Skip to content

Month: September 2020

The pandemic is still raging. And Trump is still lying about it.

Trump denies downplaying virus, casts doubt on mask usage

With the release of Bob Woodward’s book “Rage,” we’ve been given the opportunity to revisit the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic with the added insights of comments the president made in private at the time. Unsurprisingly, we have learned that Donald Trump was lying to the public every step of the way. Day after day, we hear more of the Woodward tapes, and each one reveals Trump to have been even more reckless and self-centered than we knew, leaving Woodward and millions of others unable to tell “whether he’s got it straight in his head what is real and what is unreal.”

The president had the presence of mind to tell Woodward in April that the virus is “a killer if it gets you,” but shortly after that told the public, “The Invisible Enemy will soon be in full retreat!” By July, he had stopped even trying to explain away his failure. He grew very petulant and upset with Woodward for questioning him on this:

On Tuesday night ,Trump attended a town hall sponsored by ABC News. He had to talk to regular voters in Pennsylvania rather than reporters, and it was a train wreck. He lied so often that the Washington Post fact check was headlined, “Trump’s ABC News town hall: Four Pinocchios, over and over again.”

His comments about the pandemic were especially egregious. Here’s just one example:

Lately Trump has taken to ridiculing Joe Biden’s mask-wearing, suggesting that the former vice president has a psychiatric problem. He sets an example for his tens of millions of supporters and they follow it, unfortunately for them and everyone with whom they come in contact.

We probably won’t know the full extent of the damage done by his mask-free super-spreader rallies until after the election, which is one reason why Trump — who clearly has little regard for his most ardent fans — now feels free to hold them. But it is certain that there will be fallout. People who attended a Trump rally this fall will die, and some will almost certainly spread it to others some who will die.

recent study using some new and controversial techniques tracked the spread of the virus from the big motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, last month, which seemed to show a massive increase in cases around the country stemming from the 500,000-person gathering. While the overall numbers have been disputed by scientists at Johns Hopkins, there is no doubt about an increase in cases in the surrounding Sturgis area. USA Today reported this week that “a month after the controversial Sturgis Motorcycle Rally drew hundreds of thousands of bikers to South Dakota, COVID-19 infections are growing faster in North Dakota and South Dakota than anywhere in the nation.”

Contract tracing is tough in this country. We don’t have a good system to begin with, and many people refuse to cooperate. It’s fair to guess that Trump rally-goers are among the least likely to agree to it. So we may never know how many of the thousands of people who will have attended Trump rallies by Nov. 3 will be sacrificed to give the president the ego boost he craves.

But one has to look no further than the famous Maine wedding last month to know just how lethal these events can be:

At least seven people have died in connection to a coronavirus outbreak that continues to sicken people in Maine following a wedding reception held over the summer that violated state virus guidelines, public health authorities said. The August wedding reception at the Big Moose Inn in Millinocket is linked to more than 175 confirmed cases of the virus, the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday ….

The virus cases stemming from the wedding have spanned hundreds of miles in a state that had largely controlled the spread of the coronavirus through the summer. Maine has reported less than 5,000 cases of the virus in total since March.But the growing number of cases related to the wedding, which exceeded the state’s guidelines of 50 people or less at indoor gatherings, could undo some of that progress if it continues to swell. Authorities have said more than 65 people attended the wedding.

Trump’s rallies feature thousands of people, many of them older and the vast majority without masks, standing close together for long periods of time, cheering and shouting. They aren’t worried, because their beloved leader is telling them they don’t need to be:

While Trump’s followers believe everything he says, the damage is much broader than that. His lies and manipulation of the facts during this crisis have eroded the rest of America’s trust in the government to such an extent that, according to a new NBC News/Survey Monkey poll, “Fifty-two percent of adults say they don’t trust the president’s vaccine comments, while just 26 percent say they do.” Only 20% say they’re unaware of what the president has said. Here’s what has people nervous:

If you want to know the truth, the previous administration would have taken perhaps years to have a vaccine because of the FDA and all the approvals, and we’re within weeks of getting it.

Trump’s manipulation of federal agencies to allow unproven therapies, which in at least one case had to be withdrawn when it proved dangerous, doesn’t inspire faith in the process. How can people be expected to trust his administration to deliver a safe and effective vaccine under these circumstances?

America was once seen as the global leader in science and technology, but the nation’s reputation has plummeted around the world in the wake of Trump’s mishandling of this crisis. According to Pew Research, U.S. allies are appalled by Trump’s handling of the pandemic and find him less trustworthy than the presidents of Russia and China. People in all countries surveyed view the U.S. response as worse than that of their own country’s, the World Health Organization, the EU or China. (One of the great ironies of this whole disaster is that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the WHO ostensibly for lying about the lethality and spread of the virus — when that was exactly what he was doing every single day. )

Trump likes to say that “nobody’s ever seen anything like this,” and in this case, at least, he’s right. The consequences of the president’s psychological and intellectual shortcomings, which led him to downplay the pandemic, are so devastating that it led Scientific American to endorse a candidate for president for the first time in the magazine’s 175-year history:

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.

It is hard to see how any rational person could come to any other conclusion.

My Salon column republished with permission

“I’ll just have to vote for Trump unless you do exactly what I want”

The only answer to these inane hand-wringing pieces coming from right-wingers like Danielle Pletka lately, insisting they really don’t like Trump but they are just too worried about Biden turning the country socialist they might have to vote for him, is satire.

The great Alexandra Petri:

Believe me when I tell you that the LAST THING I could POSSIBLY want would be to vote for Donald Trump. That’s why I am so stunned that you have taken it upon yourself to go to such lengths to FORCE me to vote for him! You sick, sick monster! I don’t even like him, not even one little bit. So I hope you’re happy with what YOU are making me do, which comes to me as a total surprise and is definitely not a foregone conclusion in any way.

Over the past four years, Trump’s ominous shadow has devoured everything that was precious about America, chewed on it and spat out only bones and gristle. This has slightly obscured the accomplishments of his administration, which include, if I am remembering right (DON’T TELL ME IF I’M NOT; THAT WILL MAKE ME ANGRY, AND YOU KNOW WHO ANGRY PEOPLE VOTE FOR), ending the budget deficit and doing whatever it was Abraham Lincoln did, but better and faster.

Do I think Trump has the attributes necessary for governing? Absolutely not! He is a dangerous man, and every day we spend under his leadership is a day we lose a precious share of the world’s respect that we may never regain. There’s definitely not a “But!” coming after such a strong and overwhelming condemnation of his leadership.AD

But! (You MONSTER! I can’t BELIEVE you put a “BUT” right here in my otherwise full-throated condemnation! That is the only explanation for how it could have gotten there; I know would not have put it there.) I am more afraid that Joe Biden is the unwitting puppet of dangerous socialists, something you forced me to think using a mind ray. God! You’re even more disgusting than I imagined.

It is also bizarre and, frankly, counterproductive of you to insist that I not read any of Biden’s policy positions on anything, or how you have expended all this effort to make me baselessly paranoid that some shadowy, unseen figure is pulling his strings — something I would not think on my own! Can’t believe you’ve pushed me to this point.

I should also note that, much as I hold deep, principled reservations about Trump’s leadership, I just want to say that if anyone makes me feel the least bit uncomfortable about the legacy of racism in this country or urges me to learn one particle of history that I would not like to learn, I will panic, and when I panic, I vote for Trump (which is, I admit, weird given that I have ZERO desire to do so).

Also, I am sick of media bias. Journalists never quote the president saying anything that makes him look good or sound competent. But just statistically a person must sometimes sound at least kind of competent. Like the monkey-typewriter-Shakespeare thing! So if I see anywhere that the president said something that makes him look bad, malicious or incompetent, you know what that means: I’m going to have to vote for him. Twist my arm, why don’t you!

I am not worried about any dictatorial tendencies from Trump. Yes, he says all the time now that he deserves a third term and that his first one should not be counted, and he constantly implies that he will not accept the results of the election as legitimate if they involve the counting of mailed-in ballots. He also loves nothing better than to embrace creepy strongmen abroad! But (whoa, another “but”! You must be really messed up) I just kind of don’t think he really will follow through on any of it? And what if Biden, whom I have no reason to believe would do any of these things, were secretly planning something much, much worse?

Are there people on the right as bad as the people on the left who are really what is wrong with America? Yes, I think? You made me frame that very confusingly. Sure, it’s bad that the president is giving aid and cover to white supremacists, but — I can’t BELIEVE you would make me put another “but” here! This isn’t a sentence that should have a “but” in it! Though while we’re here, I guess I would say, since you’ve forced me to — but how much do we really need to care about that? You’ve given me no choice but to vote for Trump.

Yeah, there are going to be these ridiculous people and that’s to be expected. What’s the old saying, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it…”

Click to page 2 for another one from Daniel Drezner:

A firehose of lying

Daniel Dale needs a deep breath and a drink of water (or something stronger) every time he has to cram hours’ worth of fact-checking into two minutes. Kudos.

Fusillade of lies. Salvo? Volley? Barrage? Hailstorm? We are going to run out of adjectives before Trump is gone. A new collective noun, perhaps: a twitter of lies?

Dale congratulated(?) Trump just days ago for a lying personal best:

In what may be a new record for President Donald Trump, he made four false claims in one sentence of a tweet on Saturday.

The sentence was about Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 election opponent, and Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director and acting director of the FBI.

As James Fallows recommended, to prevent a repeat of the 2016 tragedy, reporters and networks need to “drop the pretense of both-sides-ism, and channel the analytical ability that goes into tactical commentary in order to plainly say who is lying and who is not, and what is at stake.”

And in real time, please. Or else use George Lakoff’s “truth sandwich” method. Daniel Dale cannot do it all alone.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Trump is losing older voters

Sixteen paragraphs deep into Jim Newell’s (Slate) assessment of the acting president’s eroding support this year among seniors, we get to why. Yes, Donald Trump won voters 45 and older by 8 points in 2016 and voters 65 and older by 9 points. But an August 2020 Monmouth University poll shows Joe Biden leads registered voters over 65 by 17 points. Qunnipiac in July showed Biden’s lead with that cohort at 14 points. A 2014 Gallup poll showed seniors had shifted their support away from the Democratic Party. And now?

In Kissimmee, Florida, conservative Christian Army veteran and retired Bible translator Jim Farr is reevaluating his choices. He voted for Trump in 2016 even though he believed Trump behaved like a “3-year-old.” He may still vote for Republicans down the ballot in November, but likely will support Biden for president:

“I was hoping that if [Trump] started out at an emotional 3-year-old level, he would now be an adult,” Farr said, “but he seems to have regressed to a 2-year-old.” Even though he doesn’t agree with Biden on either economic or social policy, he comes across as “measured” and trustworthy.

“A bad plan with good people will work,” he said. “A good plan with bad people won’t.”

In Grand Junction, Colorado, Helen Lyon, 73, listened to friends and, despite misgivings, voted for Trump thinking the businessman would shake things up. Her husband the Democrat watches Stephen Colbert, whom she finds irritating. Eventually, however, she found herself asking her husband and herself:

“Did [Trump] really say that? Did he really tweet that? Did he really do that?” She would then look up what Trump said, tweeted, or did, and she began to wonder if she could vote for him again.

“And then, when COVID came,” she said, “and the way that he handled it and just said it was going to go away, I guess that was finally the minute that I was able to step out of that cognitive dissonance and say, ‘I cannot—I cannot—vote for this man.’ ”

Social Security, Medicare, health care, and prescription drugs still form the core of what concerns many older voters, John Hishta, the senior vice president for campaigns at AARP, told Newell. But as the body count mounts, so has concern for their own health and well-being with the coronavirus pandemic and Trump’s slack response.

Lori McCammon of Alma, Wisconsin, may never vote for a Republican again. It was one thing to vote for him when she lived in Southern California. She was concerned about illegal immigration and “just didn’t like her” (Hillary Clinton). Now 65, McCammon thinks Trump guilty of “voluntary manslaughter” in the deaths of the tens of thousands who have died from COVID-19.

Reassembling Obama’s 2008 coalition of young, Latino, and Black voters has been a pipe dream for Democrats ever since. Democrats would like to increase turnout among Americans under 45, a largely untapped reservoir of votes, as I have noted here (and image above). If they reach out and take the power that is demographically theirs, they basically run this joint, college-loan forgiveness, Green New Deal and all. But the Biden-Harris ticket is not likely to inspire them as Obama did, even as critical as this election is, even with the Gulf Coast under water and the West Coast on fire.

Republican strategist Terry Sullivan tells Newell that given that turnout imbalance, “a point or two amongst older voters is worth three or four or five with younger voters.”

I’ll take it.

Newell concludes:

As it looks today, Biden will, like Obama, win young voters, Black voters, and Hispanic voters by wide margins, though not necessarily as wide. But unlike Obama, who twice lost white voters with college degrees, Biden is leading with that group by upward of 20 percentage points. Meanwhile, 65-plus voters were Obama’s worst age demographic in both 2008 and 2012. There’s now a chance that Biden could win them.

In Allerton, Iowa, Sondra Wolfe just lost her husband Mike, 66, to COVID-19. Five children, 17 grandchildren. “No one in my 21 years of journalism has sent me a photo like this,” Brooke Baldwin of CNN said of Mike’s wooden urn now sitting in the chair where he once “snuggled with the kids” and played “tickle monster” with them. “People see the numbers and so many of them don’t care,” Wolfe said. She wants to put an image to people’s grief.

“It’s so frustrating. It makes me angry, ” Sondra said. “The leader of our country who should have acted. Other countries have this under control and are protecting their citizens. And that they’ve made this political and about an election and about ratings just makes me angry. This is about our people. And lives.”

But not to a former reality TV star with no prior experience or interest in public service. Everything is about him. Their deaths make him look bad, and that’s all.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

James Fallows sounds the alarm. Media, please pay heed!

The media horde | The camera platform starts to fill up befo… | Flickr

This couldn’t be more important:

We’re seeing a huge error, and a potential tragedy, unfold in real time.

That’s a sentence that could apply to countless aspects of economic, medical, governmental, and environmental life at the moment. What I have in mind, though, is the almost unbelievable failure of much of the press to respond to the realities of the Trump age.

Many of our most influential editors and reporters are acting as if the rules that prevailed under previous American presidents are still in effect. But this president is different; the rules are different; and if it doesn’t adapt, fast, the press will stand as yet another institution that failed in a moment of crucial pressure.

In some important ways, media outlets are repeating the mistake made by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In his book about the Mueller investigation, True Crimes and Misdemeanors (and in a New Yorker article), Jeffrey Toobin argues that Mueller’s tragic flaw was a kind of anachronistic idealism—which had the same effect as naivete. He knew the ethical standards he would maintain for himself and insist on from his team. He didn’t understand that the people he was dealing with thought standards were for chumps. Mueller didn’t imagine that a sitting attorney general would intentionally misrepresent his report, which is of course what Bill Barr did. Mueller wanted to avoid an unseemly showdown, or the appearance of a “fishing expedition” inquiry, that would come from seeking a grand-jury subpoena for Donald Trump’s testimony, so he never spoke with Trump under oath, or at all. Trump, Barr, and their team viewed this decorousness as a sign of weakness, which they could exploit.

Something similar is going on now with many members of the press. They’re behaving like Mueller, wanting to be sure they observe proprieties that would have made sense when dealing with other figures in other eras. But now they’re dealing with Donald Trump, and he sees their behavior as a weakness he can exploit relentlessly.

Much as Mueller didn’t recognize these realities in time, neither did much of our print, broadcast, and cable media four years ago. Networks ran Trump’s rally speeches endlessly from mid-2015 onward, giving him free airtime valued at some $2 billion. Why his speeches, and not Hillary Clinton’s or Bernie Sanders’s? Because they were deemed great TV, and the channels’ own ratings went up when the rallies were on. As the race continued, cable channels demonstrated their supposed balance by stocking political discussion panels not with representatives of conservative viewpoints but rather with tribalists and die-hard team members, people who would defend whatever Trump had done or said. (One of these people is now the White House press secretary, and her press briefings are like her old cable hits.) The choice of panelists did not reflect a range of policy viewpoints; it was sitcom casting, with people playing their predictable, recognizable parts.

Also in pursuit of the ritual of balance, the networks offset coverage of Donald Trump’s ethical liabilities and character defects, which would have proved disqualifying in any other candidate for nearly any other job, with intense investigation of what they insisted were Hillary Clinton’s serious email problems. Six weeks before the election, Gallup published a prophetic analysis showing what Americans had heard about each candidate. For Trump, the words people most recognized from all the coverage were speechimmigration, and Mexico. For Clinton, one word dwarfed all others: EMAIL. The next two on the list, much less recognized, were lie and Foundation. (The Clinton Foundation, set up by Bill Clinton, was the object of sustained scrutiny for supposedly shady dealings that amount to an average fortnight’s revelations for the Trump empire.) One week before the election, The New York Times devoted the entire top half of its front page to stories about FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of an investigation into the emails. “New Emails Jolt Clinton Campaign in Race’s Last Days” was the headline on the front page’s lead story. “With 11 Days to Go, Trump Says Revelation ‘Changes Everything,’” read another front-page headline.

Just last week came a fresh reminder of the egregiousness of that coverage, often shorthanded as “But her emails!” On Wednesday, September 9, Bob Woodward’s tapes of Trump saying that when it came to the coronavirus, he “wanted to always play it down” came out, along with a whistleblower’s claim that the Department of Homeland Security was falsifying intelligence to downplay the risk of Russian election interference and violence from white supremacists. On the merits, either of those stories was more important than Comey’s short-lived inquiry into what was always an overhyped scandal. But in this election season, each got a demure one-column headline on the Times’ front pageThe Washington Post, by contrast, gave Woodward’s revelations banner treatment across its front page.

Who knows how the 2016 race might have turned out, and whether a man like Trump could have ended up in the position he did, if any of a hundred factors had gone a different way. But one important factor was the press’s reluctance to recognize what it was dealing with: a person nakedly using racial resentment as a tool; whose dishonesty and corruption dwarfed that of both Clintons combined, with most previous presidents’ thrown in as well; and whose knowledge about the vast organization he was about to control was inferior to that of any Capitol Hill staffer and most immigrants who had passed the (highly demanding) U.S. citizenship test.

Now it’s four years later. And we’re waking up in Groundhog Day, so far without Bill Murray’s eventual, hard-earned understanding that he could learn new skills as time went on. For Murray, those were things like playing the piano and speaking French. For the press, in these next 49 days, those can be grappling with (among other things) three of the most destructive habits in dealing with Donald Trump. For shorthand, they are the embrace of false equivalence, or both-sides-ism; the campaign-manager mentality, or horse-race-ism; and the love of spectacle, or going after the ratings and the clicks.

Are these familiar problems? Yes, indeed! As familiar as “I Got You Babe” playing every single morning on the alarm clock in Groundhog Day. Over the past few years, they’ve been the object of careful, continued analyses by the likes of Margaret Sullivan, now of The Washington Post and the last really effective public editor of The New York Times (before the paper mistakenly abolished that position); Dan Froomkin, formerly of the Post and now of Press Watch; Jay Rosen, of New York University and PressThink; Eric Boehlert, of Press Run Media; Greg Sargent of “The Plum Line” at The Washington Post; Brian Beutler of Crooked MediaEric Alterman of CUNY Brooklyn College, author of the new book Lying in State; the linguist George Lakoff, who has promoted the concept of countering lies with a “truth sandwich”; and many others. For my own part, I wrote a book called Breaking the News nearly 25 years ago, excerpted as an Atlantic cover story, about trends like these that were evident then and have metastasized through the years since.

But it’s precisely because these trends are familiar that they matter. As Ed Yong has demonstrated in his latest Atlantic piece on the pandemic, and as Adam SerwerIbram X. Kendi, and others have argued about racial-justice struggles, it’s rarely the new issues that most bedevil us. It’s the same old problems and failures and blind spots and biases, again and again and again.

How are we again seeing these patterns, and what can we do about them?

My suggestion: Follow the advice from an essay by Dan Froomkin, or another by Jay Rosen, about how to drop the pretense of both-sides-ism, and channel the analytical ability that goes into tactical commentary in order to plainly say who is lying and who is not, and what is at stake. Rosen also argues that the media should form a “threat modeling team” to anticipate efforts to undermine the upcoming election. What is at stake is more than just another race.

Please click over to read the good advice he gives to the media. Let’s hope people in the media read it too.

All the rest of us can do is try to keep our wits about us, our bullshit detectors on high and our brains engaged.

So easily transmissible…

Trump's daily coronavirus briefings might be a thing of the past -  MarketWatch

Here’s what went on that day at the White House coronavirus rally:

The president, meanwhile, went on to insist he has absolute power when it comes to governors’ stay-at-home orders during the crisis. Asked on Monday how he would respond if a governor issued a stay-at-home order in conflict of his national wishes, Trump insisted his power as president is “total.”

“When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that is the way it’s gonna be,” Trump bellowed. “It’s total. It’s total. And the governors know that.”

The president reiterated that assertion throughout the rest of the marathon briefing. After CNN’s Kaitlan Collins pushed back, saying it wasn’t true that Trump’s authority is total, the president said they were “going to write papers on this” but that it won’t be necessary because the governors “need us one way or the other because ultimately it comes with the federal government.”

When further asked if any governors had agreed that he has the authority to force them to reopen, Trump said that he didn’t ask anybody because, “I don’t need to.”

He knew it was virulently contagious. And yet he was ready to force the Governors to reopen whether they liked it or not. He changed his mind shortly thereafter and settled on the “blame the blue states” strategy. But he knew more people would die from re-opening haphazardly and he didn’t care.

And this was also happening, which I had forgotten about:

Even before Trump began the briefing Monday, the last 24 hours were a whirlwind for the White House. On Sunday, Trump quote tweeted a social media post with the #FireFauci hashtag, boosting fringe criticisms about Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

Trump’s retweet came on the heels of Fauci, during a CNN appearance, saying that there was a “lot of pushback” early on by the Trump administration on initiating social-distancing restrictions and that lives could have been saved if they had acted earlier.

He’s been knowingly letting people die every step of the way.

Can you see what’s wrong with this picture?

That’s a Trump ad. Very patriotic, right?

A digital ad released by a fundraising arm of the Trump campaign on Sept. 11 calling on people to “support our troops” uses a stock photo of Russian-made fighter jets and weapons.

The ad, which was made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee,features silhouettes of three soldiers walking as a fighter jet flies over them. The ad first appeared on Sept. 8 and ran until Sept. 12

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, confirmed that the planes are Russian MiG-29s, and also said the soldier on the far right in the ad carries an AK-74 assault rifle.

Hey go easy on them. They’ve only spent a billion and a half dollars (so far.) It’s tough to get the details right when you’re pinching pennies.