Skip to content

Month: June 2019

Highlights of the Great Embarrassment

Highlights of the Great Embarrassment

by digby

I. Just. Don’t. Know. What. To. Say.

It would be one thing if this arrogant dunderhead surrounded himself with smart people. But his top advisers are his vacuous daughter and her air-headed husband.

God, that’s depressing.

Even more depressing is the fact that it’s not at all clear that he can’t be re-elected.

.

Very stable genius at work

Very stable genius at work

by digby

That’s the man we’re supposed to believe is capable of thwarting adversaries like Putin, Xi and MBS. Let’s just say they it’s not that hard to get his number. He’s an imbecile.

Putin was expressing a broadly fashionable argument that he has promoted for years, and that has recently taken hold among reactionaries in several Western countries, including the United States. Their critique is not of liberalism in the sense of the American center-left tradition identified with the Democratic party, but the longer historical tradition of liberalism that emerged from the theories of John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other traditional philosophers whose beliefs created the foundation for democratic government. Most graduates of an elite college who took any humanities courses would have some rough familiarity with their work, which is a cornerstone of what’s called a “liberal education.” The “West,” of course, refers to Europe and the United States, where liberal ideas first took hold.

Trump did not recognize this debate at all. Instead, he concluded that “the west” means California, and “liberalism” means the Democratic Party.

Believing Putin had criticized life in California rather than America’s philosophy of government, Trump explained that, yes, Putin is correct that things are terrible in cities in California (“he does see things that are happening in the United States that would probably preclude him from saying how wonderful it is.”) But, Trump added, this is the fault of the Democrats, not him. He then assured reporters he’s not offended, because Putin has congratulated him on the overall state of the American economy.

It’s not important that a president has read Locke and Mill. But a normal president would have been briefed on this interview with Putin and would certainly know that he wasn’t talking about California fergawdsakes!!!


Here’s the interview
in which Vladimir Putin said he thinks Western democracy is finished. It’s very revealing. He sounds like Steve Bannon.

.

A simple choice by @BloggersRUs

A simple choice, really
by Tom Sullivan

Andy Dufresne: [to Red] I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living, or get busy dying.

Shawshank Redemption, 1994

After this week’s events in the Supreme Court, Andy pretty much sums up what it feels like trapped inside a world where the freedom to control your own fate seems evanescent. Even so, Andy resolved not to resign himself to his fate.

The day after the inauguration of the 45th president in 2017, three to five million (by one estimate) joined the Women’s March in the United States alone. More than the combined military forces of the United States. The largest protest in U.S. history.

While impressive, a one-day march is not enough to make real change. Spark it, maybe, but not accomplish it. The blue wave last November demonstrated the Resistance was more than a one-day protest. Democratic women wore white to the 2019 State of the Union address in tribute to U.S. suffragists to drive home the point. The 19th Amendment first passed Congress one hundred years ago this month. The amendment was ratified a year later.


The fight for women’s suffrage took 70 years. No matter the opposition and setbacks, nevertheless they persisted.

As disheartening as this week was for those of fighting to unrig districts rigged against them for the last decade, persistence will pay. Eventually. It did for the right’s project to pack the courts with conservative ideologues. They worked that plan for decades. They passed measures across the country to suppress the vote and gerrymander as many districts as they could. They were persistent.

You cannot win if you don’t show up to play. You cannot compete if you don’t have game. So with a strategy meeting on tap this morning, I’ll republish a post about a pet project for teaching under-resourced county committees how to help local candidates win in districts where they don’t now:

This is what more looks like
by Tom Sullivan

On Monday here at Hullabaloo, I wrote about the 1st Democratic Candidates Conference (DemCanCon) that took place last weekend outside Washington, D.C.

I met lots of what one trainer called “mom & pop” candidates: people who finally had enough and filed for office for the first time. Most have no idea what they’ve gotten into, but this conference offered to get them up to speed. About 250 attendees. A small, but enthusiastic group from 24 states.

After finding out where they were from and what they were running for, I asked what help (post-primary) they could expect from the local parties in their districts.

The question generally drew a pregnant pause, a sigh, and perhaps an eye roll.

They were from Maryland, Virginia, New York, Indiana and elsewhere. Almost without exception the same reaction.

It’s why I wrote my For The Win get-out-the-vote primer for county officers.

Firsthand experience is behind it.

2006:

I visited a western NC county a week ahead of the congressional election (yes, Heath Shuler was top of the ticket that year) to check on their preparations. What had they done? What else did they need to do? What did they need from us?

“We’re done,” they said.

Excuse me?

“We called through the phone list and put out the signs.”

They saw us looking sideways at each other.

“You mean, you want us to do … more?

Yes. On Election Night, more suddenly looked pretty good.

2008:


2014:
An experienced election protection attorney from Boston was in our headquarters on GOTV Weekend. On Election Day, he walks up 3 hrs before the polls close and says with some admiration, “I’ve never seen an operation like this.”

When the polls closed, the county picked up two state legislative seats in a year when Democrats across the country got the shit kicked out of them.

2016:
Volunteers arrived in a 15-passenger van from Nashville on GOTV weekend. One had come from as far away as Memphis (IIRC). They’d given up on Tennessee and wanted a chance to help flip North Carolina blue.

After sizing up the place, one visitor said, “We don’t have anything like this.”

And isn’t that the problem?

I explained it to candidates at DemCanCon this way.

If you’re not in a swing state, especially if you’re in a more rural county in not-a-swing-state (including blue states), Barack Obama isn’t parachuting in a team from Michigan Avenue to show you how to do a high-energy, months-long, countywide GOTV and electioneering effort. The governor’s race doesn’t show up out there. The U.S. Senate race doesn’t set up out there.

Want to know one reason why Democrats get no traction in the Plains States? I tried to email Kansas, South Dakota, and Montana counties yesterday and got pissed off. The white counties in otherwise red-shaded states are either unorganized or have no email or Facebook contact information on the state party websites (and probably not even a Facebook page not listed there). That’s 40 percent of Kansas counties, half of Montana, and 70 percent of South Dakota. That’s counties, not population, naturally. Okay, very rural, low-density areas I have the luxury of not trying to organize. And maybe it is because there are no Democrats out there. Even so. Those states elect U.S. senators. If Democrats don’t show up to play, they forfeit. Look at south-central Georgia.


So, I don’t want to hear “This is the most important election of our lifetime” again. Ever. Because if you think short-term, you never invest in the future. As they say around the office, “Why is there never time to do it right, but always time to do it over?” Democrats do it over — and over — on a two-year cycle, in many places starting each time from scratch.

Turnover from the DNC on down, plus killing off the 50-state strategy, keeps local teams from building over time. State parties teach local committees to pull poorly targeted call lists from VoteBuilder, pat them on the head, and send them on their way. Not good enough.

I’m sending links to county chairs across the country, bypassing state-party bottlenecks and concentrating on places Democratic muckety mucks ignore. It’s a lead a horse to water effort. For The Win is not comprehensive, nor meant to be. We just need to lower the bar to higher performance.

I sent those links to 2,300 county chairs last year. Hundreds of others in 49 states requested the 2018 edition. Over 1,000 downloaded it. There were even a few thank-yous along the way. The 2020 version is due out in January.

You cannot win if you don’t show up to play. You cannot compete if you don’t have game.

Friday Night Soother

by digby

Baby Red Panda!

Moonlight, a 4-year-old red panda, gave birth to a cub overnight June 12 at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal, Virginia. Moonlight and the cub appear to be doing well and keepers are cautiously optimistic that the cub will continue to grow. The new mom has been very attentive to the cub, only leaving the nest box where it was born for very short periods of time to eat and drink. Keepers have been monitoring the pair via a closed-circuit camera in the nest box and they have seen Moonlight, an experienced mom, grooming and nursing the cub.

When Moonlight left the nest box June 19, keepers took the opportunity to perform a quick visual exam and weigh the cub. It weighed in at 6 ounces (172 grams), which is normal for a newborn. Keepers and veterinarians will continue to monitor the pair closely during the next several weeks, which are the most critical for a newborn cub.

The cub will stay in the nest box for the next two to three months, where it will eventually open its eyes and begin walking. It is covered in a thick woolly layer of fur that will become thicker and in the coming months turn the iconic rusty red color that gives red pandas their name. The cub will stay with Moonlight until it is 1 year to 18 months old.

Red pandas are native to high-altitude bamboo forests in Asia. Their main threats are habitat loss due to logging and human development. They are classified as “endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The number of red pandas living in the wild has declined by as much as 50% during the past 20 years. SCBI participates in the Red Panda Species Survival Plan and breeds and studies red pandas to create an insurance population against extinction. It is home to five red pandas including the new born cub.

SCBI plays a leading role in the Smithsonian’s global efforts to save wildlife species from extinction and train future generations of conservationists. SCBI spearheads research programs at its headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia, the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington, D.C., and at field research stations and training sites worldwide. SCBI scientists tackle some of today’s most complex conservation challenges by applying and sharing what they learn about animal behavior and reproduction, ecology, genetics, migration and conservation sustainability.

You want more cute? Here’s some mega-cute:

I need to watch these all evening …

.

“You can’t break up rat families”

“You can’t break up rat families”

by digby


The “Cooch” speaks for the nihilist Trumpies
:

Cuccinelli, an immigration hard-liner nominated this month by President Trump to lead the federal agency that oversees legal immigration, including asylum, made the case while speaking on “Erin Burnett OutFront.” The news anchor asked whether Cuccinelli believed the graphic photo could be compared to the 2015 photo of the 3-year-old Syrian boy who had washed up on a beach, an image that had turned the world’s attention to the anguish confronting refugees trying to reach Europe. Would the photo of this father and daughter become a symbol of the Trump administration’s policies on the border? Burnett asked.

Cuccinelli said no, “in fact the opposite.”

“The reason we have tragedies like that on the border is because that father didn’t wait to go through the asylum process in the legal fashion and decided to cross the river and not only died but his daughter died tragically as well,” said Cuccinelli, 50. “Until we fix the attractions in our asylum system, people like that father and that child are going to continue to come through a dangerous trip.”

Cuccinelli, the former attorney general of Virginia, has long peddled far-right fare, supporting immigration causes that ultimately would land him in the president’s good graces. But his extreme positions have turned off some moderate Republicans. As a state lawmaker in Virginia, Cuccinelli once sponsored a bill that would strip undocumented immigrants’ U.S.-born children of their citizenship. He supported a bill banning undocumented immigrants from attending any state colleges. He has said a D.C. ordinance that doesn’t let animal-control workers kill rats is worse than U.S. immigration policy because, “You can’t break up rat families.”

That’s why Trump chose him.

.

Big ratings

Big ratings

by digby


This is good news:

Thursday night’s Democratic debate featuring Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and eight other candidates was the highest-rated Democratic match-up in Nielsen ratings history.
Final viewership numbers won’t be available until Friday afternoon. But the so-called “overnight” ratings, recording how many households tuned in, showed a 15 to 20 percent increase over Wednesday, which was night one of the two-night event.

Wednesday night’s debate on NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo had a 12.3 household rating, in the “overnights,” and Thursday night had a 14.1 rating.

The total viewership on Wednesday night was around 15.3 million viewers, just shy of the all-time ratings record for Democratic party primary debates.

More than 15 million viewers tuned into the first Democratic debate of the 2020 race
The record was set in October 2015, when 15.5 million viewers tuned in to CNN for the first primary season debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.


Given the strong household rating for Thursday night, the total viewership could be in the ballpark of 17 million. Nielsen (NLSN) will distribute the actual viewership numbers Friday afternoon.

The high ratings have exceeded the expectations of NBC executives and surprised others in the TV industry. Democratic officials have cheered the news.

“The more people that watch our candidates, the more people are gonna like our candidates,” DNC chair Tom Perez told the Washington Post.

But before Democrats get too excited, remember that Donald Trump is a train wreck that nobody can resist slowing down to watch:

The ratings still fall far short of the Trump-fueled records for Republican primary debates that were set in 2015. Trump’s first time on the debate stage, in August 2015, helped attract 24 million viewers to Fox News. His second time, the following month, helped draw 23 million viewers to CNN.

The freak show has some advantages. Still, it’s good news that so many people tuned in this early. It’s only going to get more interesting as time goes on.

.

Biden’s dilemma

Biden’s dilemma

by digby

This is a brilliant insight into Joe Biden’s dilemma by Greg Sargent:

The topic of race is absolutely central to Biden’s candidacy, but it’s also the source of a big and unresolved tension at its core.

Race is key to Biden’s suggestion that our central imperative is defeating Trump and to Biden’s claim that he’s the candidate to do that. This is true in two ways: an obvious way and a largely unmentioned way.

On one hand, Biden has made his forceful denunciation of Trump’s racism central to the argument that Trump is an existential threat to our national character. He launched his candidacy with a powerful denunciation of the resurgence of white supremacy and Trump’s refusal to unambiguously condemn it, and cast the election as a referendum on whether we will permanently come unmoored from our founding ideals.

Biden’s discussion of race, then, is central to his aura as the candidate who will salvage our national character from Trump’s degradations of it and keep the arc of our history bending toward justice. He’s the American elder statesman who possesses the depth, experience and gravity to make this big argument.

On the other hand, Biden’s aura of electability turns in part on his alleged ability to appeal to the blue-collar, culturally conservative whites who turned out in huge numbers for Trump amid a candidacy of virulent bigotry that had its founding spark in the conspiracy theory that the first black presidency was illegitimate.

Where is the source of that appeal to those voters supposed to lie? Partly in Biden’s roots in Scranton, Pa., and in his image as an old-fashioned labor Democrat (never mind that he’s far less populist on policy than Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

But race is also key to that appeal. When we discuss Biden’s electability in the industrial Midwest, race is central to what we’re talking about, and we all know it.

The most charitable way to put this is that Biden comes from a Democratic Party that precedes its new “wokeness,” so those voters might be more comfortable with him. A less charitable way is that Biden’s past association with things like his opposition to busing — which meant capturing the political energy of white racial backlash — carries an implicit racial and cultural signaling that will reassure them.

One key reason that Biden’s nostalgia over white supremacist senators blew up on him is that it ripped the lid off of all this. Just as Harris does, I believe Biden when he insists he was, and is, horrified by their white supremacy.

But what still remains ambiguous is whether Biden does or does not conceive the source of his claimed appeal to conservative whites as rooted in subtle appeals to blue-collar white identity politics, as Jamelle Bouie has detailed.

This ambiguity was pushed forward when Biden adamantly refused to back off his praise for segregationist senators and, worse, when he dressed downAfrican American Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) over the matter.

What Harris did last night

What Harris really did is to pin down this ambiguity and not allow it to remain hidden any longer. What she demonstrated is that, whatever Biden’s actual intentions, any whiff of such racial and cultural signaling no longer has any place in today’s Democratic Party.

Tellingly, this was precisely the point at which Biden was left befuddled. He simply didn’t know how to respond. He did forcefully denounce his old Senate colleagues. But he also defended his busing stance — which carried the aroma of that very same signaling. At the least, he just didn’t know how to clearly telegraph that he understands that this no longer can be left ambiguous.

It’s not yet clear how much this will damage Biden, and he still has time to find some way to convey clarity on this point.

But Harris’s precision in exposing this ambiguity was almost eerie. Biden may possess a well of knowledge and experience from having lived through civil rights tumult, but it didn’t serve him well at a crucial moment.

By contrast, Harris made a strong down payment on the idea that she’s the one to prosecute the case against Trump’s racism — a case that must be prosecuted with no such ambiguity or gray areas.

It is going to take an adept Democratic politician to traverse all the cross-currents in American political life and make it to the White House. But splitting the difference between the white racists who voted for Trump and the loyal African American constituency is simply impossible on both a moral and strategic basis. The Democratic party is a big coalition but we’ve come to the point at which certain beliefs simply are not compatible with the party’s values.

There are some people who voted for Trump who can be reached. Many of them voted for Democrats in 2018. They didn’t need any dogwhistles. They understood that the GOP has gone around the bend and the president is a clear and present danger. And they know the Democrats are the only institutional tool they have to stop them.

It’s not complicated.

.

David Brooks thinks Trump is destroying the constitution — but Democrats might be worse

David Brooks thinks Trump is destroying the constitution — but Democrats might be worse

by digby

He’s very upset that Democrats are too far left for his taste:

I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?

According to a recent Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 35 percent call themselves moderate and 26 percent call themselves liberal. The candidates at the debates this week fall mostly within the 26 percent. The party seems to think it can win without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, the ones who actually delivered the 2018 midterm win.

The progressive narrative is dominating in part because progressives these days have a direct and forceful story to tell and no interest in compromising it. It’s dominating because no moderate wants to bear the brunt of progressive fury by opposing it.

It’s also dominating because the driving dynamic in this campaign right now is not who can knock off Joe Biden, the more moderate front-runner. It’s who can survive the intense struggle between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others to be the surviving left-wing alternative. All the energy and competition is on the progressive side. Biden tries to bob and weave above it all while the whole debate pulls sharply leftward.

Whatever. He needs to take a look at this and recognize that the Democrats are smack in the mainstream of American politics and if these Never Trumpers are as appalled by Trump’s presidency as they say they are, if they want to restore some sense of normal give and take in our politics, then they need to swallow hard and vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is. If you consider yourself a moderate, there really is no choice.

If they are just preening and trying to portray themselves as above it all then they’ll find a reason to let Trump win again. It’s really that simple.

I wrote about this the other day for my Salon column:

I’m sorry, but there is no “Jeb Bush lane” in the Democratic Party.

As this excellent post by Neil H. Buchanan at The Verdict legal blog points out, NeverTrumpers are “perfectly satisfied with the radical-right changes wrought by Republicans (and triangulating Democrats) over the past four decades. … By contrast, it is on matters of process, not substance, that the anti-Trump right actually has a good point to make.”

In other words, their appalled reaction to the assault on the Constitution, and on the political norms that make it possible for the system to function, is where they have the power to make a difference. As Buchanan writes, “American conservatives who are genuine ‘constitutional conservatives’ understand that there are more important things than, say, the optimal design of the estate tax. … If you are on the winning side in the fight to save our constitutional democracy, you can live to fight another day to attempt to reverse your losses in the fights over various substantive policies. But the opposite is not true, because if we lose the fight for our political system, there will be no more opportunities to fight for anything else.”

I know these guys want Democrats to beat Donald Trump. But Democrats have a large coalition that must be respected by their leaders. These Republicans should take their own smug advice, get off Twitter and pay attention to what’s happening on the ground. They’ll find a party that is ideologically diverse, and even more committed to defeating Donald Trump than they are. Democrats will make their decisions accordingly.

But if there are Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who are appalled by Trump’s assault on the system and the Republican Party’s descent into madness, these NeverTrumpers could make their best contribution e by helping those folks realize that stopping Trump means we can all live to fight each other another day on the issues where we may strongly disagree. There’s no guarantee of that if Trump wins again.

Brooks writes:

Democrats aren’t making the most compelling moral case against Donald Trump. They are good at pointing to Trump’s cruelties, especially toward immigrants. They are good at describing the ways he is homophobic and racist. But the rest of the moral case against Trump means hitting him from the right as well as the left.

A decent society rests on a bed of manners, habits, traditions and institutions. Trump is a disrupter. He rips to shreds the codes of politeness, decency, honesty and fidelity, and so renders society a savage world of dog eat dog. Democrats spend very little time making this case because defending tradition, manners and civility sometimes cuts against the modern progressive temper.

If they hate what Trump has done as much as they say they do they will see the bigger picture and do what is necessary to stop him in 2020. That means voting for the Democrats and using their own platforms to convince Republicans that they need to save the country instead of wringing their hands over policy differences. There is no Democrat running who is as big a threat to this country as Donald Trump. They know this. They’re just trying to hector the Dems into making them the Kingmakers and they don’t get to do that.

As far as I’m concerned, they are welcome to the fight against Trumpism but they are not going to be the leaders. They forefeited any right to that by helping to make the Republican party into what it is today.

.

Trump overseas, hating on the allies, kissing up to the adversaries. Again.

Trump overseas, hating on the allies, kissing up to the adversaries. Again.

by digby

My Salon column this morning:

The two Democratic presidential debates this week were typical of early primary-season events in that they mostly dealt with domestic issues. Unless the country is currently in a war or involved in some other major global crisis, candidates always focus on bread-and-butter issues in the first debates and town hall meetings. Foreign policy and national security will inevitably come up at later events, but never get the attention they should. Voters generally don’t follow the issues closely and aren’t all that interested.

There was one question about Iran in the first debate that resulted in a dust-up between Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio. There was another about what each candidate considers the greatest geopolitical threat, to which the answers were: China, nuclear war, climate change, the situation in Iran, Russia, North Korea and Donald Trump. For the first time in almost two decades nobody mentioned terrorism, which is a small sign of some sort of progress (although it would only take one attack for that to be back on the front burner.)

That’s quite a list, and the fact that there was no consensus illustrates the fact that the global order is unstable with a number of low-grade fires that could explode in various places around the world.

On Thursday night the second group was asked another foreign policy question (to which they were supposed to give one-word answers). This one was about which relationship they would “reset” as president after Donald Trump. The answers were similar: China, North Korea, Iran, other European and Latin American allies and NATO. This second long list shows that the global problems facing a new president include dealing with all the important alliances Trump has trashed as well.

The point is that the geopolitical challenges left by Donald Trump are going to be overwhelming. As these candidates were all debating each other in Miami, the president was overseas at the G20 meeting in Japan, making things worse. Here’s how the New York Times described it on Thursday

President Trump plunged back into the world of international diplomacy on Friday with characteristic provocation, keeping some of America’s closest allies, including his hosts, off balance even as he sought advantage on an array of economic and security disputes with profound consequences. 

Mr. Trump opened a series of high-stakes meetings with world leaders gathered in Osaka, Japan, for an international summit meeting after calling into question the very foundation of the relationship between the United States and two of its most important friends, Japan and Germany, and lashing out at a third partner, India. 

The Japanese leaders hosting the meetings were still reeling Friday morning at the president’s attack on the mutual defense treaty that has been the bedrock between Washington and Tokyo for nearly seven decades. Before arriving in Osaka, Mr. Trump complained that under the treaty, Japan would not come to the aid of the United States if it were attacked and instead would “watch it on a Sony television.”

If he even knows about the treaty signed between Japan and the U.S. after World War II which only allowed Japan to use its military in self-defense, he clearly wants to tear it up. According to the Times, Trump’s various insults and complaints came in advance of his scheduled meetings on the first day with the leaders of Japan, Germany, India and Russia. As usual, he didn’t have any harsh words for the latter.

And he brought along his most important advisers:

It was surprising to see Jared Kushner there, since he was just in Bahrain putting on a road show for his”hot IPO” Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. It was a bit of a dud, I’m afraid:

For all the self-congratulation by Mr. Kushner, Mr. Mnuchin and their guests, the Palestinian Authority government, which deeply mistrusts the Trump administration, boycotted the event. Most Palestinian business leaders shunned it. Hamas, the militant organization that controls Gaza, was not even invited.

The centerpiece of the conference was a $50 billion economic investment plan for the Palestinian territories to, as Mr. Kushner put it, show Palestinians “what the future can look like” under a Trump administration peace plan. But the economic plan itself was conspicuous in its omission of any mention of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians weren’t impressed. Neither were the Egyptians, who would have received several billion in “investment” as well. As the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported:

Nathan Brown, a political science professor at George Washington University, said Egypt was unlikely to agree to a proposal that could link it more closely to Gaza’s fate. “While economic development funds for Sinai are attractive, the purpose of the plan seems to be to tie Gaza and Sinai closer together in a way that Egypt has resisted for political and security reasons.”

According to the Times, “much of the conference seemed only loosely connected to the region, or to anything at all.” Everyone knew that this “hot IPO” was a joke absent any political agreements among the parties. Kushner said, “We’re going to put out our political plan at the right time and we’ll see what happens,” and then jetted off to Japan to help his wife and father-in-law make a mess of things in Asia.

All of this is especially interesting in light of the release of transcripts of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month. Recalling that Kushner had absolutely zero experience in foreign affairs, Tillerson said that Kushner nonetheless operated as a shadow secretary of state, globetrotting wherever he desired, making policy without telling anyone and essentially operating a rogue foreign policy shop. He was particularly involved with arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a blockade of Qatar and a lot of off-the-books communications with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Just as a reminder that throughout this period, Kushner could not qualify for a top security clearance, for reasons we are still not clear about. Even today, he’s only got one because the president ordered it over the objections of the intelligence agencies.

The debate moderators didn’t ask any of the Democratic candidates about the Mueller Report or Russian interference in the last election and the next one. But a reporter did ask Trump about it in Japan when he was sitting with Vladimir Putin:

Let’s hope the press remembers to ask the Democratic candidates about it the next time around, and that the candidates take it seriously. Trump’s foreign policy is a chaotic mess and it’s getting worse every day. One of the most important priorities for the next president, whoever that is, will be trying to regain some credibility and set a new course.

.

States’ Rights defense?

States’ Rights defense?

by digby

This was powerful:

The Fact check:

Recall that Barack Obama once evoked states’ rights too. He changed his mind. Biden should have just said he changed his too.

.