Skip to content

Month: August 2019

The gravedigger of democracy trolls the Democrats

The gravedigger of democracy trolls the Democrats

by digby



This is nothing more than rank trolling
and the Democrats should tell Mitch to go fuck himself. If they haven’t learned by now that this malevolent monster has no intention of ever honoring any concept but self-interest they will never learn it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Democrats on Thursday against weakening the legislative filibuster, an idea that has gained momentum with some presidential candidates and not ruled out by Senate Democratic leaders who backed a similar move six years ago to make it easier to break filibusters of most presidential nominees.

“The legislative filibuster is directly downstream from our founding tradition. If that tradition frustrates the whims of those on the far left, it is their half-baked proposals and not the centuries-old wisdom that need retooling,” McConnell wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times.

The Kentucky Republican argued that “strong minority rights have always been the Senate’s distinguishing feature” and reminded Democrats that when they used the “nuclear option” in 2013 to lower the supermajority threshold to break a filibuster for nominees, he had cautioned they would soon wish they hadn’t.

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell wrote at the top of his commentary, quoting his own admonishment to Democrats as then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, forced through that rules change.
Soon after, Republicans took control of the Senate and President Donald Trump won the White House. McConnell then made full use of the rules change he had decried to confirm scores of district and appeals court judges. He also employed the nuclear option again, this time to lower the filibuster threshold for Supreme Court nominees, allowing him to install Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the high court, confirmations that would have been unlikely under the old rules.

Confirming so many judges has been a hallmark for Trump and McConnell, who both tout it as one of their most significant achievements as they each seek reelection.

“So, this is the legacy of the procedural avalanche Democrats set off,” wrote McConnell, predicting the “consequences of taking Sen. Reid’s advice will haunt liberals for decades.”

Golly, what’s he going to do?” Hold up a Supreme Court nomination until he gets a Republican president to appoint a wingnut of his choice? Now that would be a bad precedent….

Those of you who have been following this blog lo these many years know that I’ve been writing about the right’s total abandonment of any pretense of intellectual consistency and recognition of hypocrisy for a very long time. It gives them tremendous power. Now they have added total shamelessness and “I know you are but what am I ” to their repertoire and it’s made it impossible to deal with them on a rational basis.

Dave Roberts put it this way:

It has been going that way for quite some time now. (Remember Dick Cheney?) But McConnell, like Trump, isn’t even trying to make serious arguments anymore. He’s just trolling and strong-arming and nothing more. Democrats must accept this reality and strategize accordingly.

.

Trump the nuclear arms negotiator, circa 1984

Trump the nuclear arms negotiator, circa 1984

by digby

With all of Trump’s nuclear talk and North Korea and the news that the Russians are probably testing nuclear-powered missiles (that are blowing up!),  yesterday CNN mentioned this Washington Post Trump profile from 1984, headlined “Donald Trump, Holding All The Cards The Tower! The Team! The Money! The Future!.”

The whole profile shows that the man has not grown at all in even the slightest ways over the past  35 years except his vocabulary has actually shrunk from what was already about a 6th-grade level. This was the passage relating to nuclear warfare:

In the low-key world of New York real estate, where getting publicity can be almost as damaging as being stuck with an empty building, Trump cultivates it. He is often described as a “hustler,” a fast-talking, fast-walking operator who always has an idea and a way to get it into the newspapers.

This morning, Trump has a new idea. He wants to talk about the threat of nuclear war. He wants to talk about how the United States should negotiate with the Soviets.

He wants to be the negotiator.

He says he has never acted on his nuclear concern. But he says that his good friend Roy Cohn, the flamboyant Republican lawyer, has told him this interview is a perfect time to start.

“Some people have an ability to negotiate,” he says. “It’s an art you’re basically born with. You either have it or you don’t.”

He would know what to ask the Russians for, he says. But he would rather not tip his hand publicly. “In the event anything happens with respect to me, I wouldn’t want to make my opinions public,” he says. “I’d rather keep those thoughts to myself or save them for whoever else is chosen . . .

“It’s something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past.”

He could learn about missiles, quickly, he says.

“It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles . . . I think I know most of it anyway. You’re talking about just getting updated on a situation . . . You know who really wants me to do this? Roy . . . I’d do it in a second.”

63 million people voted for this congenitally addled narcissist and they love him to this day.

We are seeing his great “negotiating” skill as president. He insults and crudely attacks his opponents, then back down when they refuse to capitulate while insisting that he’s actually won. It brought him to financial ruin many times over the course of his career and he was allowed to maintain his lifestyle only because his very wealthy father bailed him o0ut over and over again. Now he’s destroying the world, but making sure he is personally gobbling up as much money as he possibly can in the meantime.

His voters don’t care about any of that. They only care that his ugly, ignorant demagoguery is what they’ve been thinking all along. Our problem is something poisonous deep in the culture, not Trump.

Any society that could elevate a narcissistic boob like Trump to the most powerful office in the land has something very wrong with it at its core. As you can see by that article from 35 years ago, it’s not as if he came out of nowhere. Unlike Trump’s non-existent knowledge of missiles and nuclear warfare, we actually did know everything we needed to know about him before he ever entered politics.

.

Trump put everything he had into getting Putin back in the G8. Why?

Trump put everything he had into getting Putin back in the G8

by digby


The question remains: why?
What does this get him? The Russian government isn’t agitating to get back into the G7. So what’s the point of Trump going to such lengths to make it happen?

President Trump capped days of advocacy on behalf of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin by announcing here Monday that he intends to invite the leader to the Group of Seven summit in 2020, which Trump will host in an election year amid warnings that Russia is actively trying to interfere again in the U.S. presidential election.

The effort would soften Russia’s pariah status and potentially bring it back into an elite club of some of the most powerful industrialized nations that lent Putin prized international legitimacy during the 14 years he attended. Russia was booted following the its 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, slimming the Group of Eight by a member.

“I think it would better to have Russia inside the tent than outside the tent,” Trump said at a news conference Monday at the summit’s conclusion.

Trump’s extraordinary promotion of Putin proved to be the most tense disagreement over three days of contentious meetings at this year’s G-7 in the French oceanside resort town of Biarritz. The U.S. leader’s wish to restore Russia’s legitimacy was in keeping with his long-standing role as a Putin cheerleader and apologist, but was coolly received by other leaders at the gathering.

In 2014, the United States and other G-7 member nations jointly declared Russia’s annexation of Crimea a violation of international law. But on Monday, Trump blamed the Crimea crisis on former president Barack Obama, not Putin, and alleged that Obama was determined to kick Russia out of the G-7 because it was “very embarrassing to him.”

“President Obama was pure and simply outsmarted,” Trump said. “They took Crimea during his term. That was not a good thing. It could have been stopped, it could have been stopped with the right, whatever. It could have been stopped, but President Obama was unable to stop it, and it’s too bad.”

As host of the G-7 summit in 2020, Trump could unilaterally invite Putin or any other foreign leader as a special guest, just as French President Emmanuel Macron invited Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to Biarritz. Trump said Putin would be welcome, and even expressed sympathy for the awkwardness the Russian leader might feel over his banishment.

“Would I invite him? I would certainly invite him,” Trump told reporters. “Whether or not he could come, psychologically, I think that’s a tough thing for him to do,” he added, saying that Putin was “a proud person” and that it would be difficult for him to return to the gathering if he was not fully embraced by the other leaders at the meeting.

The repeated push was noted cheerfully by Russian state television on Monday evening, with one program on the powerful Rossiya-1 network playing a triumphant soundtrack as it showed six recent video clips in which Trump demanded Putin’s return.

But Russian officials did not immediately leap at the open door.

“Russia does not reject any communication formats, but is not going to push its participation on anyone,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, according to Russia’s Interfax news agency.
[…]
“To invite Russia back into the G-7, since Russia has fulfilled none of the preconditions laid down in 2014, is essentially saying that Russia has gotten away with what it did in Ukraine and is not going to suffer all the consequences,” said Angela Stent, a Russia expert at Georgetown University who recently wrote “Putin’s World,” a book about his foreign policy.

At the Biarritz summit, Trump punctuated almost every public appearance with his desire to bring Putin to the meeting in the future.

Other leaders knew the push was coming, although some advisers said they did not expect he would bring it up so forcefully. European Council President Donald Tusk, a former Polish prime minister who has little sympathy for Russia, tried to head it off even before Trump touched down in Biarritz.

“One year ago, in Canada, President Trump suggested reinviting Russia to the G-7, stating openly that Crimea’s annexation by Russia was partially justified. And that we should accept this fact. Under no condition can we agree with this logic,” Tusk told reporters on Saturday.

“When Russia was invited to the G-7 for the first time, it was believed that it would pursue the path of liberal democracy, rule of law, and human rights,” Tusk added. “Is there anyone among us who can say with full conviction, not out of business calculation, that Russia is on that path?”

The leaders sat down Saturday evening for their first joint meeting — a dinner of Basque specialties at the foot of the landmark lighthouse of Biarritz. The meal started normally, with a discussion of the fires in the Amazon. It moved on to containing Iran’s nuclear threat. But it went off the rails when Trump blasted leaders for not including Russia.

Trump’s message was that “it doesn’t really make sense to have this discussion without Putin at the table,” according to a European official briefed on the conversation among the leaders.

The official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sharp discussions at the summit.

The entire 44-year vision of the G-7 gathering, according to the non-U. S. participants, is to hash out global issues among like-minded democracies. So the discussion quickly turned even more fundamental: Whether the leaders should assign any special weight to being a democracy, officials said.

Most of the other participants forcefully believed the answer was yes. Trump believed the answer was no. The pushback against him was delivered so passionately that the U.S. president’s body language changed as one leader after another dismissed his demand, according to a senior official who watched the exchange. He crossed his arms. His stance became more combative.

“Here there is a fundamental difference of views,” one official said.

“Rough and tumble,” said another.

On Sunday morning, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Macron, pumping his fist, “You did very well there last night. My God, that was a difficult one.”

“Bien joué,” the newly-elected British leader said in private comments that were caught on an open microphone, using the French phrase for “well played.”

Not every leader pushed against Trump, officials said. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe was neutral, as was Italian Acting Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte.

But having such a forceful advocate for an authoritarian leader inside the room of democracies profoundly shaped the overall tone of the summit, one senior official said.

“The consequence is the same as if one of the participants is a dictator,” the official said. “No community of like-minded leaders who are pulling together.”

Trump’s push has puzzled Russia experts in the United States.

“I find this whole discussion completely ridiculous,” said Michael McFaul, who was a U.S. ambassador to Russia under Obama. “Putin did not outsmart Obama. Putin invaded Ukraine. He annexed territory for the first time since World War II in Europe, violating norms, laws and international agreements that Russia had signed up to for decades, so the G-7 rightly, as one of their many sanctions against Putin, decided to kick him out.”

McFaul said that he did not see a reason to bring Putin to the gathering.

“What is the U.S. national security interest that is advanced?” he said.

But even if the leaders do not agree to formally readmit Russia, Putin could find his way to next year’s summit. The G-7 is an informal group with few set rules about its membership. Decisions are taken by consensus. The countries rotate hosting responsibilities, and the host nation any given year has wide-ranging power to invite additional guests and set the agenda.

My favorite quote is this one:

“President Obama was pure and simply outsmarted. They took Crimea during his term. That was not a good thing. It could have been stopped, it could have been stopped with the right, whatever. It could have been stopped, but President Obama was unable to stop it, and it’s too bad.”

“It could have been stopped with the right whatever.” Why, oh why, didn’t anyone ask him what that “whatever” should have been?

This looks to me as if it’s Trump just currying favor with Putin. For reasons about which we can only speculate, it seems that he needs ways to boldly demonstrate his personal fealty to the man. Attacking Putin’s enemy Barack Obama and floating the idea of inviting him to the US is one way to do that.

By the way, Senators Ron Johnson and Chris Murphy have been denied entry to Russia for being critical of the country. One wonders whether he will take Putin’s side on this as he took Israel’s side against allowing entry to the two US Congressional Representatives, Tlaib and Omar. Ron Johnson is one of his sycophantic boot-lickers.

I’m betting he’ll defend Putin. When it comes to bootlicking, nobody does it better than Trump when he’s talking to his bff.

.

Oh look, angry liberals have been showing up at Townhalls demanding impeachment. Who knew?

Oh look, angry liberals have been showing up at Townhalls demanding impeachment. Who knew?

by digby

See an interactive map of which ones are on board

I’m so old I remember when the news media obsessively followed the Tea Party protests in August of 2009 where a bunch of angry older white people stormed the meetings to protest Obamacare.

This is the first I’ve seen of voters attending town halls this August and demanding impeachment. I guess they were too civilized about it to merit any notice:

Democrats hoping to avoid clashes over impeachment when they left Washington this summer are being confronted with a difficult reality at sometimes hostile town hall events. Voters across the country — from California to Pennsylvania to Massachusetts — grilled House Demoocrats on the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump at a series of events this month, regardless of whether they support or oppose the drastic measure.

The very first question Rep. Katie Porter received at a town hall here, for example, was where she stood on impeaching Trump.

To rousing applause, the vulnerable California Democrat told the crowd that she favors impeachment — even though some worry it would play into the president’s hands. Porter, who flipped a Republican seat in what is becoming a more liberal Orange County, also acknowledged the political dangers of her pro-impeachment stance.

“People said, ‘Well, this might be risky, you might not get reelected,’” Porter said. “I said, ‘I am here to do what’s right.’”

Her response underscores the quandary facing House Democrats — especially so-called front-line members whom the national party believes are its most vulnerable in 2020. Many progressive voters want Democratic leaders to move forward with impeachment immediately, the politics of it be damned, because ethics demand it; others are hammering their representatives over the possibility that impeachment would boost Trump’s reelection prospects because he would claim vindication after being acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate.

“If the only times I got out of bed were days I thought something I vote on would pass the Senate, I would have bedsores,” Porter quipped.

Democrats won the majority in the House because they flipped dozens of Republican-held seats, including all four in Orange County, with candidates who billed themselves as moderates. But many of those same Democrats have come out for impeachment, and all of the potentially perilous political consequences that come with it.

It’s a question freshman Rep. Harley Rouda has also grappled with. Rouda, another Orange County Democrat, is high on Republicans’ target list as they aim to retake the majority in 2020 — but he, too, backs an impeachment inquiry, despite fears among many Democrats that taking such a position in a swing district is a political death knell.

“None of the calculus included, ‘What does this mean to me personally from a political standpoint?’” Rouda said in an interview in Laguna Beach, where he lives. “‘Does this help me or hurt me in my chances of getting reelected?’ never crossed my mind once.”

Rep. Stephen Lynch, who opposes impeachment because he fears it will help Trump, faced a hostile crowd of around 200 advocates, activists and constituents who shouted him down as he delivered impassioned rejections of their calls for impeachment.

Lynch, who has served in the House for nearly two decades, faces a different predicament than his fellow moderates in swing districts. The Massachusetts Democrat doesn’t fear Republican opponents; he has progressive primary challengers as his already-blue Boston suburbs district is being yanked to the left.

“You are going to give Donald Trump another four years by doing that. You are helping him. You are helping him get another four years,” Lynch fired back at his constituents, raising his voice as the restive audience shouted at him. “I want Donald Trump removed from office and you’re going to give him another four years. That’s what I know. That’s what I know in my heart.”

Many of the pro-impeachment voters turning out at town halls didn’t appear to be part of organized efforts, even as progressive groups like Impeach Now and Indivisible have ramped up their “Impeachment August” campaign. There were few, if any, matching T-shirts, poster-board signs or coordinated chants.

Instead, people lined up at the microphones eager to discuss specifics of Trump’s actions as outlined in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and the House’s lawsuits — a kind of detailed knowledge and energy that suggests pro-impeachment sentiment is more deep-rooted than simply an antagonistic anti-Trump movement and could be impossible for Democrats to ignore long term. 

Several people were so versed in the House’s work that they at times challenged their own members about the legal merits of an impeachment “inquiry,” a nuanced argument that is usually heard in the hallways of Congress rather than a suburban community center. They praised House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) by name, and name-dropped witnesses like former White House counsel Don McGahn, who was mentioned multiple times in Mueller’s 448-page report.

The issue also resurfaced in a Democratic Caucus call this month, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterated her cautious view on the subject.

“The public isn’t there on impeachment. It’s your voice and constituency, but give me the leverage I need to make sure that we’re ready and it is as strong as it can be,” Pelosi told House Democrats in the conference call last week, according to an aide.

“The equities we have to weigh are our responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution and to be unifying and not dividing. But if and when we act, people will know he gave us no choice,” Pelosi added, a reference to Trump’s stonewalling of myriad congressional investigations. “If he cannot respect the Constitution, we’ll have to deal with that. It’s about patriotism, not partisanship.”

But liberal voters across the country, who flocked to town halls this month, say that politics is the exact reason Democratic leaders aren’t acting on impeachment.

In a conservative suburb of Pittsburgh, one man recited lines from the Mueller report as he pressed vulnerable freshman Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) on his opposition to impeachment.

“I happen to believe, having read the Mueller report — back to front, back again — there are a lot of questions we still need to know the answers to,” Lamb, a former federal prosecutor, said during the event.

In a packed City Council room in Verona, N.J., Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill faced dozens of people clamoring for impeachment and, at times, interrupting her to make their point.

“If we let him get away with this, my fear is, there will not be a Constitution,” one woman told Sherrill, sparking applause.

But Sherrill, who is also a former federal prosecutor, said Democrats don’t yet have enough evidence to bring an impeachment case against Trump — a charge that a majority of her Democratic colleagues have rejected.

“If we don’t make a strong enough case to the American people — and right now, I don’t think we can do that without more — the president will be acquitted, and we will now have two branches of our government who have said that his behavior is acceptable,” Sherrill said as the room quieted, adding that she would support impeachment if Trump defies a court order.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a former federal prosecutor, has also faced hostility after saying she doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to impeach. | Mary Altaffer/AP Photo

Yet this moved some members of the audience to accuse her of playing politics.

“It’s a fight worth fighting. If you lose, you lose, but at least you made the fight,” one man said as Sherrill turned to other questions. Another woman chimed in with a warning: “Don’t be last to speak up. You’ll be challenged.”

Rep. Gil Cisneros, a Democrat who also flipped a GOP-held seat in Orange County and parts of Los Angeles, supports the House Judiciary Committee’s efforts to get its hands on key documents and secure witness testimony via the various court battles wading their way through the federal judiciary. But he said the House needs Mueller’s grand jury information and testimony from McGahn and other former top White House aides before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

“We can’t hold an impeachment hearing with just simply the Mueller report. We need the information behind the Mueller report, which the administration is not giving us, which is why we’re fighting that in court right now,” Cisneros said in an interview in Buena Park.

In the beachside city of Del Mar, outside San Diego, Rep. Mike Levin, another vulnerable Orange County Democrat, defended his support for an impeachment inquiry from a voter who pressed him on the political implications: “Why give [Trump] this gift?”

“I know that the politics on this are divided,” Levin told the man. “But I also know, with two young children, that eventually I’m going to have to account for what I did or did not do.”

“And I would rather be able, in the years ahead, to look back and know that we protected our democracy and that we stood up for what we knew to be right, for what we knew the founders intended for us to do, rather than what we felt may or may not be politically expedient,” Levin said as voters in the room gave him a standing ovation.

Levin’s district, represented for nearly two decades by former GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, includes the most conservative part of Orange County — a suburb of Los Angeles that is rapidly shifting Democratic — and much of San Diego County, which is more liberal. But Democrats still count him as vulnerable, and Levin acknowledged that it won’t be easy to keep his job in 2020. Still, he said, he’s ready to act on impeachment.

“If we don’t take the actions that the Constitution requires, I think we’re going to look back at this period of time and regret it,” Levin told POLITICO after the town hall. “The Mueller report speaks for itself. Mueller’s testimony speaks for itself.”

I am losing hope that he Democrats will do the right thing but you never know. They continue to subpoena witnesses and ask politely for documents which the White House is rudely denying, evoking some made-up privilege to slow walk it until it’s no longer relevant.

And it’s not just about Russia although the case was handed to them fully documented. There is the massive corruption and ongoing abuse of power as well.

The stakes are very high. Former Harry Reid staffer Adam Jentlesen explains it better than I:

One can only hope that these Representatives are listening to their constituents. The Republicans would.

And maybe if the news media paid as much attention to angry liberals at Townhalls as they did to the screaming Tea Partyers public opinion might have shifted as well. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen so it’s going to be up to Democrats to rely on their own sense of integrity and to ensure that President Tom Cotton doesn’t suspend the constitution in his first week under “powers” that have been assumed by his mentor Donald Trump.

And, by the way, unless they sweep the Senate and gain a 2/3rds majority anyone who thinks the Democrats will impeach Trump after he’s re-elected are nuts. It’s now or never.

.

How To Win Friends and Influence People by tristero

How To Win Friends and Influence People 

by tristero

Now there’s some Christ-level empathy for ya:

Peppered with complaints from farmers fed up with President Trump’s trade war, Sonny Perdue found his patience wearing thin. Mr. Perdue, the agriculture secretary and the guest of honor at the annual Farmfest gathering in southern Minnesota this month, tried to break the ice with a joke. 

“What do you call two farmers in a basement?” Mr. Perdue asked near the end of a testy hourlong town-hall-style event. “A whine cellar.” 

A cascade of boos ricocheted around the room.

He sure knows how to work a crowd. Keep this up and it won’t matter that the Federal Election Commission has been neutered.

They want to rule, Part eleventy-twelve? by @BloggersRUs

They want to rule, Part eleventy-twelve?
by Tom Sullivan

The flippant explanation for why conservative pedants argue the U.S. is “a republic not a democracy” is that those making it tend these days to be Republicans and, you know, for some reason republic just sounds right to them. Those insisting the U.S. is, was, and always will be a capitalist country, or a Christian one? Similar motivated reasoning.

A thorough answer is more complicated. A Twitter exchange between Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) led Jamelle Bouie in search of one.

AOC began a thread arguing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. Bouie links to this one:

In response, Crenshaw tweeted:

Crenshaw never says “not a democracy,” but it is implied, Bouie argues. The founders had a classical (read, “Greek”) understanding of direct democracy and crafted a “representative democracy” with counter-majoritarian features to guard against
direct democracy’s weaknesses. But “it was not designed for minority rule.”

Nicole Hemmer, author of “Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics” traces “a republic not a democracy” to the 1930s and 1940s. Franklin Roosevelt argued for taking the U.S. to war in Europe to defend democracy. He got pushback from non-interventionists:

One Roosevelt opponent, for example — Boake Carter, a newspaper columnist who supported the America First Committee (which opposed American entry into World War II) — wrote a column in October 1940 called “A Republic Not a Democracy,” in which he strongly rebuked the president for using the word “democracy” to describe the country. “The United States was never a democracy, isn’t a democracy, and I hope it will never be a democracy,” Carter wrote.

The term went from conservative complaint to right-wing slogan in the 1960s, when Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, used it in a September 1961 speech, “Republics and Democracies.” In a democracy, Welch protested, “there is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority. And that, visibly, is the system of government which the enemies of our republic are seeking to impose on us today.”

“This is a Republic, not a Democracy,” Welch said in conclusion, “Let’s keep it that way!”

“They *know* they aren’t the majority. They rely on establishing minority rule for power,” AOC argues today. GOP voter suppression efforts support that. As I’ve said before, royalists don’t want to govern, they want to rule.

But backing up to AOC’s original point about the electoral college, Bouie writes:

Crenshaw is wrong on the impact of ending the Electoral College. A presidential candidate who focused only on America’s cities and urban centers would lose — there just aren’t enough votes. Republicans live in cities just as Democrats live in rural areas. Under a popular vote, candidates would still have to build national coalitions across demographic and geographic lines. The difference is that those coalitions would involve every region of the country instead of a handful of competitive states in the Rust Belt and parts of the South.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump campaigned in 17 rural states, Bouie observed in March (linked in graf above). Contra Crenshaw’s pro-Electoral College argument, candidates already don’t campaign in many rural areas.

Bouie’s point about needing rural votes to win the presidency in a popular vote contest is also true of state races. Democrats in states such as North Carolina may be able to squeak out a win for governor in a statewide, popular-vote contest on the strength of the blue vote in urban areas. And they may lose both U.S. Senate seats and the legislature for lack of strength in rural areas. Depending on the state, there may not be enough Democratic votes in blue, urban areas to build a governing majority.

Another of the problems with the Electoral College is how it programs how we think about elections in general. Democratic presidential campaigns focus on big, blue states they believe can give them an Electoral College win whether or not that win represents a broad, national consensus. As we’ve seen, an Electoral College win may not even represent a popular majority. In the states, similarly, Democrats bust their tails to get out the vote in large population centers because that’s where Democratic low-hanging fruit is for statewide and/or national candidates driving the turnout operation. But without also winning legislative seats in more rural areas, control of legislatures and control of redistricting (until laws change) will remain in the hands of the GOP.

Howard Dean’s 50-State Strategy premise was you can’t win where you don’t show up to play. My corollary is you can’t compete there if you don’t have “game.”

UPDATE: Here’s additional background on the distinction (if any) between republic and democracy.

Two feral pigs in a pod

Two feral pigs in a pod

by digby

Global Trumpism is about more than politics. It’s about being a fucking asshole in every way:

French President Emmanuel Macron issued a fiery response to Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for social media comments that appeared to mock the appearance of French first lady Brigitte Macron.

“For him to have made incredibly disrespectful comments about my spouse — what can I say to you?” Macron said at a news conference Monday when asked about Bolsonaro’s remarks. “It is sad. It is sad. But it is sad first of all for him and the Brazilian people.”

The French president’s remarks came on the final day of the annual meeting of the Group of Seven leaders in Biarritz, France, where the subject of raging fires in the Amazon had led to criticism of the Brazilian government and a pledge by world leaders to start a $20 million fund to help protect the rainforest.

Bolsonaro, once a fringe politician who came to power in elections last year after appealing to nationalist sentiment, has called the international criticism of his government by European nations a reflection of a “colonialist mentality.”

But the Brazilian president pushed the political dispute into personal territory Sunday, when he appeared to endorse a meme from a supporter that compared the appearance of the French first lady, 67, with Brazil’s first lady, Michelle Bolsonaro, 37.

On Saturday, a supporter of the Brazilian president posted a photograph of the two world leaders and their wives on Bolsonaro’s official Facebook page, with a comment that suggested Macron was jealous of Bolsonaro.

In response, Bolsonaro responded with laughter and wrote: “Do not embarrass the guy.”

Speaking on Monday, Macron said: “So, I myself believe Brazilian women are probably ashamed to read that from their president. I believe the Brazilian people, which is a great people, are a bit ashamed of those kind of behaviors.

“I have a lot of friendship and respect for the Brazilian people, I hope they will very soon have a president that acts like one.”

Michelle Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president’s third wife and his former parliamentary secretary, is 27 years younger than her husband, who is 64. The age differences are roughly reversed in the French president’s relationship, where 41-year-old Emmanuel Macron is 24 years younger than his wife, his former teacher, Brigitte.

Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo, a member of parliament who has been touted as a potential Brazilian ambassador to the United States, also took aim at the French president in recent days, sharing a video on Twitter last Thursday that called Macron an idiot and writing on Sunday that the French president was desperate for popularity.

.

Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham Be Best

Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham Be Best

by digby

Seriously, this is just masterful spin. I honestly can’t think of a more shameless lie excusing Trump’s shameless lying and that’s saying something.

wait for it …

She’s perfect for Trump. I’m surprised it’s taken this long to promote her:

Stephanie Grisham doled out fast food and tracked lost gear as a press wrangler on President Trump’s 2016 campaign, far from the in-crowd flying on the gold-plated Trump jet. An early and hard-working convert to Mr. Trump’s cause, she told a reporter at one point that she was “riding it until the money runs out,” eager to return home to Arizona.

Instead, Ms. Grisham, 43, rode all the way to Washington with Mr. Trump. And now, after serving in the press office and as Melania Trump’s spokeswoman, she occupies one of the most prestigious roles in American politics, as White House press secretary and communications director for both the president and the first lady.

For a public relations specialist who once churned out news releases on traffic safety, the White House is the loftiest stop in a turbulent career trajectory that has mixed toughness and loyalty to her bosses with professional scrapes, ethical blunders and years spent alternately wooing and pounding the press on behalf of scandal-prone Arizona Republicans.
[…]
Ms. Grisham is the latest example of Mr. Trump’s tendency to value loyalty and an embrace of his unorthodox style ahead of other credentials when filling top jobs.

Grisham is the latest example of President Trump’s tendency to value loyalty and an embrace of his unorthodox style ahead of other credentials when filling top jobs.

Her career history contains red flags that most administrations might deem troubling. They include losing a private-sector job after being accused of cheating on expense reports, a later job loss over plagiarism charges and two arrests for driving under the influence, the second while working on Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Colleagues say that on the campaign and in the White House, Ms. Grisham has been a coolheaded, encouraging presence. “When we were tired, she’d tell us, ‘Keep going,’” said Hannah Salem, a White House aide. “She was one of our biggest cheerleaders on the road.”

After Mr. Trump took office, Ms. Grisham joined the White House press office, but soon fled its upheaval and infighting for a job as Mrs. Trump’s communications director, becoming a staunch protector of the first lady.
[…]
Ms. Grisham got her start in national politics as a press aide on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. But she had worked for some time before that in public relations, including a job with the AAA auto club in Arizona, which hired her in late 2006 to help with “public relations, traffic safety initiatives and legislative efforts,” according to an announcement in The Tucson Citizen.

Ms. Grisham was gone within about a year. A former AAA employee with direct knowledge of the matter said Ms. Grisham left after accusations that she filed false claims for travel and other expenses. A spokeswoman for AAA Arizona declined to discuss personnel matters.

Ms. Grisham lost a subsequent job after an accusation of plagiarism.

She had gone to work for an advertising agency in Arizona whose clients included a start-up called GarageFly, an online service that helps car owners find auto repair shops. While making a presentation to the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, GarageFly’s founder showed off his website. In an interview, he said he was quickly informed by a furious attendee from AAA that the website included material lifted verbatim from AAA.

GarageFly’s founder said he had not known because the website was created by GarageFly’s ad agency, Mindspace. And the Mindspace employee responsible for placing the AAA material on the GarageFly website turned out to be Ms. Grisham, according to two other people involved in the matter. Ms. Grisham lost her job. The agency’s owner, Brent Shetler, confirmed Ms. Grisham’s employment but declined to discuss the reasons for her departure.
[…]
After Mr. Romney’s loss, “I was devastated for about a month,” Ms. Grisham said in the 2017 television interview. She returned to the attorney general’s office, where in 2014, Ms. Grisham fielded national press inquiries about a botched execution by the state. She described the condemned prisoner, who did not die for nearly two hours after being given a lethal injection, as “snoring” and said of the scene, “It was quite peaceful.”

Mr. Horne spent much of his tenure under investigation for alleged campaign finance violations.

When reporters from The Arizona Republic asked for public records related to the case, Ms. Grisham criticized their requests as “overreaching, an invasion of privacy and abusive use of your role in the media.” Mr. Horne lost his re-election bid and was fined in the campaign finance case.

Ms. Grisham next worked as a spokeswoman for the Arizona House’s Republican majority. In 2016 she revoked The Arizona Capitol Times’s press credentials four hours after the newspaper published an article, written by Hank Stephenson, detailing allegations that the House speaker, David Gowan, had traveled at state taxpayers’ expense while campaigning for Congress.

The fight culminated in Mr. Gowan requiring that reporters covering the Legislature submit to a personal and criminal background check. Those with convictions for serious crimes — and oddly, misdemeanor trespass — would be barred from the House floor.

Ms. Grisham billed the edict as a security measure. But Mr. Stephenson was the only Statehouse reporter with a trespassing charge on his record, related to a tavern fracas. Reporters refused to comply, and Mr. Gowan backed down.

Mr. Stephenson said he does not hold anything against Ms. Grisham, who often socialized with reporters in Phoenix, and even starred in a 2015 video made by The Capitol Times that spoofed her role as spin master.

“She’s fun,” Mr. Stephenson said. “She has a reputation as someone who puts out fires. But she starts a number of fires herself.”

In mid-2015 Ms. Grisham began working for Mr. Trump’s campaign.

In December 2015 in Arizona, Ms. Grisham was arrested for driving under the influence. She pleaded guilty and was fined, and in August 2016 the court ordered her into a treatment program. It was a second offense: In 2013 she was arrested for driving under the influence, speeding and driving with an invalid license.

The 2013 charges were reduced in 2014 to reckless driving, according to court records. Ms. Grisham has told The New York Times that she complied with all sanctions and disclosed both episodes to the White House.

Last year, while working in the East Wing, she helped launch “Be Best,” the first lady’s anti-cyberbullying, anti-opioid campaign. When news emerged that a Be Best guide called “Talking With Kids About Being Online” was actually created in 2009 by the Obama administration, Ms. Grisham began a fierce defense against the plagiarism charge.

“I encourage members of the media to attempt to Be Best in their own professions,” she said.

I think she’ll make a terrific VP in the second Jared Kushner administration.

.

Emoluments for dummies #impeachment

Emoluments for dummies

by digby

Trump is a master at getting free advertising for his shitty proterties so this is hardly surprising:

You know what would be really, really great? If impeachment hearings were taking place as Trump was pocketing millions hosting the G& at his private resort.

*Yes, I know it won’t happen. But we can dream for a moment that the Democrats have the killer instinct.

.