigrant children from their parents. Nor did he and his top aides create a planfor how to reunite these fractured families. But when a federal judge ordered the administration to meet a deadline to reunite them, “the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services, which shelters the children and must now undertake reunifications, sent out a plea to federal public health workers for help with an exhaustive manual search of records,” according to the Times. An email from one official declared that “HHS is requesting volunteers over the weekend to review case records. Everyone here is now participating in this process, including the Secretary who personally stayed until past midnight to assist.” Sacrifice your weekend to fix a blunder that Trump might have avoided had he consulted you ahead of time. That’s classic Michael Cohen.

But even the many government workers struggling to reunite separated families constitute a mere fraction of the Americans currently doing Cohen’s old job. Consider Trump’s agricultural subsidies, which are meant to fix the problem he created by imposing tariffs with no plan for what to do if other countries retaliated. American taxpayers are paying for them. American taxpayers are also paying the salaries of the bureaucrats working overtime to reunite immigrant families. And every time an American meets a foreigner and tries by her behavior to salvage this country’s reputation for maturity and decency, that’s a version of Cohenism too.

We are all fixers now.