Skip to content

Month: February 2022

They figured Trump out early

There’s a new meme circulating on the right which says that Trump was unpredictable which made the rest of the world fear him — you know, the good old “madman theory.” It’s easy to see why people might think that since Trump is a dolt who had no idea what he was doing. But the truth is the opposite. All the world’s despots had his number from the beginning:

In the realm of foreign relations, Trump was entirely predictable. There was a simple playbook for foreign leaders: Flatter Trump, tell him what he wanted to hear, and he would roll over for you.

Look at his love affair with Kim Jong-Un.

Look at him giving Xi Jinping the go ahead for concentration camps just so long as he could have a trade “deal” to announce.

Look at the Helsinki Summit, where he took Vladimir Putin’s side against his own intelligence apparatus.

And in just about every case involving the use of force—the killing of Soleimani being the exception—Trump backed down militarily. Even going so far as to falsely dismiss injuries to U.S. troops in order to avoid having to retaliate against an aggressor

So why is Putin pushing into Ukraine now? Not everything in the world is about Donald Trump and Putin has been playing a very long game.

But if I had to guess what Trump’s influence on Putin was, I’d say:

Putin realized that he could get much of he wanted from Trump for free. Trump was even talking about pulling out of NATO—which is Putin’s endgame. Why do anything that might jeopardize the free gifts Trump was giving him?

On the other hand, once Biden came to power and it was clear that the relationship would be more adversarial, Putin figured that he might as well go on offense and take his lumps in pursuit of the strategic objectives that could only be achieved by force.

Who needs aggression when you have Donald Trump doing your job for you?

What He Wants

Tom Nichols is a Russia expert and conservative turned Never Trumper Independent. I don’t always agree with him but on this I fear he has it right about Putin’s weird speech yesterday:

Even discounting Putin’s delivery, the speech was, in many places, simply unhinged. Putin began with a history lesson about how and why Ukraine even exists. For all his Soviet nostalgia, the Russian president is right that his Soviet predecessors intentionally created a demographic nightmare when drawing the internal borders of the U.S.S.R., a subject I’ve explained at length here.

But Putin’s point wasn’t that the former subjects of the Soviet Union needed to iron out their differences. Rather, he was suggesting that none of the new states that emerged from the Soviet collapse—except for Russia—were real countries. “As a result of Bolshevik policy,” Putin intoned, “Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s Ukraine’. He is its author and architect.”

It is true that Soviet leaders created the 1991 borders. That is also true of what we now call the Russian Federation. Putin, however, went even further back in history: “Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood.”

By that kind of historical reasoning, few nations in Europe, or anywhere else, are safe. Putin’s foray into history was nothing less than a demand that only Moscow—and only the Kremlin’s supreme leader—has the right to judge what is or is not a sovereign state (as I recently discussed here). Putin’s claims are hardly different from Saddam Hussein’s rewriting of Middle East history when Iraq tried to erase Kuwait from the map.

For most of the speech, Putin was drinking one shot after another straight from a bottle of pure Soviet-era moonshine. He accused Ukraine, for example, of developing nuclear weapons, a play right out of the old Soviet handbook, when Kremlin leaders would accuse the former West Germany of developing nuclear arms to serve their “revanchist” plans for war.

He even accused Bill Clinton of denigrating him personally when Putin asked, more than 20 years ago, about the possibility of including Russia in NATO. Among the Russian president’s various other quirks, the man knows how to hold a grudge.

Putin then suggested that international sanctions are “blackmail”—a word used almost daily in the old Soviet press about the West—and are aimed at weakening Russia and undermining its existence as a nation. “There is only one goal,” Putin said. “To restrain the development of Russia. And they will do it, as they did before. Even without any formal pretext at all.” This is nonsense, and either Putin knows it (which is likely) or he has become so detached from reality that he has come to believe it (which is not impossible).

Putin left no room for negotiation with the Biden administration. He is prepared for sanctions, which he says will come no matter what Russia does. He asserts that Western hostility is permanent (perhaps because it would be too painful to his ego to admit that most people in the West, if given the choice, would not think about Russia or its leaders at all).

In short, Putin is now embracing a Russian tradition of paranoia, an inferiority complex that sees Moscow as both a savior of other nations and a victim of great conspiracies, a drama in which Russia is both strong enough to be feared and weak enough to be threatened. The West, in this story, is motivated not to seek peace and security, but to undermine Russia, and Putin has cast himself as the beleaguered Russian prophet who must subvert the evil plans drawn against his people.

Back here on Earth, however, we have a more pressing problem. At the end of his speech, Putin recognized the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, the “people’s republics” of Lugansk and Donetsk, as independent entities. In so doing, Putin has effectively partitioned Ukraine. This specific form of meddling in sovereign nations, too, is a Soviet tradition, as the Poles and others would remind us. His claim to these areas—for they will be Russian satrapies, and not “independent” in any meaningful way—is a claim to be the ultimate arbiter of former Soviet borders, including those now within NATO.

Literally within minutes of completing his television address, Putin sent “peacekeepers” into eastern Ukraine. His likely next move will be to stage some sort of incident in which he claims (as he did in Georgia in his war there) that the Ukrainians are the aggressors, and that Russia is acting only in defense of ethnic Russians.

That “defense” could lead right into the streets of Kyiv. Putin demanded in his address, as he has before, that Ukraine “cease hostilities” in these areas—in other words, that the legitimate government of Ukraine stop trying to control its own territory—and he warned that “all responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will be entirely on the conscience of the regime ruling on the territory of Ukraine.”

This is the pretext for war.

Putin has now affirmed that he refuses to accept the outcome of the Cold War and that he will fight to dismantle the European system of peace and security constructed by the international community after its end. This is Vladimir Putin’s forever war, and Russia, cursed as it has been so many times in its history with a terrible leader, will be fighting it for as long as Putin remains the master of the Kremlin.

He sounded to me as if he wanted to turn back to clock to 1900. He can’t do that, of course. But he has a whole lot of nuclear weapons and he will be causing trouble for a long time to come.

Oy.

Secretary of Snake

Mike Pompeo seems to think he’s going to be president of the United States. He’s lost a bunch of weight, hired a media training coach and is going around the country giving speeches and interviews. There’s no work on how Trump feels about all this but I can’t imagine that he’s happy about it.

He’s also ostentatiously fluffing Vladimir Putin:

Of all the former secretaries of state under Democratic and Republican presidents, only one is taking to cable news and social media during a moment of peril in Europe to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin and chastise the Biden administration. Mike Pompeo has lauded the Russian strongman over the past month as a “talented,” “savvy,” “capable statesman,” offering his praise during a slew of interviews after his political action committee spent $30,000 on improving his performance in media appearances.

“He is a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts,” Pompeo told Fox News in January. “He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.”

[…]

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers have traveled to Ukraine in recent weeks to express a unified American voice of support, and are working on legislation that would provide President Joe Biden with new sanctions tools to punish Russia if it further invades the country.

Few other former secretaries of state have weighed in on the crisis, and those that have avoided politics. Condoleeza Rice, former secretary of state under President George W. Bush, called Putin “megalomaniacal” in a CNN interview over the weekend. There have been eight U.S. secretaries of state since Putin took power in 1999, including four under Republican presidents — Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rex Tillerson and Pompeo — and four under Democratic presidents — Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the current secretary, Antony Blinken.

To the contrary, Pompeo has targeted Biden as exemplifying “enormous weakness,” leading “an America on its back, an America that apologizes.” He asserts that Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and response to a ransomware hack of the Colonial pipeline last year contributed to Putin’s confidence. Putin is “very shrewd. Very capable,” Pompeo said in another recent interview with the Center for the National Interest. “I have enormous respect for him – I’ve been criticized for saying that.”

In the past, former President Donald Trump’s secretary of state has privately dismissed Ukraine as insignificant in U.S. domestic politics. After an interview with an NPR reporter in 2020, Pompeo, then still secretary, pulled the reporter aside to curse at her for her questions, and demanded she identify Ukraine on an unmarked map. “Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?” he asked her.

What a great diplomat. What an impressive statesman.

Apparently, someone pulled him aside yesterday and said maybe he needed to rethink his strategy:

” On Monday night, after Putin delivered a speech describing Ukraine as a Russian invention, Pompeo did assign blame for the current crisis to the Russians. “Vladimir Putin is the aggressor,” he wrote on Twitter. “The Ukrainians are the victims. We should never shy away from that.”

Big of him to acknowledge that.

No word from Trump on any of this. Which is a relief.

Some good news for once

I’m happy to get as many vaccine boosters as needed but I’m happy to learn that the ones we already have had are holding up quite well:

As people across the world grapple with the prospect of living with the coronavirus for the foreseeable future, one question looms large: How soon before they need yet another shot?

Not for many months, and perhaps not for years, according to a flurry of new studies.

Three doses of a Covid vaccine — or even just two — are enough to protect most people from serious illness and death for a long time, the studies suggest.

“We’re starting to see now diminishing returns on the number of additional doses,” said John Wherry, director of the Institute for immunology at the University of Pennsylvania. Although people over 65 or at high risk of illness may benefit from a fourth vaccine dose, it may be unnecessary for most people, he added.

Federal health officials have said they are not planning to recommend fourth doses anytime soon.

The Omicron variant can dodge antibodies — immune molecules that prevent the virus from infecting cells — produced after two doses of a Covid vaccine. But a third shot of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech or by Moderna prompts the body to make a much wider variety of antibodies, which would be difficult for any variant of the virus to evade, according to the most recent study, posted online on Tuesday.

The diverse repertoire of antibodies produced should be able to protect people from new variants, even those that differ significantly from the original version of the virus, the study suggests.

“If people are exposed to another variant like Omicron, they now got some extra ammunition to fight it,” said Dr. Julie McElrath, an infectious disease physician and immunologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

What’s more, other parts of the immune system can remember and destroy the virus over many months if not years, according to at least four studies published in top-tier journals over the past month.

Specialized immune cells called T cells produced after immunization by four brands of Covid vaccine — Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax — are about 80 percent as powerful against Omicron as other variants, the research found. Given how different Omicron’s mutations are from previous variants, it’s very likely that T cells would mount a similarly robust attack on any future variant as well, researchers said.

This matches what scientists have found for the SARS coronavirus, which killed nearly 800 people in a 2003 epidemic in Asia. In people exposed to that virus, T cells have lasted more than 17 years. Evidence so far indicates that the immune cells for the new coronavirus — sometimes called memory cells — may also decline very slowly, experts said.

“Memory responses can last for ages,” said Wendy Burgers, an immunologist at the University of Cape Town who led one of the studies, published in the journal Nature. “Potentially, the T-cell response is extremely long lived.”

Throughout the pandemic, a disproportionate amount of research attention has gone to antibodies, the body’s first line of defense against a virus. That’s partly because these molecules are relatively easy to study: They can be measured from a drop of blood.

Analyzing immune cells, by contrast, requires milliliters of blood, skill, specialized equipment — and a lot of time. “It’s orders of magnitude slower and more laborious,” Dr. Burgers said.

Few labs have the wherewithal to study these cells, and their findings lag weeks behind those on antibodies. Perhaps as a result, scientists have frequently overlooked the importance of other parts of the immune system, experts said.

“Most people don’t even know what they are — a lot of doctors and scientists are not completely clear what a T cell is,” said Dr. Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who led one of the T-cell studies.

“Fundamentally, I would argue that T cells are probably more important than what many people have given them credit for,” Dr. Barouch said.

Antibodies spike after every shot of vaccine — or after each exposure to the virus — and inevitably decline within a few weeks to months.

Waning antibody levels after two vaccine doses prompted federal officials to recommend boosters for everyone older than 12. The extra shots fortified antibody levels and helped to contain Omicron’s spread, but they too appear to lose some of their ability to prevent infections within four months, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Antibodies recognize two or three key parts of the spike protein, a protrusion on the outside of the coronavirus that allows it to latch on to human cells. But T cells detect many more parts of the spike, and so are less likely to fail when the virus gains mutations in some of them.

Vaccines also encode a memory of the virus in B cells, which can churn out fresh batches of antibodies within four or five days after a new exposure to the virus.

This dual punch of T and B cells help explain why many people who received two or even three doses of vaccine could still be infected with the Omicron variant, but only a small percentage became seriously ill.

Personally, I don’t want to become ill at all and would like to avoid having any possibility of Long Covid. But this is very reassuring, nonetheless. These vaccines are medical miracles and I will ever understand why so many people are refusing to take advantage of it. Politics alone can’t explain it. It’s something deeper than that and it’s highly disturbing. It feels primitive, superstitious — self destructive.

Disinformation laundering in six steps

While we are on the topic of Russian disinformation, Paul Waldman reduces how the mainstream media launders Republican disinformation to six sleasy steps:

It is important to recognize it when you see it.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

“This is nonsense.”

There is a lot of disinformation floating around about Russia’s threats to Ukraine and Putin false-flag operations. So much so that even American claims about Russia having a list of Ukrainians “to be killed or sent to camps following a military occupation” brings evokes memories of Dick Cheney feeding disinformation to the press to build a case for the U.S. invading Iraq.

The difference, Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel.net) told The Nicole Sandler Show on Monday, is the Bush II administration was trying to justify invading Iraq. The Biden administration is leaking intelligence to prevent an invasion of Ukraine. The press should demand evidence for Biden’s claims [timestamp 30:00], of course. But the audience for them is not the U.S. or Europe, but Putin himself.

There are sufficient public sources and commercial satellite data to corroborate the intelligence Biden has not released.

“What Biden is trying to do [timestamp 33:30] is he is trying to undercut the ability of a false-flag operation to actually work…. Some of these stories are the same stories [Putin] used with Georgia in 2008 and with Ukraine in 2014…. And Biden is just trying to [make sure] it’s harder to create any confusion about what’s going on here.” And to make it easier to impose sanctions Germany and France can join.

It is a lengthy conversation covering Donald Trump’s legal woes, John Durham’s sham investigation, and how all of it ties back to Russian influence with Trump and his cronies. Worth your time. If nothing else, for Wheeler’s hour-long disquisition on complex topics without notes. “She knows her shit!” Sandler tweeted last night.

Last night, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the United Nations Security Council just what the U.S. thinks of Putin’s surreal claims about his recognition of Ukraine provinces as independent states. He signed security agreements with them on Monday to justify advancing troops to their borders with Ukraine. It’s not as if Putin is invading anew. Russian forces (sans uniforms) and proxies have controlled these regions since 2014.

“He calls them peacekeepers,” Thomas-Greenfield said. “This is nonsense. We know what they really are.” 

Putin wants his Russian Empire back, she continued (emphasis mine):

And then, President Putin asserted that Russia today has a rightful claim to all territories – all territories – from the Russian Empire; the same Russian Empire from before the Soviet Union, from over 100 years ago. That includes all of Ukraine. It includes Finland. It includes Belarus and Georgia and Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. It includes parts of Poland and Turkey. In essence, Putin wants the world to travel back in time. To a time before the United Nations. To a time when empires ruled the world. But the rest of the world has moved forward. It is not 1919. It is 2022. The United Nations was founded on the principle of decolonization, not recolonization. And we believe the vast majority of UN Member States and the UN Security Council are committed to moving forward – not going back in time.

“Colleagues, President Putin is testing our international system, he is testing our resolve and seeing just how far he can push us all,” Thomas-Greenfield reminded the council.

For a more succinct explanation of where Putin stands and how he/we got here, Chris Murphy explains.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

They’re coming for contraception

Some of us have been talking about this for a long time and are usually told to sit down and shut up, it will never happen. Let’s hope that’s true. But here are a couple of signs that they’re going to give it a good old fashioned try:

It may have been the last question of last week’s debate for the three men seeking the GOP nomination for Michigan attorney general, but the inquiry seeking their stances on a 1965 Supreme Court ruling has garnered the most attention. 

The question concerned the high court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, a landmark decision that struck down Connecticut’s ban on the sale of contraception. Citing a “right to marital privacy,” Griswold helped to pave the way for 1973’s Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion that many experts expect will be overturned or gutted by the right-wing-majority Supreme Court  this year. 

However, at Friday night’s forum at Alpena Community College, all three candidates — Former House Speaker Tom Leonard (R-DeWitt), state Rep. Ryan Berman (R-Commerce Twp) and Kalamazoo-based attorney Matthew DePerno, indicated they thought the issue was wrongly decided and trampled on states’ rights. 

After seeking clarification as to what the Griswold decision was, Leonard was the first to respond. “This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because this is…it was an issue that trampled states’ rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states.” 

Berman then echoed that, after indicating that he was unaware of the decision.

“You know, what? I wasn’t familiar with Griswold vs. Connecticut, but I’m an advanced legal researcher, so I pulled it up real quick to look what it was about,” he said. “And it says the court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. Again, I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I’m all about states’ rights and limiting federal, and especially federal, judicial activism.”

DePerno followed suit, saying, “I didn’t know we could have our phones up here.” 

The line drew laughter from the audience and prompted Berman to quip, “You gotta be quick.”

DePerno then continued, saying that the Griswold and Roe decisions were states’ right issues and predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that “the privacy issue currently is unworkable.”

 DePerno, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump and is known for espousing conspiracy theories, then finished with a flourish. 

“We need to start defending state rights as attorney generals, across this country,” he said. “Too many people, even in our own party, too many people have lost the idea of what states’ rights means. They haven’t read the works of our Founding Fathers. They haven’t read The Federalist Papers. They continue to push the idea that we need to give rights away to the federal government. We don’t. We need to take state rights back. We need to stand in our borders. When the feds come and try to take our rights, we need to stand as citizens in Michigan and hold the line and protect states’ rights.”

While that drew a hearty round of applause from Friday’s audience, it prompted a less than celebratory response from the woman all three candidates are hoping to replace this November. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, tweeted out afterward it was “terrifying” that the three Republicans running for Michigan attorney general “just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception.”

They aren’t the only ones. Here’s Florida:

In case you aren’t following along, Florida Republicans — having pushed through a ban on rape & incest victims getting abortions — are now coming after birth control:

And yes, the guy speaking here is the former assistant attorney general of Michigan, who was fired after it was discovered he was running a homophobic blog dedicated solely to attacking a gay University of Michigan student.

Originally tweeted by Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) on February 21, 2022.

Can they get this done? Who knows? But now that they are on the cusp of getting their dream ban on Roe vs Wade, they have to keep the folks engaged with something. They’ll just start equating birth control with abortion and many of their people will just carry on as if it’s exactly the same thing.

Another vigilante opens fire

This story about the mass shooting at a Portland demonstration over the weekend is horrifying. The police statement characterizes this as a confrontation between “armed protesters” and an “armed homeowner” although I haven’t read anything about armed protesters. This is the only thing we’ve heard about the confrontation:

The crime scene “was extremely chaotic,” the police said in a statement on Sunday, “and a number of witnesses were uncooperative with responding officers. Most people on scene left without talking to police.”

The statement added that detectives believe a large number of people either witnessed what happened or recorded the incident. “This is a very complicated incident, and investigators are trying to put this puzzle together without having all the pieces,” the statement said.

One of the victims, Dajah Beck, who turns 39 on Monday and who was contacted through her attorney, said she was shot twice. One bullet went through her side, and the other grazed her knee. Ms. Beck said she was part of a volunteer motorcade group that was working to set up a safety plan and reroute traffic ahead of the march. “We’re not part of the protest,” she said, adding that no one in the motorcade group was armed.

As Ms. Beck and the group were working, with one woman riding in the back of a truck because she walked slower and with the aid of a cane, a man approached a small group of women, screaming that they were “violent terrorists” and repeatedly calling them a misogynist vulgarity. The man said they were the people responsible for violence in the city, Beck recounted, adding that he said: “If I see you come past my house, I’ll shoot you.”

People in the group tried to calm him down. But as Ms. Beck looked away from him toward one of her friends, “that’s when he started shooting,” she said. She fell to the ground after she was shot and crawled behind a truck tire for cover. Moments later, she said, “the first thing that I saw was my two friends on the ground covered in blood.” One of them was the woman who died. Ms. Beck said that at that point, the shooter had been subdued and people were on top of him.

He called them the C-word which indicates he was directly confronting these women,

Maybe this person is lying but it doesn’t sound like it. It sounds like this was an armed right winger who opened fire. And it does not sound as if he was “protecting his property” which the “armed homeowner” designation implies.

Maybe there was a protester brandishing a weapons but that doesn’t explain why this guy would start firing at these women. The one he killed was disabled. It’s hard to see how he can claim self-defense. But I’m sure he will …

Bipartisanship of fools

Joan McCarter with an astute analysis of the current Dem strategy to get bipartisan support for Biden’s Supreme Court nominee:

President Joe Biden could announce his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy any time now, though it’s possible Russian President Vladimir Putin’s irrational aggression against Ukraine will supersede that for the next few days. The vacancy is being created by the pending retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, and Biden is going to nominate a Black woman to the seat, as he promised when he was running for office.

That was a bold promise and will be a bold move, one that is long overdueTheGrio reports that “high-ranking White House officials” held a series of calls with allies Sunday night, gearing them up to help combat Republican attacks, which they warn will “be about affirmative action, and race and gender.”

That’s a degree of awareness that’s welcome from White House officials, because the president himself—along with a bunch of Senate Democrats—seem to think that it’s worth bringing some Republicans on board to support his eventual nominee. While he’s “actively looking for Republican support,” Politico reports, “he’s doing it cautiously, wary of setting expectations that end in failure.”

Politico also reports that, in numerous interviews, “Senate Democrats suggested that they would also like to see a broad bipartisan vote.” They are operating under the bizarre assumption that having Republican votes “would send a signal to the public that the high court isn’t as politicized as many perceive it to be.” The theory seems to be that Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch will feel compelled to moderate their behavior if there’s a bipartisan vote for the new justice. Or perhaps worse—that the public will perceive their actions as less extreme if a Republican votes for Biden’s nominee. Which is pretty much bonkers.

Here’s how one Democrat inexplicably sees it: “For the institution, it’s important because the Supreme Court has become so polarized that a bipartisan vote might well help to begin to restore some of the credibility it has lost,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. As if the radical, unprecedented actions of the six extremists on the court taking a sledgehammer to the entire Democratic agenda, not to mention core civil and political rights, won’t be so bad if a few Republicans vote for a liberal replacement among the minority.

That any Democrat in 2022 could look at what this Supreme Court has done and is preparing to do and think that its “credibility” could be restored if a handful of Republican senators approve Biden’s nominee is sadly all too believable. At least it’s not the main thing to worry about, says Blumenthal. “But I don’t think that ought to be a decisive question to the president.”

Well, good. Because here’s what Republicans are doing out in the wild, with no condemnation from any of their colleagues: “Ted Cruz says Joe Biden pledging a Black Supreme Court pick should be ‘illegal.’”

Yep, that’s the message from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Fox News this weekend. “Democrats today believe in racial discrimination, they’re committed to it as a political proposition,” Cruz said. “I think it is wrong to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to discriminate; this administration is going to discriminate.’ What the president said is that only African-American women are eligible for this slot. They said that 94% of Americans are ineligible.”

Of course it’s not just Cruz. Even Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who periodically tries to remember to be respectable because he’s in leadership and wants to be conference leader some day, has gotten in on the racism. First he did some concern trolling, saying he was worried Biden would “tie his own hands” by insisting on just Black women for candidates for this seat. “If you’re Asian, you’d say, ‘I guess I can’t compete with this nomination because he’s decided to pick an African American,’” Cornyn said. Because Cornyn is really looking out for Asian Americans out there.

Nevertheless, Biden has been on the phone with Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Mitt Romney (UT). He’s also spoken with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and met with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Who knows whether he’s doing it out of courtesy to his former Republican colleagues or because he’s really thinking that if he just picks the right nominee, he’ll get those Republicans. Just like back in the day when then-President Barack Obama took Republican “endorsements” to heart and nominated Merrick Garland to the high court.

We all sure remember how that turned out. Let that be a lesson to Biden and every other Democrat who lived through it about what Republicans are capable of doing. Now it seems that instead of pointing to the fact that this Supreme Court has been taken over by the radical right and is quickly destroying the entirety of the Democratic and democratic agenda, these Democrats are providing cover for it. It really is remarkably naive and irresponsible to take bipartisanship this far.

The whole exercise is pointless. No bipartisan vote will make the least amount of difference on the Court. It’s packed with extremists now and they go their own way.

But I think it’s at least possible that the Democrats know this and are just feinting toward bipartisanship so they can say they tried. Sadly, the Republicans will just lie and say they didn’t and half the people will believe them but I think they may still see some value in it, probably for electoral purposes. (I’m not sure what that would be but Democrats always seem to think they need to be seen doing “outreach” even though the Republicans bite their hands off every time.)

And maybe that could be fine. But the Republicans cannot be allowed to degrade and demean these women who are under consideration for the job or make them jump through any ridiculous hoops. If they start doing that the Democrats have to pull the plug on any meetings with Republicans and just do what Mitch does: get it done.

A View from the Demented Right

Yep. Yet another Jack D. Ripper-level retired General weighs in. How many of these guys are still in the military?

Ok, so that guy’s a total nut. But is he that much nuttier than the rest?

That’s just for starters.