Skip to content

Month: October 2021

“Anti-mandatory vaccine graphic”

Walker’s campaign apparently saw nothing wrong with using a swastika until someone pointed it out to them:

A spokesperson for the campaign said the image was not a swastika, telling the AJC, “This is clearly an anti-mandatory vaccination graphic. Herschel unequivocally opposes anti-semitism and bigotry of all kinds.”

A spokeswoman released a second statement to Channel 2 Action News on Wednesday afternoon that reads:

“Herschel is a strong friend of Israel and the Jewish community and opposes hatred and bigotry of all forms. Despite the fact that the apparent intent behind the graphic was to condemn government vaccine mandates, the symbol used is very offensive and does not reflect the values of Herschel Walker or his campaign.”

Yeah, ok.

He canceled the fundraiser. But get ready. This is just the first of Walker’s problems. He is, how do I say it? Out there.

Laboratories of democracy watch

The next time you hear some wingnut say that their gerrymandering and vote suppression tactics have nothing to do with race, remind yourself of this:

It doesn’t get anymore stark than that.

Nice little party you have here…

Be a shame if anything happened to it.

Greg Sargent upacks the meaning of that weird statement. It was probably just Trump being an idiot … but there is a method to his madness even if it was unintentional:

Donald Trump called in to a rally for Virginia Republicans late Wednesday night, joining a festival of derangement featuring former adviser Stephen K. Bannon hallucinating aloud that Trumpism will rule the United States for the next century. The former president declared Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin “a great gentleman.”

Yet that came only hours after Trump issued a splenetic statement about fellow Republicans, fuming that if they don’t “solve” the invented problem of a stolen 2020 election, “Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24.”

How to reconcile Trump’s renewed endorsement of Youngkin with his tacit threat to punish Republicans for failing to reverse his election loss by urging his voters to stay home? Here’s how: In Trump’s eyes, Youngkin’s relentless pandering to Trump’s lies about 2020 has, for now anyway, passed his litmus test.

Which captures something essential about the post-Trump GOP: Republicans recognize that continuing to pander to those lies may be absolutely essential to keeping Republican voters engaged without Trump on the ballot doing it instead.

Trump’s statement has been analyzed as either the latest projectile vomiting to issue from his disordered mind or as a genuine political problem for Republicans. But few have paused to ask whether it might actually be true that energy among GOP voters turns on keeping alive the idea that the 2020 outcome was dubious or illegitimate, and what that might mean.

The Virginia contest is testing this premise. Youngkin has employed all sorts of oily and disingenuous tricks to pander to voters in thrall to Trump’s 2020 lies about our election system, while pretending not to.

For instance, one of Youngkin’s most devoted campaign trail surrogates is a Virginia lawmaker who has spun crackpot conspiracy theories about Democrats rigging the system against Trump, while alleging a plot to steal the election from Youngkin himself.

Youngkin has said the 2020 outcome was legitimate, while going to great lengths to send the opposite message from the other side of his mouth. He vows to restore “election integrity” and is demanding an “audit” of voting machines — both coded ways to humor Trumpian mythology that our election system renders rigged outcomes, and that Trump voters are the victims of it.

Youngkin recently refused to say whether he’d have voted as a member of Congress to count the rightful 2020 electors, before backtracking. That’s suddenly germane again: At Bannon’s rally, attendees pledged allegiance to a flag that was present at the Jan. 6 insurrection.

So Trump endorsed Youngkin at a rally where the insurrection continued to be treated as a glorious last stand of sorts that has been invested with near-messianic significance.

The most charitable interpretation of all this is that Youngkin is actively encouraging and seeking to harness this type of energy, while strategically paying lip service to the idea that 2020’s outcome was legitimate.

The straddle is obvious: Going too far down the Trumpian rabbit hole might complicate peeling off the educated and suburban voters a Republican needs to win in Virginia, voters Youngkin is appealing to with his businessman-turned-politican routine as well. But feeding Trumpian pathologies to whatever degree he can get away with is essential to keeping Trump base voters engaged.

That latter notion helps explain a key aspect of the continuing GOP enthrallment to Trump’s 2020 pathologies — the refusal of some GOP leaders to state unequivocally that he lost; the sham “audits” in numerous states; the trend in GOP candidates running on an openly declared vow to subvert future losses; and the relentless whitewashing of Jan. 6.

Here’s a little clip of the rally in Virginia last night in which they brought in a flag used on January 6th to say the Pledge of Allegiance. No word on whether it was soaked in policemen’s blood:

The Sinema conundrum

So we find out today that Kyrsten Sinema is in Europe doing fundraising while the rest of her party is frantically trying to come to an agreement about the president’s agenda. I am more and more convinced that she wants to tank it for her own purposes. McCain’s “thumbs down” really inspired her. I suspect that even if they give her everything she wants she won’t agree. It’s not about that for her.

The Daily Beast did a little profile this morning that I think captures her quite well:

When people ask Kyrsten Sinema if she wants to run for president someday, the Arizona senator usually has a stock answer: “I’m overqualified.”

Ok. I loathe her even more than before. How gross.

That response, relayed to The Daily Beast by a former friend, is vintage Sinema. It’s quick and witty but also self-aggrandizing and self-deprecating all at the same time. The quip also sheds a rare bit of light on a political figure on center stage in Washington who is, all the while, paradoxically guarded and enigmatic.

How is that self-deprecating? What am I missing?

For many people both inside and outside the Beltway—who are hanging on her every maneuver around President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda—Sinema is a mystery. And for people who once considered themselves her allies, friends, and confidants, the senator is now mostly a black box to them, too.

Chris Herstam is among them. A former Republican lawmaker in Arizona turned Democratic commentator, he appeared on local news panels with Sinema back when she served in the statehouse and grew impressed with the voluble, sharp, and unabashedly liberal lawmaker.

When Sinema decided to run for Congress in 2012, Herstam cut her a $500 check and would donate a total of nearly $3,500 to her subsequent campaigns over the next six years.

Sinema was a “fundraising machine,” Herstam told The Daily Beast, but took meticulous care of her network of supporters in Arizona. “She’d call and ask for money,” he said, “but you could pick her brain and listen to her views about issues.”

Things are different now. Herstam says he and Sinema do not talk anymore—in his telling, Sinema felt he had violated her confidence with some political analysis he had posted to Twitter.

Amid that silence, Herstam has grown increasingly baffled by Sinema’s activity in office, particularly in the last few months, as she has emerged as one of the two most pivotal Democratic objectors to the multi-trillion dollar social and economic package the party is trying to push through Congress. These days, on Twitter and in his appearances on local TV and radio, Herstam forcefully criticizes the politician he once admired.ADVERTISING

It is not unusual for allies to have a falling-out amid perceived slights and political differences. But, Herstam says, “when I talk to other individuals that consider themselves friends of hers, they told me they haven’t spoken to her in over a year, and when they’ve contacted her to inquire why she’s doing what she’s doing politically, they don’t get callbacks,” he said. “She’s clearly gone in a different direction.”

That claim was corroborated by five other sources. In total, more than a dozen people spoke to The Daily Beast about Sinema’s political orbit, some of whom requested anonymity because they were not authorized to candidly speak about the dynamics at play, or feared professional repercussions for doing so. A spokesperson for Sinema declined to comment after being sent a list of questions for this story.

Successful politicians don’t do this. They may “go in a different direction” but they don’t abandon their own allies. They add people they don’t subtract.

Sinema retains a small kitchen cabinet of advisers outside of her Senate office and has developed good working ties with officials around the state—including with many Republicans. But the network of allies and supporters who fueled her rise over the last decade, sources said, has largely fallen apart.

The senator’s politics may help explain why. Many former supporters are not just perplexed by her political maneuvering but also her policy stands and are having a hard time imagining themselves backing her going forward. But there are personal reasons, too. Some believe Sinema has decided she simply no longer needs some people, including those who were once close or worked hard to get her where she is today.

“A lot of people who have considered her a friend, or confidant, or someone she’d go to for donor support or political support, she won’t talk to those people anymore,” said Matt Grodsky, a former communications director for the Democratic Party of Arizona.

“She had a big network of people who liked her—establishment Democrats, progressives—everyone marveled at her ability to win in Arizona,” said one Democratic strategist in the state. “A lot of her longtime friends and confidants are no longer there. No one knows, to be honest, where she’s at.”

Another Democratic source in Arizona said her allies in the party “don’t exist anymore.”

“She’s burned so many bridges with the allies she used to have,” this source added.

Now, however, Sinema may need all the support she can get. In an evenly split Senate, her willingness to brandish veto power over the Democratic agenda has made her persona non grata to liberals nationwide—and fodder for parody on Saturday Night Live.“I don’t harbor any ill will toward her, but I do feel bad for her. She’s put herself in a tight little spot, and I’m not sure how she’s going to get out of it.”— former friend of Kyrsten Sinema

Back home, progressive groups are blanketing Arizona with ad campaigns trashing the senator, or outright calling for her to be replaced with a different Democrat when she is up for re-election in 2024. Left-wing demonstrators have begun to follow her everywhere—even, recently, to a lecture hall bathroom—to barrage her with questions about her stances, which she rarely answers. Fresh polling has shown her standing among Arizona Democrats cratering over the last nine months.

With seemingly all of Washington anxious to learn anything at all about where she stands on the centerpiece of her party’s agenda, however, some former Sinema associates claim to have no idea who is guiding her now. Even those who strongly disagree with what she’s doing still said they wondered about how she is handling this moment.

“She’s a talented, special person, but has always been in sort of survival mode,” said someone who has worked with Sinema. “She’s really put herself in a tough position.”

That sentiment is shared by others who were once close to her. The former friend of Sinema’s told The Daily Beast that several of Sinema’s close personal friendships have ended abruptly and, to them, under confusing circumstances.

Still, the former friend, who was granted anonymity to detail their experience, worried about how the senator was faring with the immense amount of scrutiny she’s under. “I don’t harbor any ill will toward her, but I do feel bad for her,” this person said. “She’s put herself in a tight little spot, and I’m not sure how she’s going to get out of it.”“She is her own political strategist. It’s her.”— Arizona political strategist

Typically, politicians are supported by networks of former staffers who have moved on but still remain loyal to their former boss. That is less the case with Sinema who, according to a former aide, was a “tough boss.”

“Unfortunately, many of the problems with the working environment in her office are fairly common on Capitol Hill,” added this former aide, who noted that some staffers found success and happiness in the office if they got along with the senator, but others “could not get out fast enough.”

The dynamic seems to have harmed Sinema’s broader ability to cultivate a strong network. “Former staffers stay in touch, but it’s not a traditional Capitol Hill alumni network built around loyalty to the boss,” said the former aide.

An Arizona Democrat concurred, saying the senator “has not built this network of people who are ‘Sinema people.’”

I don’t think she has a grand plan. I think there’s just something wrong with her. Her eccentric style goes deeper than just her clothes and hairdos.

Increasingly, former denizens of Sinema-world believe she is convinced that she alone can maneuver herself through any situation, including this one, the most high-stakes of her career. One prominent Arizona Democrat mused that they did not know who her advisers were but that Sinema would probably find them unhelpful—no matter what.

“She is her own political strategist,” the Arizona-based strategist said. “It’s her.”

She sounds like Trump. And just like him, she has Republican enablers cheering her on:

Others who know Sinema well agree that’s the case—and believe that arrangement will work out just fine for her.

Marcus Dell’Artino, an Arizona political strategist who formerly worked for the late GOP Sen. John McCain, has half-joked that Sinema is the biggest threat to the Republican Party in Arizona. He called her a “rational, thoughtful political leader” who is acting the way her purple-state constituents want—even if her former allies were upset about it.

“Is she her own boss? Yeah, because she does her homework, and has a long-term vision,” Dell’Artino said. “She’s seen the inner workings of the state Democratic Party, and she sees, for her, she probably has a better way or a smarter strategy—which, clearly, has worked.”

Uhm, no it hasn’t. She is in the process of destroying her party. I’m not sure how that “worked” except to help Republicans, which I’m sur this opportunistic creep understands very well.

In 2018, Sinema flipped her Senate seat—held by the GOP for decades—after an expensive and brutal campaign in which she often avoided mentioning that she was a Democrat.

Sinema’s track record of electoral success in Arizona, said the former aide to the senator, has come in spite of scores of people privately urging her toward one strategy or another. “You get the sense that there aren’t many people whose opinions she trusts,” the former aide said. “Arizona voters and the local press have pretty consistently rewarded her for ignoring those voices and doing things her way.”

In a rare interview earlier this year, Sinema made her philosophy clear, when asked by POLITICO to comment on her critics.

“It’s not effective to pressure me on anything,” she said. “Because I am a thoughtful person who takes a lot of time, deliberatively, to make decisions, once I’ve made a decision, I feel very comfortable with it. And it doesn’t matter what other people think.”

Again. Very Trumplike. But unlike him, she refuses to meet with [former] supporters who helped get her into office. Even Trump doesn’t do that.

“Part of the job is managing a coalition,” said someone who previously worked with Sinema. “What about the people who not only voted for you, but sweated their balls off in 100 degree heat knocking doors for you? You can’t talk to them? It’s profoundly disrespectful.”

Some Democrats also feel that Sinema increasingly favors corporate interests these days, with some pointing to her reluctance to back a measure to lower prescription drugs through Medicare.

One D.C. lobbyist told The Daily Beast that on K Street, Sinema is often thought of as something of an enigma. But the lobbyist added a qualifier: “If you’re a Republican downtown,” they said, “you think she’s the greatest person ever.”

This dynamic has some in Arizona wondering what it all means for Sinema’s political future, a few years away from a potentially tough 2024 re-election fight.

“My hunch is she has given up on her previous network because she doesn’t think she needs it,” Herstam said. “I think she envisions herself as an independent that raises an enormous amount of money, puts most of that money into outstanding political television commercials, and she can get elected on her own.”

At only 45 years old, Sinema could be a major player in politics for decades. Her wry answer to questions about her future ambitions notably does not foreclose the possibility of her running for higher office someday.

Admirers like Dell’Artino believe it is not something she really thinks about. “Right now, she enjoys this job, and is trying to do what she thinks is the right thing for her constituents,” he said. “Anybody putting more thought into it than that probably doesn’t know Kyrsten very well.”

But Sinema’s onetime staunch supporters in Arizona are left to wonder how the network that helped get her where she is will factor into her future.

“It’ll be interesting to see how she’s going to fix this,” said Grodsky, the former Arizona Democratic Party spokesman. “If she even wants to do that.”

Her strategy is foolish. She may think that Repubicans in Arizona will reward her but that’s a joke. The Arizona Republican Party is batshit crazy and they may cheer her for sticking it to the Dems but they will never vote for her, not even if she changes parties. They have a very deep bench of lunatics who want that Senate seat. She needs most Democratic voters to stick with her and a majority of Independents and her “I’m better than all the rest of you” approach isn’t going to get her there.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) would face an uphill battle against several potential primary challengers, according to a new survey from the progressive polling firm Data for Progress

The poll of likely Democratic primary voters in Arizona tested Sinema in hypothetical match-ups with four potential challengers: Rep. Ruben Gallego, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, Rep. Greg Stanton and Tucson Mayor Regina Romero. In a five-way race, the poll found, Ruben Gallego would beat out Sinema, 23 percent to 19 percent.

Stanton, meanwhile, garnered 13 percent in the five-way match-up, while both Kate Gallego and Romero notched 9 percent support each. 

In a scenario in which Ruben Gallego emerged as Sinema’s sole primary challenger, he would garner 62 percent of the vote to Sinema’s 23 percent, according to the poll. 

Similarly, Kate Gallego would beat Sinema 60 percent to 25 percent in a head-to-head match-up, Stanton would win 59 percent to 24 percent and Romero would lead Sinema 55 percent to 25 percent, the Data for Progress poll found. 

All that may change as time goes on. She could mellow her approach before the election just as McCain went hard right in his last race when he found himself in unexpected trouble with the far right. It worked but Sinema is no McCain and I will be surprised if she can pull that off.

Honestly, the “what does Sinema really want” stuff is probably useless. She is an eccentric person, possibly with some issues that we don’t know about. She isn’t the first politician to be weird that way and succeed in gaining high office. But I wouldn’t assume she has a plan. She may just be one of those people who thrives on attention whether it’s negative or positive doesn’t matter. Again — Trump. The only problem is that he has vast numbers of deluded followers who love him. She is all alone.

If it wasn’t for bad faith….

One Brian W. Jones, formerly with the Bush II Department of Education, formerly counsel to California Gov. Pete Wilson (R), formerly member of the D.C. Public Charter School Board, writes this morning that despite the angry outbursts of parents at recent school board meetings, the collective We ought to listen to them. “Violence or the imminent threat of it,” naturally, being “beyond the pale.” He’s covered himself.

“In the vast territory of civic anger and frustration lies the opportunity for growth and enlightenment, and better decision-making among public servants willing to listen.” Gotcha.

Charlie Pierce reads angry protests over vaccines in schools, masks, and Critical Race Theory differently. A believer in public education and in public schools (enough to send his own kids), he sees public education as much as a way for the poor to lift themselves out of poverty as for the rich to procure an educated work force:

And because of that, it always has been a favorite target of the oligarchs and the privileged. Those attacks always are well-camouflaged; many of them are usually disguised as efforts to help “the children.” Many of those are launched in profound bad faith by wealthy people who don’t know enough about actual education to throw to a cat. Too many Democrats and putative liberals have tried to co-opt the softer edges of the offensive, often with the best intentions. But at the moment, a new assault has begun on many fronts, and seeing it as one action is the only way some of those fronts make sense. It is another of the brushfire wars we mentioned on Tuesday. And it’s leaving casualties.

We have Tea Party-ish astroturfed maniacs showing up at school-board meetings and raising insane hell. If you want to see the toll that takes, watch this video from Jennifer Jenkins, a school board member from Brevard County who has been threatened and harassed at work and at home by these people. From NBC News:

“I don’t reject people coming here and speaking their voice,” Jenkins, a supporter of masks in schools, said. “… I reject them following my car around. I reject them saying that they’re coming for me, that I need to beg for mercy.
“I reject that when they are using their First Amendment rights on public property, they’re also going behind my home and brandishing their weapons to my neighbors.”

And this is about mask mandates in the public schools. Except it really isn’t, anymore than all the bushwah about Critical Race Theory is really about a technique of legal analysis. (A lot of the latter is about racist attempts to whitewash American history, but that isn’t all of the reason, either.) These are all part of a multi-pronged, well-funded, coordinated attack on American public education.

Pierce details goings-on in Georgia to amend review of tenure for professors to include removal for reasons “other than for cause.” And that review will now be delegated to a politically appointed board. The details are posted at Inside Higher Ed. “Professors within the University System of Georgia say the Board of Regents’ policy proposals seek to centralize power and end, not update, tenure,” reads the subhead.

Pierce sees it all of a piece and about control:

It is not about masks, or Critical Race Theory, or the 1619 Project. It is about a thoroughgoing assault on one of the last remaining redoubts of our political commonwealth, and to make that redoubt subordinate to political appointees of either the governors elected through voter suppression, and/or the state legislatures gerrymandered from hell to breakfast. And to the extent that it is not seen—or fought—as such, the assault will continue to succeed.

Listen to what parents are saying? Or treat what they say like Mad Magazine‘s “What They Say and What it Really Means”?

Back from the brink

Looking over the edge of a cliff at La Jolla Cove. Photo by slworking2 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

Contra what happened on Saturday in Italy, in the Czech Republic “a coalition of previously divided center-right parties” have joined together to defeat populist strongman Andrej Babis, the, billionaire prime minister:

Andrew Higgins explains at The New York Times:

For the past decade, populists like Mr. Babis have often seemed politically invincible, rising to power across Central and Eastern Europe as part of a global trend of strongman leaders disdainful of democratic norms. But on Saturday, the seemingly unbeatable Mr. Babis was defeated because opposition parties put ideological differences aside and joined together to drive out a leader they fear has eroded the country’s democracy.

Their success could have major repercussions in the region and beyond. In Hungary and in Poland, where nationalist leaders have damaged democratic institutions and sought to undermine the European Union, opposition leaders are mobilizing, trying to forge unified fronts and oust populist leaders in upcoming elections.

“Populism is beatable,” said Otto Eibl, the head of the political science department at Masaryk University in Brno, the South Moravian capital. “The first step in beating a populist leader is to suppress individual egos and to compromise in the interest of bringing a change.”

John Sipher (not a pseudonym), former CIA officer and foreign policy and intelligence expert, concurs in a tweet.

Hungary next, please. Then the U.S.

This weekend, six Hungarian parties will complete a weekslong opposition primary race, the first of its kind, to whittle down the list of potential contenders in every electoral district to oppose Mr. Orban’s party. The coalition includes groups ranging from nationalist conservatives to leftists, who disagree on most things but share a fervent desire to dispatch Mr. Orban.

This approach did not succeed in ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent elections. Putin’s grip on elections machinery and Russian media was already too vice-like.

Donald Trump may hold the media’s attention, but with the exception of Fox News and some fringe-right outliers, he and his cronies do not yet control major news outlets. However, Republicans across the country are attempting now to wrest control of nonpartisan election machinery and place it under their control. Or Trump’s.

In the Czech Republic, opponents branded Babis “as a bully whose wealth and corporate ties have given him an inordinate amount of power.” For the moment, they had to stand together:

Marie Jilkova, a successful anti-Babis candidate in South Moravia from one of the two coalitions of parties that came together to oppose the prime minister, said that banding together to confront Mr. Babis and his party machine “was, for us, the only way to survive — there was no alternative.”

Her own party, the Christian Democrats, differs on issues like abortion and gay marriage from the more centrist parties in her coalition, so, she said, “we agreed that we would not talk about these things during the campaign.”

Recent stories on this side of the Atlantic echo this approach. Max Boot joins with other “rational Republicans” in advocating voting with Democrats (or the least left of them). In “the battle for the soul of America’s political system, we cannot retreat to our ideological corners,” Miles “Anonymous” Taylor and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman wrote on Monday.

As for agreeing not to talk about areas of disagreement, that notion echoes David Shor’s advice to Democrats to focus their messages on what’s popular over more contested topics even though they need addressing. That may not even be possible for Democrats never skillful at controlling the narrative, and it will not please North American progressives. But in Europe, opponents to the rise of fascist or fascist-leaning, populist strong men are opting for expedience in the short term so democracy might live to fight over immigration and minority rights another day.

Global thuggism

Ok, this sounds shockingly familiar. And it’s not good:

An extreme-right political party’s violent exploitation of anger over Italy’s coronavirus restrictions is forcing authorities to wrestle with the country’s fascist legacy and fueling fears there could be a replay of last week’s mobs trying to force their way toward Parliament.

Starting Friday, anyone entering workplaces in Italy must have received at least one vaccine dose, or recovered from COVID-19 recently or tested negative with two days, using the country’s Green Pass to prove their status. Italians already use the pass to enter restaurants, theaters, gyms and other indoor entertainment, or to take long-distance buses, trains or domestic flights.

But 10,000 opponents of that government decree turned out in Rome’s vast Piazza del Popolo last Saturday in a protest that degenerated into alarming violence.

It’s the mixing and overlap of the extreme right and those against Italy’s vaccine mandates thatare causing worries, even though the opposition to vaccines is still a distinct minority in a country where 80% of people 12 and older are fully vaccinated.

Incited by the political extreme right at the rally, hundreds on Saturday marched through the Italian capital and rampaged their way through the national headquarters of the left-leaning CGIL labor confederation. Police foiled their repeated attempts to reach the offices of Italy’s premier and the seat of Parliament.

The protesters smashed union computers, ripped out phone lines and trashed offices after first trying to batter their way in through CGIL’s front door with metal bars, then breaking in through a window. Unions have backed the Green Pass as a way to make Italy’s workplaces safer for employees.

CGIL leader Maurizio Landini immediately drew parallels to attacks a century ago by Benito Mussolini’s newly minted Fascists against labor organizers as he consolidated his dictatorship’s grip on Italy.

To some watching the violence unfold, the attack also evoked images of the Jan. 6 assault by angry mob of the U.S. Capitol building as part of protests over Donald Trump’s failed bid to be re-elected as the U.S. president.

The US used to be an inspiration to sme people around the world (not hat we always deserved it.) But inspiring fascistic political riots is a new one as far as I know.

Yikes.

The divas disagree

Of course:

So what’s the state of negotiations between the White House and JOE MANCHIN and KYRSTEN SINEMA?

The talks have been shrouded in mystery, but we have some fresh details we can share this morning.

More is known about Manchin than Sinema, and for a good reason: While Manchin has been willing to discuss his priorities in detail with his colleagues in the Senate, Sinema only negotiates with the White House.

“I’m not going to share with you or with Schumer or with Pelosi,” she told one Democratic senator recently. “I have already told the White House what I am willing to do and what I’m not willing to do. I’m not mysterious. It’s not that I can’t make up my mind. I communicated it to them in detail. They just don’t like what they’re hearing.”

Part of solving the Manchinema puzzle is that the 74-year-old former governor from a coal state and the 45-year-old former Green Party activist from Arizona are at odds on some major policies.

“Manchin and Sinema want very different things, both in terms of revenue and programs,” said a source close to Biden who spent the last few days talking to senior White House officials. “If you just took their currently presented red lines you wouldn’t have enough left to get this past progressives in the House and Senate. It wouldn’t raise enough money and it wouldn’t do enough big programs.”

The biggest obstacle Sinema has created, according to Democrats, is on prescription drug pricing reform.

The most robust version of this plan to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices would bring in some $800 billion of revenue at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry. It’s one of the most popular policies on the Democrats’ menu of options and many party strategists believe Democrats owe their House majority to this issue.

But we’re told that Democrats would be lucky if they managed to convince Sinema to support a version of drug pricing reform that raises even $200 billion. That’s not enough to fund the expansion of Medicare benefits that Sen. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.) wants or the expansion of the ACA that Speaker NANCY PELOSI wants.

Manchin is much more willing to support a bolder version of drug pricing reform. But he’s also insisting on including his own pet plan to tax prescription opioids — a tax vehemently opposed by Sinema’s allies at PhRMA and one that would dilute the Democrats’s prescription drug pricing plan. So far, the White House has not been able to convince Manchin to drop his opioid tax idea.

The two senators are similarly at odds over climate policy: Manchin opposes several Democratic ideas to price carbon pollution, while Sinema favors them.

And here’s where Manchin is really driving his colleagues crazy. There are tens of thousands of coal jobs in West Virginia that are going to disappear as the economy transitions to clean energy. But when Democrats have proposed expensive programs to subsidize those workers’ income as they find new jobs, Manchin, we’re told, “rejected it out of hand,” calling the idea “welfare.”

“So, like where the hell is the overlap?” the source close to Biden said of the “maddening” policy gap between the two centrists. “How do you land that?”

Some other reconciliation tidbits from this source:

— While progressives and many senior Democrats have been under the impression that the White House is interested in more programs that sunset, with shorter funding periods, this person indicated that Biden may actually favor fewer programs done well, news Pelosi will welcome. “They are coming down on the side of ‘choose programs that really have an impact on families and people’s lives and that can be executed well,’” said the source close to Biden.

— At least one of the five major climate provisions currently being discussed — tax rebates for clean energy, the Clean Electricity Performance Program, a price on carbon, a carbon border tax, a Civilian Climate Corps — is likely to be nixed. “Everything I hear from Manchin is that he wants to kill the CEPP,” said the same source. “If that’s the hostage, can we get 3 or 4 of the others?”

— On child care proposals, top Democrats are discussing making a choice between Biden’s universal free pre-K plan and his plan to subsidize high quality daycare.

— The path to getting the total bill to above $2 trillion may require dedicating $100-200 billion to paying down the debt, a priority that both Manchin and Sinema actually agree on.

This is one source who probably has an agenda so you can take it with a grain of salt. There are many moving parts to all this. But honestly, these two people are a blight on America. The sheer arrogance of them defying the entire caucus and the president, potentially causing a huge rift in the the coalition we need if we’re going to fight back fascism is just too much to take.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns …

Everyone’s a Captain Kirk

https://i0.wp.com/images.financialexpress.com/2021/10/William-Shatner-launch-pad-of-Blue-Origin-New-Shepard-rocket.jpg?quality=89&ssl=1

What a long, strange trip it’s been. From my original review of the 2009 film Star Trek:

OK, so now I have an excuse to tell you my Star Trek story. Actually, it’s not really that much of a story, but hey, I have some (virtual) column inches to fill-so here goes.

First off, I am not a diehard Trekker (more of a Dwarfer-if you must pry). I enjoyed the 60s TV series, and if I’m channel surfing and happen upon, say, “The City on the Edge of Forever”, or “Space Seed”…They Pull Me Back In (sorry, Mr. Pacino). I never bothered with  the spinoff series, but have seen the theatrical films. I tend to agree with the “even-numbered Trek films are the best” theory.

I’ve never felt the urge to buy collectibles, attend a convention, or don a pair of Spock ears for a Halloween party. However, as fate would have it, in my life I have had close encounters (of the 3rd kind) with two cast members from the original show; encounters that (I imagine) would make a hardcore fan wet themselves and act like the  star-struck celebrity interviewer Chris Farley used to play on SNL.

In the mid 80s, I was working as a morning personality at an FM station in Fairbanks, Alaska. Our station co-promoted a personal appearance by Walter Koenig at (wait for it) the Tanana Valley State Fair, so I had a chance to meet him. The thing that has always stuck with me, however, was not any particular thrill in meeting “Chekov”, but rather his 1000-yard stare.

It was a look that spoke volumes; a look that said, “I can’t believe I’m onstage in a drafty barn in Fairbanks Alaska, fielding the same geeky questions yet again about the goddamn Russian accent. This is why I got into show business?!” To me, it was like watching a sad, real-life version of Laurence Olivier’s Archie in The Entertainer. And as a radio personality (lowest rung of the show biz ladder) and fledgling stand-up comic (next rung up), I wondered if this was A Warning.

Flash-forward to the mid 1990s. I had moved to Seattle, and found myself “between” radio jobs, supporting myself with sporadic stand-up comedy gigs and working through a temp agency. Through the temp agency, I ended up working for a spell at…at…I’ll just blurt it out: a Honeybaked Ham store in Redmond (I’m sure that there is a special place in Hell for Jews who sell pork; on the other hand, one of my co-workers was a Muslim woman from Kenya, so at least there will be someone there that I already know).

So I’m wiping down the counter one slow day, thinking to myself “After 20 years in radio, and 10 in stand-up comedy, I can’t believe I’m working at a Honeybaked Ham in Redmond, Washington. This is why I got into show business?!” Suddenly, a limo pulls up, and in strolls a casually dressed, ruddy-faced, mustachioed gentleman, getting on in years (hearing aids in both ears). If you’ve ever worked retail, you know that after a while, all the customers sort of look the same; you look at them, but you don’t really SEE them.

As I was fetching the gentleman his ham and exchanging pleasantries, I caught a couple co-workers in my peripheral, quietly buzzing. I put two and two together with the limo and began to surreptitiously scrutinize the customer’s face a little more closely.

Wait…is that…? Nah! Twice in one lifetime? What are the odds? He paid with a check. Name on the check? James Doohan. I kept my cool and closed the sale. As I watched him walk out the door, with a delicious, honey-glazed ham tucked under his arm, an old Moody Blues song began to play in my head: “Isn’t life stray-ay-ay-hange?”

Mr. Doohan has since slipped the surly bonds of Earth, both figuratively and literally:

Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry is going where no man has gone before.

Part of his cremated remains will be sent into deep space, along with remains of his wife, Majel Barrett Roddenberry, who appeared on Star Trek the Next Generation as Lwaxana Troi and voiced the computer on multiple Trek series.

Remains of James Doohan (Trek’s Scotty) and pioneering sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke will also be sent into orbit on a memorial flight from the Houston-based Celestis, reports NBC News.

The company, which has been putting remains into orbit for 16 years, will launch its Summerjammer Solar Sail Mission from Cape Cod in November 2014. This will be the first to enter into deep space, and the craft will orbit the sun between Earth and Venus.

Remains from Roddenberry and Doohan have been sent into space on previous Celestis flights. Summerjammer will be launched with an experimental solar sail from NASA, which it hopes will propel the craft with photons from the sun.

(From a 2013 piece in The Hollywood Reporter )

This morning, I was enjoying a bowl of instant oatmeal and watching CNN before heading to work, and happened to catch the countdown for the latest Blue Origin flight. I’ve been sort of half-paying attention to the hype surrounding this latest commercial stunt from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, because…that’s basically what it is (more like a glorified human cannonball act, as the spacecraft doesn’t actually go into orbit around the Earth).

That said, I unapologetically remain an original series Star Trek fan (I was 10 in 1966), so I thought it was cool that William Shatner was invited along for the ride (which would make him the first surviving member of the original Star Trek crew to make it into “real” space).

Then something unexpected happened. I started to choke up a little as the rocket took off.

For those of us of “a certain age”, that is to say, old enough to have actually witnessed the moon landing live on TV… the fact that “we” were even fucking able to achieve this feat “by the end of the decade” (as President Kennedy projected in 1961) still seems like a pretty big deal to me.

Of course, there are still some big unanswered questions out there about Life, the Universe, and Everything, but I’ll leave that to future generations. I feel that I’ve done my part…spending my formative years plunked in front of a B&W TV in my PJs eating Sugar Smacks and watching Walter Cronkite reporting live from the Cape.

I think it was those childhood memories, plus seeing Captain Kirk going aloft, that got to me. And once I heard Shatner’s comments after he exited the capsule…I was a puddle:

What you’ve just given me is the most profound experience I can imagine. I’m so filled with emotion about what just happened. I-I…it’s just extraordinary. I hope I never recover from this. I hope that I can maintain what I feel now. I don’t want to lose it. It’s so…so much larger than me and life. It hasn’t anything to do with the little green planet we all live in-it has to do with the enormity, and the quickness, and the suddenness of life and death. […] I can’t even begin to express…what I would love to do is communicate as much as possible the jeopardy…the vulnerability of everything. […] 50 miles [above Earth] and you’re in death. This is life and [pointing to the sky] that’s death…and in an instant [as you enter space] you go ‘Whoa …that’s death!’

How fragile we are. Godspeed, Planet Earth.

Previous posts with related themes:

The beginning of wisdom: What I learned from Mr. Spock

More reviews at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

Biden’s hanging in

Over the past few days the media has incessantly been quoting a Quinnipiac poll that had Biden at 38% approval rating. That sounds really bad. But it was an outlier. It’s not nearly as bad as that.

Here’s the new CNN poll:

Approval ratings at this point in a presidency often tank. I suppose it’s letdown from the high expectations of the campaign once it’s met the sausage factory of legislation. Biden’s had a rough couple of months with Afghanistan, COVID and his own party’s sturm und drang over the big agenda. The economy is still wobbly because of the pandemic and the GOP’s strategy of encouraging its followers to act like a marauding mob of miscreants and refusing to get vaccinated and harassing people all over the country. But all things considered, he’s hanging in there.

If the Democrats can get the Divas off their high horses and get a deal and the January 6th Commission can deliver some high profile results, it’s possible that his approval rating will grow and the Dems can avoid the midterm curse. Maybe …