Author: tristero

“more than enough proof exists for the House to impeach” 

by tristero

No kidding, but it’s important to have the Washington Post say so, and so clearly:

…it is our view that more than enough proof exists for the House to impeach Mr. Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, based on his own actions and the testimony of the 17 present and former administration officials who courageously appeared before the House Intelligence Committee…

We take no pleasure in recommending the president’s impeachment and are aware of the considerable costs and risks: further dividing and inflaming our politics; turning impeachment into one more tool of partisan warfare; perhaps giving Mr. Trump unwarranted aid in his reelection effort. But the House must make its decision based on the facts and merits, setting aside unpredictable second-order effects.

That is particularly true because, unlike any previous president, Mr. Trump has refused all cooperation with the congressional inquiry. He has prevented the testimony of a dozen present or former senior officials and the release of documents by the White House, the Office of Management and Budget and three Cabinet departments. 

The House Intelligence Committee’s report rightly warns that “this unprecedented campaign of obstruction” poses a serious threat to U.S. democracy. “The damage to our system of checks and balances . . . will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked.” 

Congress prepared an article of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon for a less comprehensive refusal to cooperate. Mr. Trump’s actions demand that Congress again act to protect a foundation of U.S. democracy.

I too take no pleasure that, as with Nixon, the United States has a criminal for president (and who has turned so many members of his administration into his criminal accomplices). However, I am unapologetically glad and relieved that Trump will be held accountable for at least a portion of the many, many crimes he has committed while in office.

Personally, I wish he was also being impeached for the cagings, for the denial of healthcare to sick children, for the pardons of Arpaio and the war criminals, and for the obstruction/coverup of the Russia investigation — all of which clearly rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

To Republican enablers of Trump in Congress who still, somewhere, have something resembling an ember of decency left:

If you think this is the worst Trump has done (or will do) and that the rest of it won’t come out, you are sorely mistaken.

He will take you down with him. So get out now. Vote to impeach.

Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires

by tristero

In the first days after 9/11, I emailed other New Yorkers that I was opposed to any invasion of Afghanistan. I said that the last thing any country should do is what their enemy clearly wants them to do. And it was obvious, at least to me, that bin Laden was doing everything possible to provoke Bush to invade Afghanistan? Why? Because bin Laden thought it would spark an Islamist revolution against the US and other Western governments.*

Bush, of course, was too incompetent and bloodthirsty to resist bin Laden’s bait. So sure enough, he invaded Afghanistan. This is the result:

All told, the cost of nearly 18 years of war in Afghanistan will amount to more than $2 trillion. Was the money well spent? 

There is little to show for it. 

Could an American president, after 9/11, not invaded Afghanistan? That is, was it politically feasible to do so? In my opinion, yes, but it would have taken a great statesman to make the non-invasion case to the American people.

But assuming an Afghanistan invasion to be inevitable (as stupid as it would be), there were surely ways to avoid the catastrophe Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, and the rest of that sick crew created. But incompetence was rampant in foreign and military policy under Bush. And here, $2 trillion dollars later, we are.

*By the way, many of the New Yorkers I was in contact with agreed that invading Afghanistan was the height of stupidity back in September 2001. They included people who lived less than 10 blocks from the World Trade Center.

That’s Quite a Feat, NY Times! 

by tristero

Truly incredible.  Dean Baquet, the editor of the NY Times, permitted a front page article on how William Barr loves to take “liberals” and “secularists” to task for corrupting America’s moral values without once mentioning Stormy Daniels (or any other well-documented Trump infidelities).

Bottom line: Anyone who would take a job in the Trump Administration is in no position to lecture me or anyone else about our morals.

Adding: Mr. Barr, a bit of advice: John 8:7

Politicizing the Ledes

by tristero

Buried deep inside the print edition of the Times (page 26) is the announcement of the House Judiciary Committee report on the impeachment of Donald Trump. The headline is different than the one online. It says “House Report Offers Legal Case for Impeachment.” And here is the first sentence:

House Democrats released a report on Saturday intended to lay out the legal and historical underpinnings of their case for impeaching President Trump while also countering Republican accusations that the investigation of the president’s conduct in office has been unfair and illegitimate.

In other words, for the Times, the Judiciary report is not about facts but instead, it’s a partisan political document. A “Democratic report” — not a “House report,” not a “House Judiciary report,” but

Similar language was used by the same reporters when the House Intelligence Committee report was released:

House Democrats on Tuesday asserted that President Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election, releasing an impeachment report that found the president “placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States.”

The Times has the story fundamentally wrong. By any stretch of the imagination, both reports are simply an objective detailing of the known facts. They point only in one direction:

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, betrayed his oath of office. Trump used bribery, extortion, and other criminal means to pressure a foreign government to manufacture dirt on a political opponent. He wasn’t acting in America’s interest. He was acting in his own — and in Putin’s.

That is the story. The Times’s coverage of impeachment is dangerously misguided. It provides Trump the perfect excuse to dismiss the clear evidence of criminal misconduct as merely politics as usual.

This is not politics as usual. Trump is an existenial threat to any semblance of democratic governance. And the Times needs to report that in a consistent manner. Trump’s impeachment is not a political fight but a fight against an authoritarian demagogue who has no legitimate right to continue in office.

A Change in the Gold Standard 

by tristero

The most notable thing in yesterday’s hearing was a significant and barely noticed change in the gold standard Democrats applied to their strategy.

Their three witnesses were clearly mainstream Democrats, likely politically moderate if not liberal. In other words, there was no attempt by the Dems to call an “even-a-conservative-thinks-Trump’s-a-danger” lawyer from, say, the Federalist Society or some other far-right group.

Put another way, Democrats no longer feel the need to prove that “See, the grownups also agree with us!”

This is, as they say, a sign of growing maturity.

Note; As for the fellow called by the Trumpists who pretended to be non-partisan, Maddow convincingly demonstrated in her show opener last night that he is really a long time Republican apologist. Nadler also made mincemeat of his posturing in his closing remarks.

Both Sides, Now

by tristero

I think it is imperative for all thoughtful Americans to understand fully both sides in today’s fraught, partisan political atmosphere. Seriously, conservatives have values, too, and in fairness, we should extend them the courtesy of learning exactly what they hold dear.

Forget Ross Douthat’s meaningless generalities. Forget those finely parsed Wall Street Journal editorials or Willam Barr’s tone deaf speeches. I can think of no more even-handed description of modern conservative values than this link. There, you will learn exactly what conservatives cherish and how they embody their beliefs.

.

A Really Great Idea for Speaker Pelosi 

by tristero

From the always insightful Times letters section:

To the Editor: 

Here’s an interesting idea for Democrats to ponder: Suppose President Trump is impeached and then Nancy Pelosi does not immediately send the case to the Senate, but instead declares that it would be wrong to hold a trial in the heat of an election year, and that it could be picked up later. 

Of course, Mr. Trump would yell bloody murder about his “right” to a speedy trial, but this is a political not a criminal matter, and no such right exists. Besides, didn’t Mitch McConnell invoke the same in the Merrick Garland case?

This would leave Mr. Trump twisting in the wind while the Dems pursued their winning kitchen table agenda. Of course, a Democratic victory would make the case moot, while a Democratic defeat would leave the option open to try to remove him. 

Jay Schleifer
Wellington, Fla.

When Conservatives Complain We’re Not Civil or Serious

by tristero

Show ’em this:

A

Why Can’t Progressives Be More Like Conservatives? Chapter 1,245


by tristero

Wow, don’t they ever get tired of writing this article?

An influential analysis of national polling data by Professors Ellis and Stimson suggests that the most effective candidate in a national election would combine the most popular feature of the Democratic Party, progressive economic policies, with the most popular feature of the Republican Party: the invocation of conservative ideology and values like patriotism, family and the “American dream…”

To investigate these questions we conducted two experiments, one using a nationally representative sample of Americans, in which we looked at Americans’ support for “Scott Miller,” a hypothetical 2020 Democratic nominee. The participants in our studies were presented with excerpts from Scott Miller’s speeches — but we systematically varied the content of the speeches to analyze the effects of policy platform and symbolic politics. 

We found that the most effective Democratic candidate would speak in terms of conservative values while proposing progressive economic policies — with some of our evidence suggesting that endorsing highly progressive policies would be best. 

This is so misbegotten that it doesn’t even rise to the level of being wrong. For starters, there’s a whopping false dichotomy on display.

“Patriotism, family and the ‘American dream’ are not conservative ideology or values. I’ve not met a single American liberal who wasn’t proud that s/he was a citizen of a country that produced or welcomed geniuses Coltrane, Toni Morrison, Einstein, Feynman, Robert Johnson, Lincoln, Dickinson, Glass, and (make up your own list). I have yet to meet any liberal who didn’t, in some way, both adore his/her family and express it. As for the American Dream… to progress in your life… that is an explicitly liberal dream (although tragically, honored more in the breach). As Trump and every other conservative alive makes clear every day, they value inherited wealth and believe that the wealthy deserve to be treated with kid gloves.

But they make a worse mistake: A canned rhetorical strategy is as appetizing as canned green beans.

What a liberal or progressive has to do is simple: Speak directly, clearly, intelligently, passionately, and authentically about the carefully thought-through programs that are important to her. What she also has to do is to ground her programs in a well-articulated expression of liberal (i.e., American) values.

I wish I knew why this was so hard for nearly every Democratic politician out there. Maybe it’s because they really think that listening to simplistic ideas like blending conservative and progressive messages is a good strategy.

If Only…

by tristero

The WaPo as well as the major cable networks are running more highly accurate (and horrific) stories of Republican perfidy, authoritarian initiatives, lies, and truly demented policy ideas. It’s really something to read, the news told as it really is, without any false both-siderism. Even the Times seems to understand (well, about the half the time or so) that balance does not mean placing Republican fantasies on the same rhetorical pedestal as reality.

If only the mainstream media had produced this level of journalistic accuracy the last time it could have made a difference, when they were stealing the 2000 election — and lying just as baldly.

I’m afraid it’s a little late now. The cultists have their media and simply aren’t listening to the mainstream anymore.

If the truth is shouted in a forest, but the trees only have ears for falsehood, the forest is silent.

.