Showing posts with label fuckery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fuckery. Show all posts

Nov 21, 2025

Professor Pagel's Rundown


Instead of getting your Underoos all knotted up, maybe you could just tell us you don't issue illegal orders.

This looks a lot like more evidence that these jerks are spoilin' for a fight, and they intend to do everything they can think of to provoke a violent reaction.

Nov 12, 2025

Closer And Closer

It's not a terribly smart thing to hold your breath on this shit.
  • Trump is pressuring Boebert and Mace hard to get their names off the discharge petition
  • Even if the vote is called, there's bound to be delays - debate, conference meetings, etc
  • If the thing passes, there's no guarantee Johnson will act quickly to deliver the demand to Bondi
  • Bondi almost absolutely fight it and stall and do whatever Trump instructs her to do
  • This is Trump, so he'll take it to court and we'll spend a year waiting - unless enough Republicans get antsy enough about the re-election chances if it drags out and remains an issue during the mid-term campaigns
So yes, it's pretty damned close to being the smoking gun, but since there's no honor in MAGA, the GOP, or the White House - we can't reasonably expect any of them to act honorably.


Nov 5, 2025

Red Wine & Blue

IDK if the tag on this is true or not - whether the NC Republicans deleted this file. But would it surprise anyone if they did?


Nov 4, 2025

Cheney's Dead

I won't celebrate the man's death. But I won't mourn his passing either. And I'll never change my opinion that Dick Cheney played a big part in getting us to the shit-point we're at now.

Cheney was a strutting tin-plated martinet - a man of power without conscience. Exactly the wrong kind of guy to be in a position of great consequence in a government where power is supposed to be checked by worthy opposition, and balanced, not just against the letter of the law, but the spirit - what's right and honorable.

In the run up to our invasion of Iraq, Cheney's favorite dirty trick was to plant some bullshit on Thursday with his favorite stooge at the New york Times (Judith Miller), and then hit the talk shows that weekend and point to Miller's piece and say, "Look - it's in the Times - they hate me - it must be true."

That guy's fuckery cost us trillions of dollars (that we still haven't paid off), 14,000 dead Americans, plus anywhere from 400,000 to a million dead Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis.

But hey - at least Dick Cheney was rewarded handsomely by Haliburton, and never mind about all that torture, and graft, and loss of respect for "America's Values" around the world.

The worst of it is that the asshole got to die peacefully in a soft warm bed, surrounded by caregivers and loving family. Makes me wanna fucking puke.



Dick Cheney, powerful vice president during war on terrorism, dies at 84

After 9/11, he used his role as President George W. Bush’s chief strategist to approve the use of torture and steer U.S. occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.


Former vice president Dick Cheney, who recast an understudy’s job into an engine of White House power, becoming chief architect of a post-9/11 war on terrorism that involved bypassing restrictions against torture and domestic espionage, died Nov. 3. He was 84.

The cause was complications from pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, according to a statement from his family. They did not say where he died.

Heart disease had shadowed Mr. Cheney most of his adult life and was a particular concern during his two terms as next-in-line to President George W. Bush. He suffered the first of five heart attacks at 37 and had eight “cardiac events” between the 2000 and 2008 elections.

After the catastrophic attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Mr. Cheney, the nation’s 46th vice president, took on the role of primary strategist in all-out military deployments in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq. As part of this multitrillion-dollar campaign, intelligence officers were dispatched to use “any means at our disposal,” as Mr. Cheney put it, to find and kill terrorists and those who aided them.

Mr. Cheney and his senior lieutenants, Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and legal counsel David Addington, worked in strict secrecy to circumvent or reinterpret legal prohibitions against torture, domestic espionage and clandestine imprisonment without charge. Mr. Cheney said in 2008 that “it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation.” A 9/11-style attack, he said, “wasn’t going to happen again on our watch.”

Before joining Bush’s ticket in 2000, Mr. Cheney amassed unsurpassed credentials, having served as White House chief of staff, defense secretary and minority whip in the U.S. House of Representatives, the second-ranking Republican leadership position in a House then controlled by Democrats.

During Democrat Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, Mr. Cheney presided over Halliburton, a Fortune 500 oil field services company, as chairman and chief executive, joining the ranks of America’s moneyed corporate elite.

Under the far less experienced Bush, Mr. Cheney acquired a portfolio so broad that former vice president Dan Quayle, among other observers, saw him functioning in “a sort of co-presidency.” Mr. Cheney also acquired a reputation as a gifted and sometimes ruthless operator. White House contemporaries said Bush proved to be “the decider,” as he described himself in 2006, but no one did more than Mr. Cheney to set his agenda.

Mr. Cheney’s core beliefs — in unfettered markets and expansive presidential authority — defined Bush’s first-term action plan on taxes, spending, personnel appointments, freedom of information, environmental regulation and ballistic missile defense. He also pushed for an aggressive new stance against Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Palestinian Authority — in addition to shaping the global war on terror.

“He has been pretty damn good at accumulating power, extraordinarily effective and adept at exercising power,” James A. Baker III a former secretary of state and treasury secretary, said of Mr. Cheney in 2007, looking back on more than 30 years of friendship and rivalry.

Mr. Cheney’s role as the Bush administration’s leading advocate of an expansive, aggressive war on terrorism reflected his conviction that the 9/11 attack was a grave threat to the United States and his long-held belief that the power of the presidency was paramount and needed to be reasserted after decades of diminution by Congress and other forces in American society.

But in his later years, in defense of his daughter Liz, then a congresswoman from Wyoming who was one of only two Republicans on a House committee investigating President Donald Trump’s role in fomenting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Cheney spoke out against the abuse of presidential power by Trump when he pushed to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“In our nation’s 246-year history,” Mr. Cheney said in an August 2022 TV ad for his daughter’s reelection campaign, “there has never been an individual who was a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election, using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters rejected him. He is a coward.” Liz Cheney, who had voted to impeach Trump, lost her seat in the Republican primary that month, falling to a Trump-supported opponent.

Then, in 2024, when Trump was his party’s nominee for president for the third consecutive time, Mr. Cheney broke with a lifetime of devotion to a particularly muscular brand of Republican conservatism and announced he would vote for Democrat Kamala Harris “to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution.”

Two decades earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11, Mr. Cheney, without the knowledge of many of Bush’s top advisers, conceived and supervised a wide-ranging new program of warrantless domestic surveillance, code-named Stellar Wind, that circumvented legislative prohibitions and the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Acting through proxies, Mr. Cheney also orchestrated Bush’s decision to strip terrorist suspects of the right under the Geneva Conventions to be protected from “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment. He advocated what he called “robust interrogation,” using methods that U.S. allies and previous U.S. governments defined as torture.

To Mr. Cheney, the war on terror was a new kind of conflict demanding new rules appropriate to what he called “the dark side.” Asked once by a radio host whether he could justify “a dunk in the water” to save lives — a reference to waterboarding, a nonlethal technique that simulates the agony of drowning — Mr. Cheney said, “It’s a no-brainer for me.”

“The techniques were reasonable,” he said in 2008. “And I think it produced the desired result, [preventing] further attacks against the homeland for 7½ years.”

Mr. Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, center, in D.C. with senior staff after the 9/11 attacks. (David Bohrer/U.S. National Archives/Getty Images)

The vice president had concluded that 9/11 revealed a grave new danger. Hostile states armed with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons knew that they could not attack the United States directly without suffering terrible retribution. But the threat of retaliation was less of a deterrent to a non-state actor such as al-Qaeda, the Islamist extremist group that Osama bin Laden founded in 1998 and that carried out the 9/11 attacks. Terrorists might not be able to develop such weapons, but they could deliver them if supplied by a government willing to provide clandestine help.

“The greatest threat we face,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in 2007, was “a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities.”

Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces launched a massive strike on Afghanistan, designed to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban government that hosted it. Mr. Cheney became a leading public spokesman for the decision to go to war, and the intervention initially won wide support at home.

Seventeen months later, when U.S. forces invaded Iraq in 2003, Mr. Cheney again led the rhetorical push to justify the war, arguing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and, as the vice president put it, “long-standing, far-reaching relationships with terrorist organizations.” But this time, the move to military action was far more politically divisive.

Saddam Hussein had rebuilt his nuclear weapons program, Mr. Cheney asserted, and Iraqi intelligence services had working ties to al-Qaeda. In these and other statements, the vice president drew upon U.S. intelligence reports but went well beyond the knowledge and consensus judgments of government analysts.

As war approached, Mr. Cheney professed confidence of an easy victory in Iraq, predicting that U.S. troops “will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” Later, after years of bloody insurgency, he said the opposition was “in its last throes.”

Time and again, events would prove Mr. Cheney wrong. Iraq had no active programs producing weapons of mass destruction, and postwar analysis found no operational links to al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was captured, tried and executed, but the Iraq War continued until 2011, and U.S. troops remained in the country for another decade, seeking to stabilize the country and push back against Islamic State extremists. Nearly 5,000 Americans were killed in the war.

The conflict in Afghanistan continued until 2021, when President Joe Biden withdrew the last U.S. troops, ending a war in which more than 2,300 U.S. service members died and allowing the Taliban to retake control of the country.

Among the sharpest of Mr. Cheney’s critics was Dick Armey (R-Texas), the House majority leader during the run-up to the war.

Armey said Mr. Cheney gave him a private prewar briefing alleging that Iraq was close to building a miniature nuclear warhead and that members of Hussein’s family were working with the architects of the Sept. 11 attack. Armey learned later that neither assertion was supported by U.S. intelligence.

“I felt like I deserved better from Cheney than to be [lied to] by him,” Armey said in a 2008 interview, using a bit of vulgar “Texas vernacular,” as he put it, to describe Mr. Cheney’s conduct.

Mr. Cheney fashioned himself as an anti-politician, frankly indifferent to popular approval. When a “Good Morning America” interviewer noted in 2008 that two-thirds of the public opposed the Iraq War, he replied with a single word: “So?” Asked to elaborate, he said, “You cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the opinion polls.”

Around the midpoint of his presidency, Bush began to see the costs of that approach, according to Bush confidants, including the White House communications director, Dan Bartlett.

A growing backlash against Mr. Cheney’s signature policies, at home and abroad, persuaded the more pragmatic president to trim his course. A policy of strict isolation gave way to diplomatic overtures toward Iran and North Korea, despite the vice president's continuing belief that they were ripe for “regime change.” Bush put an end to waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, and electronic surveillance without authority of Congress and the courts.

By the time he left office, with the lowest approval rating on record for a vice president, Mr. Cheney had confounded old friends and, by some accounts, had spent down a reputation built over decades.

Former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who worked closely with him under previous presidents, echoed other longtime colleagues in an interview with the New Yorker. “Dick Cheney, I don’t know anymore,” he said.

Former president Gerald Ford expressed similar sentiments in an interview with The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. “He was an excellent chief of staff. First class,” Ford said. “But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious.” He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell’s statement that Mr. Cheney had developed a “fever” about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. “I think that’s probably true,” Ford said.

Mr. Cheney, for his part, told CNN in 2006, “I don’t think I’ve changed any.”

“I think I have been very consistent over time,” he said. “I think, partly, it’s important to remember how significant 9/11 was. … We need to be able to go after and capture or kill those people who are trying to kill Americans.”

He described himself more than once in later years as a “consequential” vice president who took essential steps in the “tough, mean, dirty, nasty business” of protecting the country. History, he said, would credit him and Bush with success.

Although he remained to many Democrats and Republicans alike a symbol of the seemingly endless and eventually highly unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Cheney managed to win back a measure of respect from some Democrats more than a decade later, when he broke with most Republican leaders to condemn Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Mr. Cheney had reluctantly endorsed Trump in 2016, after nearly all other Republican candidates for president had dropped out of the race for the nomination. He occasionally criticized Trump’s personality and foreign policy during Trump’s term in the White House. And in 2022 — along with his daughter Liz, who followed in his footsteps as Wyoming’s lone representative in the House — he joined Democrats in a ceremony of remembrance in the House chamber on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

More than two dozen Democrats had moved, unsuccessfully, to impeach Mr. Cheney in 2007 over his role in launching the Iraq War. But now, in the wake of the insurrection, Democrats queued up to shake the hand of the man they had spent years denouncing as a power-mad violator of political and legal norms.

The Cheneys, father and daughter, remained pointedly conservative across a range of issues, but they broke with Trump and his followers, arguing that as president and ex-president, Trump had pushed the party away from policies favoring big-business, internationalism and a muscular military and toward a platform built around fealty to Trump, nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment.

“You can’t overestimate how important it is” to mark the threat to democracy posed by the attack, Mr. Cheney said on the first anniversary of the Jan. 6 assault. “I’m deeply disappointed we don’t have better leadership in the Republican Party to restore the Constitution.”

Mr. Cheney prepares to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1989. (Ron Edmonds/Associated Press)

Hometown hero

Richard Bruce Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, on Jan. 30, 1941, and was the oldest of three children in a family of Democrats. His father, Richard Herbert Cheney, aloof and laconic, owed his federal job as a soil conservation agent to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. His mother, the former Marjorie Dickey, who had played for a nationally ranked softball team, taught the boy to throw.

When Dick Cheney was 13, the family moved to Casper, Wyoming, then a prosperous town of 17,000.

He headed east five years later as Natrona County High School’s hometown hero, the class president and football captain who had squired the homecoming queen. But his journey was painfully interrupted the next fall, when poor grades cost him his full scholarship to Yale. Mr. Cheney was suspended for a semester and flunked out in his sophomore year.

He drifted back west, finding work as a lineman for a power company. He drank too much and was arrested twice — in 1962, when he was jailed briefly for “operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and drunkenness,” according to the arrest report, and in 1963 for drunken driving.

As commencement speaker at Natrona County High in 2006, Mr. Cheney told the graduating class: “I won’t go into a lot of detail. Let’s just say I did not distinguish myself in those first years after graduation.”

By various accounts, including his own, Mr. Cheney pulled out of his dive when Lynne Vincent, the homecoming queen of his high school romance, informed him that she had no intention of wedding a drunken dropout. An honor student and state baton-twirling champion, she was much the more ambitious of the two. She talked Mr. Cheney back into school, first at Casper’s community college and then at the University of Wyoming in Laramie.

They married in 1964. Mr. Cheney received his degree in 1965, and he and Lynne Cheney had their first child, Elizabeth, in 1966.

With newfound discipline, Mr. Cheney completed a master’s degree in political science at Wyoming and began work toward a doctorate at the University of Wisconsin, where his wife had joined a doctoral program in British literature. He published a well-regarded article in the American Political Science Review, using statistical techniques to analyze House and Senate voting patterns. Later, with Lynne Cheney, he wrote “Kings of the Hill,” a history of influential speakers of the House.

Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney obtained five student and parental draft deferments during the Vietnam War. “I had other priorities in the … ’60s than military service,” he told reporters as he arrived at the Pentagon as defense secretary in 1989.

Lynne and Dick Cheney began imagining an academic life, at a university where they could teach side by side. But one of Mr. Cheney’s professors offered a detour, steering him to a one-year fellowship in the office of Rep. William A. Steiger (R-Wisconsin).

In 1968, Mr. Cheney set aside his dissertation, never to complete it, and brought his family to Washington, where his second daughter, Mary, was born the next year.

It was in 1969 that Mr. Cheney met his most important patron. Donald H. Rumsfeld, freshly appointed to lead President Richard M. Nixon’s anti-poverty office, sought advice from Steiger. The congressman pitched the assignment to his 28-year-old intern. An impressive memo won Mr. Cheney a meeting with Rumsfeld and then a job as his special assistant.

The fast-rising Rumsfeld brought Mr. Cheney along as his right-hand man when he served as White House counselor in 1970 and as director of the Cost of Living Council in 1971. The two men parted for 18 months when Rumsfeld left for Brussels as U.S. ambassador to NATO. Mr. Cheney spent the interlude at Bradley Woods, an investment research firm, advising private investors about Congress.

The Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation in August 1974 returned Rumsfeld to the White House as chief of staff to Ford. Once again, Rumsfeld chose Mr. Cheney as his No. 2. In November 1975, Ford dispatched Rumsfeld to the Pentagon as secretary of defense, and Mr. Cheney moved up.

Barely six years had passed since Mr. Cheney’s arrival as an intern in Washington. At 34, he became the youngest-ever White House chief of staff.

“I knew that I could ask Cheney to step into Rumsfeld’s shoes and that the White House would function just as efficiently,” Ford wrote in his memoir.

White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, right, and his deputy, Mr. Cheney, meet with journalists at the White House in 1975. (Harvey Georges/AP)

Skillful operative

After the irascible, domineering Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney won admirers across party lines with his calm competence, willingness to listen and avoidance of the spotlight. He had a dry wit and a Westerner’s distrust of people with airs. Mr. Cheney shunned some of the prerogatives of rank, dialing his own phone calls and driving his 10-year-old Volkswagen to work.

Then, as later, his inscrutable affect and loyalty to a pragmatic boss were mistaken for moderation of outlook.

Memoirs and records made public in the meantime, show him as holding edge-of-the-envelope views on government secrecy and the supremacy of the president over Congress, especially in matters of national security.

Mr. Cheney believed that Watergate, the fall of Nixon and the Vietnam War had emboldened Congress to overreach, bringing about “the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy,” he later said. He tried and failed to persuade Ford to push back against congressional efforts to rein in executive power, including the War Powers Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, expansion of the Freedom of Information Act and legislative restrictions on covert action.

Although subtler than Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney displayed no less will to power. At an academic conference in 2000, he said he sought control over “things like personnel, process, schedule, speechwriting, legislative relations,” because they allowed a chief of staff to “control and preside over the White House.”

After quiet battles to impose the same discipline on Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, a conflict Mr. Cheney later described as “total hostility,” he helped persuade Ford to drop Rockefeller, a former New York governor, as his running mate in 1976.

The prevailing metaphor in the Ford White House was that the president was the hub of the wheel, supported by many spokes. But it was Mr. Cheney who oversaw access to the Oval Office. At Mr. Cheney’s goodbye party, colleague David Gergen wrote in a 2001 memoir, Ford’s top advisers presented Mr. Cheney with “a gnarled bicycle wheel, rim twisted, its spokes broken and bent.”

Jimmy Carter had defeated Ford in 1976, and Mr. Cheney decided to run for Congress two years later. He made deft use of humor after suffering a heart attack during the hotly contested Republican primary campaign, forming a fictitious Cardiacs for Cheney support group and explaining his decision to stay in the race with a two-page letter to Wyoming Republicans.

He won Wyoming’s House seat handily and began another striking ascent in Washington. In the seniority-conscious House, it took him a single term to reach a GOP leadership post. Soft-spoken and collegial, with a disarming habit of listening more than he spoke, Mr. Cheney once again enjoyed a centrist image. His voting record, in fact, was among the most conservative in the House.

Mr. Cheney supported tax cuts and defense spending increases, like nearly all Republicans, but he joined the rightmost wing in voting against a federal holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as well as the Equal Rights Amendment, creation of the Education Department, a ban on armor-piercing bullets, and anti-apartheid sanctions on South Africa. He likewise opposed Head Start for preschool children, the Superfund program for toxic-waste cleanup, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Although social “wedge issues” were not his main interest, Mr. Cheney cast votes against affirmative action and for prayer in school. He sought to ban abortion without exception for rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. But on gay rights, Mr. Cheney departed from orthodox conservative tenets, breaking with Bush in 2004 to endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage. Mr. Cheney’s daughter Mary is married to a woman, Heather Poe.

By 1988, with his uncontested election as House minority whip, Mr. Cheney was positioned to succeed Minority Leader Robert H. Michel of Illinois as head of the Republican caucus. Many colleagues expected to see him become speaker of the House.

But Mr. Cheney’s career took a sudden shift in 1989 when scandal sunk the nomination of former senator John G. Tower (R-Texas) as defense secretary. President George H.W. Bush turned to Mr. Cheney as a no-drama second choice. The Senate confirmed him unanimously.

An old friend and Pentagon aide, David Gribbin, said Mr. Cheney believed in “the demonstrative use of power” — a sharp blow, now and then, to establish his authority.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Cheney gave a blunt public reprimand to the Air Force chief of staff for “freelancing” in budget talks with Congress. He fired the service’s next chief of staff for impolitic remarks about U.S. war plans in Iraq. He canceled the Navy’s top-priority weapons system, the A-12 stealth fighter, after concluding that the admirals in charge had lied about its progress.

In 1989, when it came time to choose a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Cheney elevated Army Gen. Colin L. Powell over dozens of more senior flag officers, making Powell the first African American to hold the position. The two men proved a potent team, leading the armed forces and the nation through two conflicts — the invasion of Panama and the Persian Gulf War — and a dramatic reduction in forces as the Cold War came to an abrupt halt.

A committed anti-communist, Mr. Cheney was among the leading skeptics of accommodation with the reformist Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

Mr. Cheney drew two lasting lessons from Moscow's unraveling, one about U.S. intelligence, the other about regime change in hostile states, said Aaron Friedberg, a foreign policy adviser during Mr. Cheney’s vice-presidential years.

“The collapse of the Soviet Union was really a profound experience,” Friedberg said. “For one thing, the standard experts will tell you things are going to be tomorrow the way they are today.” Even as the Soviet government was collapsing in 1991, Mr. Cheney saw CIA assessments touting the resilience and stability of the regime.

Mr. Cheney came to disdain what Friedberg called “the conventional idea that the way to improve relations with the Soviet Union was by convergence and negotiations.” Mr. Cheney believed that “you had to have a fundamental change of regime” and that trade and diplomacy did little but “delay the collapse of the regime.”

Mr. Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell talk to reporters during a briefing at the Pentagon in 1990. (Tannen Maury/AP)

Mr. Cheney made his strongest public impression as the unflappable voice of news briefings during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was launched to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. With that mission accomplished, Mr. Cheney supported George H.W. Bush’s decision to leave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power. Conquest and occupation of Baghdad would have been “a quagmire,” Mr. Cheney said in 1994, adding: “How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.”

On other questions, Mr. Cheney pressed unsuccessfully for a harder line. He privately urged Bush to take advantage of Russia’s weakness by recognizing an anti-Moscow Lithuanian government and by inviting former Warsaw Pact nations swiftly into NATO.

He opposed decisions to seek authority from Congress and the U.N. Security Council for the war with Iraq, arguing that the decision to use force rested solely with the commander in chief. Baker and Scowcroft, the secretary of state and national security adviser, respectively, consistently won those debates.

“Sometimes Bush sided with Baker, sometimes he sided with Scowcroft,” said historian Timothy Naftali, who explored the declassified archives. “There was never an instance where Cheney had an outlying opinion and the president sided with Cheney.”

Halliburton bonanza

After Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992, the Cheney family packed a U-Haul truck and headed back west. Mr. Cheney briefly explored a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 but found that he lacked stomach for the race. “I didn’t want to do those things I’d have to do to get elected,” he told The Washington Post in 2004.

A more detailed explanation, which Mr. Cheney offered in 1995, provided a glimpse of his lifelong disdain for courting an emotional, ill-informed public. “I don’t tend to pound on the podium and drool,” he said.

Mr. Cheney also worried that a national campaign would focus unwelcome attention on his daughter Mary, who had not yet publicly acknowledged her sexual orientation. Mary came out to her parents during high school and later wrote in a memoir that her father was supportive. “You’re my daughter and I love you and I just want you to be happy,” he told her, according to the book.

Mr. Cheney’s wife, Lynne, far left, and daughters Liz, center, and Mary, attend a speech by Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute in 2009. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Long after her public coming-out, allusions to Mary’s private life were the only reliable way to pierce Mr. Cheney’s cool. “You’re out of line with that question,” he snapped at CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when the anchorman referred in 2007 to GOP critics of Mary’s decision to raise a child with her partner.

Mr. Cheney spent most of the Clinton years at Halliburton, where he made a series of major acquisitions, most prominently of Dresser Industries for $5.4 billion in 1998. He built the world’s largest oil field services firm, but the Dresser deal proved ruinous because of liabilities that emerged in asbestos lawsuits.

Tens of millions of dollars in compensation brought Mr. Cheney and his family, previously of modest means, to a rarefied plateau that included vacation homes in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and Annapolis. He told friends that he was finished with government.

But then, in early 2000, George W. Bush — the eldest son of George H.W. Bush — locked up the GOP nomination and asked Mr. Cheney to lead the search for a running mate.

Mr. Cheney vetted at least 11 possible vice-presidential candidates, but did not interview any of them before Bush halted the process and chose Mr. Cheney himself.

“If you ever get asked to head up an important search committee,” Mr. Cheney jokingly advised that high school graduation audience in 2006, “say yes.”

President George W. Bush waves to congressional members as Mr. Cheney looks on before Bush’s State of the Union address in 2004. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Bush-Cheney partnership

Before Mr. Cheney accepted Bush’s offer, he negotiated a partnership unique in the history of the White House. After he took office, Quayle paid a visit to give some advice, one vice president to another. Mr. Cheney would spend the bulk of his time, Quayle said, on political and ceremonial chores the president did not want to do.

“You’ll be going to the funerals,” Quayle told Mr. Cheney. “We’ve all done it.”

Mr. Cheney’s mouth curled into his trademark crooked grin. “I have a different understanding with the president,” he said.

By then he had filled the role, in fact if not in name, of transition chief. A strong believer in the idea that “personnel is policy,” Mr. Cheney oversaw nominations for Cabinet and key subcabinet posts, placing allies in senior positions.

Bush agreed that Mr. Cheney was “welcome at every table and at every meeting” and could intercede in “whatever area the vice president feels he wants to be active in,” said Joshua Bolten, who served in the Bush White House as budget director and chief of staff.

Few major decisions, especially in the first term, lacked a Cheney imprimatur, though his fingerprints were seldom apparent. In keeping with his Secret Service code name, Angler, he pursued his objectives obliquely. His own favored metaphor was putting “an oar in the water” on policy choices, steering quietly from astern.

After Mr. Cheney’s long career as a subordinate, the vice presidency now presented what he saw as an obligation to advance his own views. Although he styled himself as only an adviser to Bush, Mr. Cheney noted that he did not serve at the pleasure of the president and had sworn an independent oath of office.

“I’m not a staffer, I’m the vice president, a constitutional officer, elected same as he is,” Mr. Cheney told his authorized biographer, Stephen F. Hayes.

The defining moment for Mr. Cheney came on a sunny September morning in 2001, when hijacked airliners smashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. A Secret Service detail, believing the White House to be a target, burst into Mr. Cheney’s office and frog-marched him by his belt and shoulders to an underground bunker.

As Bush flew to safety that morning, from base to base, aboard Air Force One, avoiding an expected follow-on attack, Mr. Cheney took command in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Although he later claimed prior authority from the president, documentary evidence suggested that Mr. Cheney, not Bush, was the first to authorize Air Force fighters to shoot down a passenger jet believed to be under terrorist control.

“It wasn’t a close call,” Mr. Cheney later said of the order to down the civilian plane, which was not carried out because the plane had already crashed in Pennsylvania. “I think a lot of people emotionally look at that and say … ‘My gosh, you just shot down a planeload of Americans.’ On the other hand, you maybe saved thousands of lives. And so it was a matter that required a decision, that required action. It was the right call.”

Before the day ended, Mr. Cheney turned to Addington, his lawyer, and asked him to start thinking about what extraordinary new powers the president would need to respond to al-Qaeda’s attack.

Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, compared the vice president to Winston Churchill, the wartime British prime minister who wrote that “all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.”

The vice president brought Bush a draft of his first military order of the new war, a directive removing terrorist suspects from the jurisdiction of any court, foreign or domestic, and ordering that they be tried — if at all — by newly formed “military commissions.”

The president signed the order without change, though most of his national security team had never seen it.

“What the hell just happened?” Powell asked an aide when he saw a report about the order on CNN.

Alienated allies

Especially in Bush’s second term, a long list of comrades fell out with Mr. Cheney on matters ranging from war and peace to tax and budget policy. Disputes over the environment were particularly puzzling to some Cheney critics. He was an avid outdoorsman, who relaxed, when he could not fish, with catalogues of lures. But his campaign to bypass water-use regulations in the Klamath River valley — an intervention on behalf of drought-stricken Oregon farmers — produced the largest human-caused fish kill on record.

One by one, Cheney adversaries were pushed out of the government or resigned, among them Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, Environmental Protection Agency director Christine Todd Whitman, CIA Director George J. Tenet, Secretary of State Powell and Powell’s deputy, Richard L. Armitage.

But allies also left the administration, most notably his old friend Rumsfeld, whom Bush fired as defense secretary in 2006, and Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice the following year.

Libby’s case arose from the vice president’s ire at a vocal critic of the Iraq War, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who accused Mr. Cheney of deliberate public deceit. Attempts to discredit Wilson led to the exposure of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a clandestine CIA officer. A federal jury found that Libby lied about his role in the leak. Armitage and longtime Bush adviser Karl Rove acknowledged their participation and avoided perjury charges.

Evidence introduced during Libby’s trial showed that Mr. Cheney was the first of this group to learn of Plame’s CIA employment and the first to suggest that she could be used to discredit her husband. (Plame had suggested Wilson for a diplomatic mission to check on reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.) Libby testified twice before a grand jury that he could not remember whether Mr. Cheney directed him to leak Plame’s identity to reporters, but he said, “It’s possible.”

“There is a cloud over what the vice president did,” prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in his summation, suggesting that Libby had obstructed justice to protect his boss.

In a 2004 interview with federal investigators, Mr. Cheney said 72 times that he could not recall details of his role in the Plame matter. Mr. Cheney refused to answer other questions from prosecutors and FBI agents, saying that he was not permitted to divulge details of discussions he’d had with the president.

Bush’s anger about the case, and Mr. Cheney's equally stubborn defense, opened a breach between them. The president commuted Libby’s sentence, in part, but refused Mr. Cheney’s insistent requests for a pardon. In 2009, Mr. Cheney spoke openly of his anger that Bush had failed to correct a “serious miscarriage of justice.”

In 2018, Trump pardoned Libby, saying, “I don’t know Mr. Libby, but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly.”

Mr. Cheney’s lowest moment came in February 2006, when he accidentally shot a 78-year-old friend in the face during a quail-hunting expedition. It was a moment of horror that swiftly became a comic metaphor for the ferocious image Mr. Cheney sometimes cultivated for himself. (He dressed his black Labrador as Darth Vader one Halloween.)

The political damage was heightened by the habitual secrecy that kept the incident under wraps for a full day, and by victim Harry Whittington’s disconcerting apology for embarrassing the vice president.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, left, shakes hands with Mr. Cheney during an event at the Pentagon in December 2006. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Loss of influence

The Cheney imprint on law and policy, which peaked in the first term, had faded considerably by the time he and Bush left office. One episode, above all others, cooled their relationship.

In 2004, when senior government lawyers rose up in protest against the domestic surveillance program that Mr. Cheney had advocated, Bush did not learn of the dispute until the top leadership of the FBI and main Justice Department reached the brink of mass resignation.

Mr. Cheney’s unyielding drive could pose serious political problems for the president, aides said. Bush also grew prickly about accounts that cast Mr. Cheney as the administration’s puppet master.

“I think I’m wiser than that — than to be pigeonholed or, you know, get cornered by a wily adviser,” Bush replied in 2007 when a Fox News reporter asked about perceptions that Mr. Cheney ran the show. “The thing about Vice President Cheney is, he is predictable in many ways, because he brings a set of beliefs. And, uh, they’re firm beliefs.”

Bush aides argued that the president, before making major decisions, had to weigh a far broader array of concerns than those of special interest to Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Cheney “thinks of the national security interest or the prerogatives of the executive,” said Bartlett, a Bush confidant since Texas days. “The president has other considerations he has to take into account. The political fallout of certain reactions — he’s just going to calculate [differently] than Cheney does. He grew accustomed to that.”

Soon after leaving office, Mr. Cheney began work on a memoir, which he wrote with his daughter Liz and which was published in 2012 as “In My Time.” In addition to his wife and two daughters, survivors include seven grandchildren.

Despite an ailing heart and reduced mobility, the former vice president retained a prodigious capacity for work. He rose early and read voraciously. After suffering his fifth heart attack in 2010, he had a heart transplant in 2012. He wrote a book, “Heart: An American Medical Odyssey” (2013) with his cardiologist, Jonathan Reiner, and Liz Cheney.

He allowed himself indulgences, such as a morning drive to Starbucks and attendance at his grandchildren’s soccer and softball games. Butin his later years, much of his time was passed above the garage at his new house in McLean, Virginia, filling legal pads with his slashing longhand. In 2015, he published “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America,” also written with his daughter Liz.

“When the president made decisions that I didn’t agree with, I still supported him and didn’t go out and undercut him,” Mr. Cheney told his biographer Hayes. “Now we’re talking about after we’ve left office. I have strong feelings about what happened. … And I don’t have any reason not to forthrightly express those views.”


Oct 28, 2025

Slowly But Surely Escalating

Trump and that little butt plug Stephen Miller are pushing hard to get people riled up enough to hit back in a big enough way to "justify" a crack down.

So far so good, but it's pretty tense in Chicago. I can only hope they'll keep the lid on it.

One thing that really stands out for me from Miller's assertions - "Harboring illegal aliens":
Somewhere right now, in America, there's a young
Hispanic girl hiding in an attic, writing in her diary.


GOP Fuckery

The question is, Why?

Social Darwinism is one answer, but again - Why?

If they're counting on AI to take up the slack created by horrendously shitty economic policy that puts millions out of work, I think they're in for a rude surprise.

First because AI is not all it's cracked up to be. It's already beginning to eat itself, as we get more and more stories about how it's "learning" from the material it puts out, and that has caused it to "hallucinate", often churning out product that's way off the mark, if not pure fantasy.

Plus it's a resource hog - especially where water is concerned. Gee, I wonder if that could be a limiting factor in light of a pending global shortage of fresh water due to pollution, and drought driven by climate change.

Second, people - Americans in particular - aren't historically shown to just hang out down on the street corner while their government fucks them with their pants on. No Kings isn't just a bunch of loonies in frog costumes, and purple-haired baristas, and nostalgic Boomers larking about on random Saturdays.

Even the kind of unprecedented Money-n-Power these wannabe plutocrats have doesn't make them bulletproof - metaphorically or otherwise.

I prefer the Gandhi approach, but there's a bit of Luigi in all of us.

Anyway, Republicans are ignorantly fucking with things better left to people who actually know what the fuck they're doing.


Oct 23, 2025

Tracking Trumps Actions

Trump's fuckery continues apace. Here's 

TrumpActionTracker.info


We are documenting the actions, statements, and plans of President Donald Trump and his administration that echo those of authoritarian regimes and may pose a threat to American democracy. We started in January 2025. (More about us).

Every entry includes a source link and date. The full or filtered list of actions can be downloaded as a CSV file under a Creative Commons licence.

Follow 3-minute video updates of the latest actions on YouTube, TikTok or subscribe to a podcast version here.

Oct 14, 2025

Today's Robert

"... and if the lights go out for a while, fuck it. So be it. The truth shines brightest in the dark anyway."


Oct 13, 2025

Jon Stewart

Tried-n-true. Like one of their favorite J6 myths about how the Dems attacked the Capitol in order to prevent the certification of an election their guy won.

Daft motherfuckers.


Oct 7, 2025

Overheard

David Earl Williams III

DumFux news has been ridiculed and mocked for repeatedly interviewing masked “guests” - purported to be a “former Antifa member,” an “ex-gang member,” and others - all of whom  appear to have the same build, eyes, and voice, leading viewers to suspect it’s the same man every time.

Leave it to the internet sleuths who recently compared screenshots and suggested the mystery guest resembles a guy named Robert J. O’Neill, a former Navy SEAL, who claims to have fired the shot that killed Osama bin Laden.
 
O’Neill, who’s been a frequent "contributor and commentator" for DumFux News over the years, has a history of appearing on the network - apparently posing as different people.

The recurring use of masked figures resembling him has sparked fresh criticism of the "credibility" of DumFux News, and its penchant for sensational, poorly vetted segments.


Sep 27, 2025

Stalling

It's Trump's favorite play. Use every trick in the book to push your responsibilities out - to buy time, hoping people will stop thinking about it, or that somebody will come up with some bullshit that gets you off the hook.


Sep 26, 2025

Today's Belle

Call now
202-224-3121
Keep your grubby little fingers
off my Social Security


Sep 19, 2025

Connecting Dots

  1. Require passports to vote
  2. Revoke passports according to a law that can be easily interpreted to fit the need to keep certain people from voting
These assholes are total assholes, and being clever about being assholes doesn't mean they're not assholes - they'll do any asshole thing they think will further their ambitions to be even more than total assholes.

Asshole is as asshole does.


Jun 11, 2025

The Dream

Trump actually said it - "The American dream is dead."

At the time (his 1st inauguration - the American Carnage speech), I thought it was more of his usual bombast about "everything sucks without me - only I can fix it" and blah blah blah.

I failed to apply my own Daddy State Awareness filter - ie: employ Opposite Speak, &/or issue a "warning" that's actually a threat, and that he's in the process of doing what he's warning us about.

So let's take a look at what our valiant Über-Capitalists have been up to.


“We’ve Been Sold a Story That Isn’t Remotely True”: How Private-Equity Billionaires Killed the American Dream

In her new book, Bad Company, journalist Megan Greenwell shows how the secretive industry has insinuated itself into average Americans’ lives.


In the canon of spectacular resignations, Megan Greenwell’s is up there.

On her last day as editor in chief of the beloved sports blog Deadspin, Greenwell published a blistering essay on the site about her soon-to-be former bosses at the private-equity firm Great Hill Partners, which had acquired Deadspin and other former Gawker properties earlier in 2019. In the essay, Greenwell accused Great Hill of undermining Deadspin’s staff at every turn and seeking a “quick cash-out” on its investment.

And it wasn’t just happening at Deadspin, Greenwell explained: “A metastasizing swath of media is controlled by private-equity vultures and capricious billionaires and other people who genuinely believe that they are rich because they are smart and that they are smart because they are rich, and that anyone less rich is by definition less smart.”

She’d written the post mostly for her own catharsis, Greenwell told Vanity Fair. But the response to it stunned her, as more than 1,000 messages poured in, many of them from readers who shared their own stories of how the private-equity industry had, in various ways, upended their lives too.

“It made me obsessive about reading about this, because I wanted to understand what had happened to me and to my coworkers and to my friends, and I realized that the only way to do that was by treating this as a reporting project,” Greenwell said.

Nearly six years later, Greenwell has funneled what she learned into a new book, Bad Company: Private Equity and the Death of the American Dream. The book is a deeply human account of the ways in which the multitrillion-dollar private-equity industry affected four different people: a Toys“R”Us supervisor who was laid off alongside the company’s 33,000 employees after the company declared bankruptcy following a private-equity acquisition; a rural doctor who watched private-equity ownership strip his Wyoming hospital of crucial services; a local reporter who helped lead union negotiations as private-equity-owned Gannett gutted newsrooms across the country; and an affordable-housing organizer whose own family suffered under a private-equity-industry landlord.

The book follows how private-equity firms like KKR, Bain Capital, Apollo Global Management, and more saddle the companies they acquire with insurmountable debt, even as the firms themselves profit. It also explores how each character in the book is fighting back against this model.

While Bad Company articulates how the industry works, its greater goal is to illustrate how the decisions the industry makes in the pursuit of profit influence us all. Greenwell spoke to Vanity Fair about who gets rich in private-equity takeovers, who gets hurt, and why no one in Washington seems willing to do much about it.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Vanity Fair: I was grateful to you for writing a book about finance that doesn’t read like a book about finance. It’s about four people before, during, and after private equity came into their lives. Why did you want to structure it that way?

Megan Greenwell: It was really important to show what came before private equity, because I think there’s an unfair line of critique that really blames them for everything. In the industries I focus on—retail, housing, health care, and local media—private equity didn’t create the problem. It’s important to draw that out and talk about the mistakes that those industry leaders made that ushered private equity in the door. On the other end, I felt like it was incredibly important to show efforts to build something new. I am not an activist. I did not want to write a prescriptive book, but I also didn’t want to write a book that was like: Man, this all sucks.

Why did you decide to ground it in the stories of these people?

I really love books that go deeply inside a company. When McKinsey Comes to Town was such a brilliant business book. It is also just so not the type of reporter I am. I am not, ultimately, that compelled in my own work by getting inside a glass skyscraper and showing how decisions are made. What is most compelling to me is the effect on real people. I thought that was the only way I could not only get readers compelled by this sometimes dull but important topic, but also excite myself about it.

In terms of potential characters, I would say I talked to over 150 people in these four industries. So I was incredibly picky, because I knew that if readers weren’t compelled by these people themselves, then they weren’t going to hang with the book.

The central tension of the book is about the disconnect between what serves private-equity firms and what serves the communities that surround the businesses they buy. I’d love you to spell out how that disconnect manifests.

Leveraged buyouts are a huge percentage of what private equity does. The basic way leveraged buyouts work is that the private-equity firm bundles together money from their outside investors—university endowments, pension funds, ultrawealthy individuals. But that only ends up making up a small minority of the total money they use to acquire a company. The rest of the money is bank loans, and those bank loans are assigned not to the private-equity firm that made the decision to borrow that money, but to the company that they are acquiring.

So if I make an offer for your company, and I’m borrowing money to buy it, I’m not responsible for paying that money back; only you are. You end up with this complete divorce of incentives, where what is good for the private-equity firm is not necessarily what’s good for the portfolio company.

In industries that are real estate heavy—hospitals, retail, newspapers—private-equity firms will sell off the real estate assets of those companies to pocket the proceeds themselves. Then the portfolio company has to pay rent on the same land that they may have owned for years or decades. Now you have a situation where the private-equity firm is doing great because they’re collecting their management fees, plus they got this tidy little profit from the real estate sale, but their portfolio company is buried under debt from the acquisition and also rent payments where they previously owned their land outright.

You see the two paths start to diverge. The private-equity company is winning, and the portfolio company is getting weaker and weaker and weaker. That was the thing that really broke my brain.

You rattle off all the private-equity-owned chains that went under during the 2010s: Claire’s, Payless, Kmart, and many more stores of my youth. You also write that most of the biggest retail bankruptcies between 2012 and 2019 were private-equity-owned companies, and there was huge growth in private-equity ownership of housing during this time. What made this growth possible during that period of the 2010s?

There was a lot of cheap money available. Zero percent interest rates were super compelling to everybody. Beyond that, the exact factors were a little different for each industry. In some cases, these were industries that were booming. The Affordable Care Act really helped draw private equity into health care, because there was a bigger guaranteed pool of money.

The opposite of health care might be retail, where, at the time, a lot of these retail deals were done. Everybody could see that retail was likely to be an industry with some serious struggles in the relatively near future. Toys“R”Us was purchased in 2005, and Amazon was already growing really, really fast. Walmart was already very dominant.

If you were to set out and write a book about another industry, say the tech industry, and its impact on the world, it would probably hyperfocus on tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. It seems to me that there are no analogous household names in the private-equity space. Why is that?

A lot of people know the names of big private-equity guys, but they could not tell you that they are big private-equity guys. If you look around New York City, so many institutions are named after them. Henry Kravis, for example, of KKR, has multiple things at Mount Sinai named after him. He’s on the board of multiple cultural institutions. That’s a name that you see in the world, but I think you could ask 100 random New Yorkers who Henry Kravis is, and even if they’d seen his name, 95 of them are not going to be able to tell you.

I think that’s very much by design. Private equity is an industry that wants to continue to operate in the shadows. In so many cases, there’s so many layers of shell companies that you actually can’t figure out which private-equity firm owns what. I think that’s worked to the private-equity world’s advantage in huge ways. There’s just a little less scrutiny on you.

There’s certainly a narrative that private equity exists to rescue distressed companies and maximize shareholder value, which then benefits the pensioners and universities whose money is invested in private-equity funds, so everyone wins. What does the research say about the reality of that promise?

The one stat that’s really lodged in my brain is that 20% of companies acquired by private equity enter bankruptcy proceedings within 10 years, compared to 2% of other types of other companies. There is this narrative that the private-equity industry is made up of, essentially, superheroes who can come in and save struggling companies, and the data just shows that it is the opposite.

If you ask private-equity people about this stat, they will say, “But we buy companies that are already struggling!” But they’re buying companies that are struggling while claiming that they are the people who can save the company. It doesn’t make sense that there would be such a vast difference between the number of companies that go out of business under any other kind of ownership versus what happens when, allegedly, the smartest people in the finance world take over. We’ve been sold a story that isn’t remotely true.

There’s a 2023 study you cite that found that in three years after a hospital’s private-equity acquisition, the rate of preventable medical issues increased significantly. What are some examples of that?

In Wyoming, after Apollo Global Management bought these two hospitals and combined them into one—which meant, realistically, stripping the vast majority of services from one in particular—all sorts of terrible things happened. People just could not get the services they needed in an emergency in their hometown anymore. I’m not talking about advanced, specialized care that was never available at a rural hospital. I’m talking, all of a sudden, they couldn’t deliver babies anymore.

One of the two hospitals also eliminated its mental health ward, which was the only mental health facility in the entire county. All of a sudden, mental health patients were now in the hospital with other kinds of patients. They did not have the staffing or the facilities they needed to correctly treat mental health patients while protecting everybody involved.

In November 2020, there was a psychiatric patient at the hospital who was just in a regular room with no security guards, and he ran into the room of an elderly woman who was also being treated in the hospital and began gouging out her eyes with his fingers, and nobody stopped him until he had fully removed one of her eyes. The woman died of these injuries in what was declared a homicide.

Everybody knows when you cut staffing and cut supplies and all of these things, there are going to be negative consequences. This was just the worst possible outcome.

You call private equity the “prom queen” of DC, because donors on both sides of the aisle are so heavily represented in the industry. Do you have any hope that reform is possible?

There have been a variety of proposals at the federal level to regulate private equity, and those have ranged from pretty minimally invasive to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Stop Wall Street Looting Act, which she has proposed several times, which would functionally regulate the industry out of existence.

Thus far, none of those have made a ton of progress. Even things like closing the carried-interest loophole, which nobody in private equity wants, would not cripple their ability to do their jobs. Yet that has not passed, despite Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump, now twice, saying that loophole should be closed.

I don’t think there’s a lot of likelihood of serious regulation at the federal level anytime soon. That said, there is some interesting stuff happening on the state level in several places.

Massachusetts recently passed a bill increasing scrutiny of private-equity deals in health care, and Pennsylvania is now considering a very similar bill. Those two bills both grew directly out of catastrophic private-equity deals. In both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, there have been recent collapses of health care companies that were owned by private equity. I think we will start to see more of that kind of progress, because I don’t think the number of catastrophes is likely to slow anytime soon.

Since you said you didn’t want to write this book about how everything sucks, what, if anything, is giving you a little bit of optimism?

I do not really have opinions on what is the best way to reform this system, but I think it’s pretty hard to look at the totality of the evidence and not conclude that the system is really broken. So to me, when people are doing something, it is a reason for some sort of optimism.

All four of the protagonists in my book are doing something. This is a huge problem, and it is necessarily going to require a multifaceted set of solutions. So fighting for legal changes is one. Lawsuits is a related but different one. Going head-to-head with the companies themselves is one. One of the protagonists in my book spent months going around to various pension fund board meetings, trying to convince them to seriously consider no longer investing in private-equity funds.

A lot of the work also has to be in reinventing industries. Private equity did not create the problems of any of these industries. Even regulating private equity out of existence would not suddenly turn those industries into healthy ones. The journalist character in my book spent basically her entire career working for Gannett, which was owned by a private-equity firm. And she made a pivot to go into nonprofit local news start-ups. A lot of the work that is most exciting to me is the people who are like, “Hey, how do we build something better?” It’s not all going to work, but without that kind of spirit of experimentation, nothing better is ever going to come.

May 23, 2025

The Big Beautiful Enabling Bill


Buried in the bill is a provision that forbids courts from charging Trump or other Executive Branch officials with contempt for defying court orders.

Since SCOTUS invented 'Presidential Immunity', this little piece of Republican fuckery sets the stage for Trump to become America's dictator.

202-224-3121
RAISE HELL


aka: The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich

Apr 24, 2025

Overheard


For literally decades, Republicans have blocked legislation for:
  • Paid sick leave
  • Paid family and medical leave
  • Universal childcare
  • Universal pre-K
  • Expanded child tax credit
  • Programs to support prenatal, maternal, and reproductive health
Stop wondering why so many people want fewer children.

Apr 20, 2025

Jahana Hayes (D - CT05)


The operative question:
What do you "conservatives" intend to do with all the people you think don't exist -
  • or you think don't belong here
  • or you think need to be run out of town
  • the "undesirables"
  • the "others"
What do you intend to do with them?

Mar 12, 2025

When Is It Enough?


OK, we can try to kinda keep track of it all, but there's an element of 'so-fucking-what' at work here. The people who should be stepping up to hold him accountable are almost totally MIA.


And OK again. We can be - and should be - at least hopeful if not optimistic because a few more Democrats are showing some balls. Plus, we need to keep seeing him for the shitbird he is ...


.. but goddamn - even knowing he counts on us getting worn down, and tired, and throwing in the towel, it's a real chore to stay with this shit.


Donald Trump’s Empty Promises Are Catching Up to Him

The president vowed to bring down prices on “day one”—something everyone would like to see. What happened with that?

Right after Donald Trump was elected for the second time, he was the most popular he’d ever been. According to The Economist, “his net favorability was in positive territory for the first time ever.”

It was a strange moment: In January 2025, the guy who had been impeached twice, indicted four times, and convicted on 34 felony counts was as popular as he’d ever been and, unlike in 2016, he actually won the popular vote. Trump is famous for defying political gravity, but even for him, this was unprecedented. It was as if the American people had suffered from collective amnesia and forgotten January 6, the COVID pandemic, and the Black Lives Matter protests. Not only that, it was the first time in 20 years a Republican won the popular vote in the presidential elections. Once again, American voters were angry, once again American voters wanted change, once again American voters bafflingly considered Trump—who had been president once before—to be the outsider.

But there was another important data point, which may not be getting enough attention. A lot of voters were angry about a very specific thing: inflation. The idea that things were suddenly more expensive for no discernible reason was a hard pill for voters to swallow. A month before the election, Gallup reported that the economy “could be a significant factor to nine in 10 voters.” Voters were angry, but most weren’t angry about government spending—they were angry about the price of eggs. If you were to argue that Trump has a mandate, and he would argue that he does, it would be to make prices lower.

Trump promised many pie-in-the-sky things. For example, he said that if he won, the government or insurance companies would cover the cost of in vitro fertilization treatment—a proposal that would almost certainly never fly with his own party. After taking office, Trump is still promising some of these fantastical things. During his speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this month, he reiterated his call to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits—once again, costly ideas that would almost certainly never jell with the Republican Party he leads.

But Trump’s biggest, boldest campaign promise was downright impossible. It was a promise that Kamala Harris couldn’t make because there was no way to do it. Trump vowed to immediately reverse inflation and to immediately make things cheaper. In August he told a crowd in Montana: “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.” And in October, he told a group in Wisconsin: “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again. We’ll do that.” Harris couldn’t promise that because, even with the most aggressive government intervention, there is no realistic way to do it.

But instead of bringing prices down on day one, or even month one, Trump is doing the exact opposite. He’s enacted a trade war and let Elon Musk take a chainsaw to the federal government, both of which have caused market uncertainty. Suddenly, the man who said he was going to make everything cheaper on day one can’t even rule out a recession on his watch, and has instead mused about a “period of transition.”

Trump has it in his head that the United States was somehow richer before income taxes, which is fueling his tariff obsession. A few days after being sworn in, he told reporters in the Oval Office: “We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country. And then they went to an income tax concept.” It makes sense that Trump, a real estate baron, would be nostalgic for the Gilded Age—after all, it was a time in American life marked by high concentration of wealth, vast income inequality, and widespread political corruption.

But the problem is that while Trump loves tariffs, no one else does. His back-and-forth on implementing them has spooked the markets, because the only thing the markets like less than tariffs is uncertainty.

Even after a week of poor market reactions to Trump’s will-he-won’t-he on tariff threats, he has continued to seesaw on the topic. On Sunday, during a friendly interview, Trump told Fox News that “the tariffs could go up as time goes by,” dismissed calls for more “predictability,” and refused to rule out a recession. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick further rationalized the volatility, telling NBC’s Meet the Press, “Will there be distortions? Of course. Foreign goods may get a little more expensive, but American goods are going to get cheaper.” Meanwhile, all markets want is stability, and this was probably not what they wanted to hear: US stocks saw a steep sell-off Monday morning.

It seems pretty clear that Trump is simply not laser-focused on the only promise anyone could legitimately view as his mandate: making things cheaper.

In November 2024, voters perceived the economy to be bad despite underlying fundamentals being good. They yet again voted for change. Trump promised cheaper groceries through tariffs, which ultimately make things more expensive. Since Trump took office seven weeks ago, the S&P has dropped 5%. And guess what? Groceries are not cheaper.

Trump has been able to defy political gravity many times. He’s come back from scandals that would have ended most political careers. But the question is, what happens when a president ends up doing the exact opposite of what he promised voters he’d do?