The Buck Stops

Here's a flash: The GOP signed their souls over to Trump. He has control over "the base" so he can practically dictate who runs in certain races and who doesn't, and he's got a solid strangle hold on the small donor fund-raising. Throw in what I'm pretty sure he collects from the Russian mob, and whatever help he gets from the rest of Putin's gang, and you've got a party that's not getting back to "normal" any time soon probably ever.

I haven't found solid confirmation, but it's being reported that he's bumping the price he charges Republicans to use WinRed.

The party committed to using WinRed as their main vehicle for general public fund-raising about 4 years ago. He takes a cut by way of a company (Revv) that one of his lackeys set up. As little as half of the money sent in by Mom and Pop ends up going to either the GOP or the GOP's candidates.

Anyway.

Republicans Are Losing Money Because of Trump

Six top GOP donors stopped giving money to the Michigan or Arizona Republican parties because of their perceived support for the discredited claim that the 2020 presidential election was rigged against Donald Trump, according to a new report.

One former Michigan donor, real estate tycoon Ron Weiser, told Reuters it is "ludicrous" to claim Trump won the state in 2020, as supporters of the former president are continuing to do.

Trump is currently running to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, with polling giving him a commanding lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is his closest rival. Concerns about the former president's impact on fundraising are likely to help DeSantis, who is attempting to convince voters he's the party's best bet for returning to the White House after the November 2024 election.

In November 2020, Joe Biden defeated Trump by 306 electoral college votes to 232, resulting in him being inaugurated as president the following January. Trump is continuing to insist the contest was "rigged" against him, though this claim has been repeatedly dismissed in court and by independent legal and election experts.

Reuters reported that six former donors had stopped giving to Republican parties in Michigan and Arizona over their backing of candidates who questioned the 2020 election's legitimacy and what they regard as extreme positions on other issues, such as abortion.

Referring to the Michigan GOP's support for election conspiracy theorists Weiser, who used to chair the party, commented: "I question whether the state party has the necessary expertise to spend the money well."

In Arizona, Jim Click, from a family of longstanding GOP donors, told Reuters that "it's too bad we let the right wing of our party take over the operations," and said he would switch to backing individual candidates rather than the state Republican party.

According to campaign finance filings the Arizona GOP had just $50,000 in its state and federal bank accounts on March 31, down from nearly $770,000 four years ago. Filings also show the Michigan GOP had around $116,000 in its federal account on March 31, compared to almost $867,000 on the same date in 2021.

Newsweek reached out to the Michigan and Arizona Republican parties via email, and Donald Trump via the press contact form on his official website for comment.

A number of Arizona Republican candidates in the 2022 midterms endorsed Trump's claims of electoral fraud including Kari Lake, who lost the state gubernatorial election to Democrat Katie Hobbs. Lake is still refusing to concede.

Republican Kristina Karamo lost her bid to become Michigan secretary of state, which would have given her substantial influence over how the 2024 presidential election is conducted. Karamo had falsely claimed Trump really won the 2020 election in Michigan and blamed the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol on "Antifa posing as Trump supporters."

Fall Down Go Boom

Dear Mitch,

Get well soon. I can't really justify bad-mouthing a guy who's all stove in and laid up. I need you good and healthy so I can shit on your ugly malignant head with a clear conscience.

Your pal,

Mike

Mitch McConnell hospitalized after falling at hotel

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been hospitalized following a fall at a hotel in Washington, his spokesman said late Wednesday.

The 81-year-old senator was attending a private dinner at a local hotel when he tripped, spokesman David Popp said in a statement. “He has been admitted to the hospital where he is receiving treatment,” he added, without providing any further details on his condition.

McConnell, who is serving his seventh six-year term in the Senate, became GOP leader in 2007. He has held the post for longer than any other Republican and for years has been among the most powerful elected officials in Washington.

He previously underwent surgery following a serious fall in August 2019, when he fractured his shoulder after tripping outside his Louisville home. The procedure kept him out of the public eye for weeks as he spent the congressional break recovering at home and undergoing physical therapy.

The senator, who overcame polio as a child, also has a history of heart issues and underwent triple bypass surgery in 2003, just after being promoted to the No. 2 Senate Republican post.

When pictures emerged in 2020 showing his hands bruised and bandaged, he downplayed interest in his health as media hype. As of December, the average age in the Senate was 64.

In November, McConnell was reelected Senate minority leader, overcoming the first challenge to his leadership following a disappointing performance for Republicans in the midterm elections. McConnell easily defeated Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) on a 37-10 vote. The GOP infighting underscored that while McConnell has overwhelming support in his conference, he has lost key allies to retirement.

GOP hopes of capturing the Senate majority in a difficult year for President Biden and Democrats were dashed by ineffective and problematic candidates who had the backing of Donald Trump. McConnell blamed the former president, saying he “proved to be decisive” in the midterms’ outcome, highlighting the ongoing rift between the two men.

Trump is a frequent critic of McConnell, who accused the then-president of provoking the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Trump repeatedly has mocked McConnell’s wife, former transportation secretary Elaine Chao, and has made racist remarks about her.

This week, McConnell denounced the leadership of Fox News for airing Tucker Carlson’s vision of the assault on the Capitol, holding up a letter from U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger that said Carlson’s show was “filled with offensive and misleading conclusions.”

“It was a mistake, in my view, for Fox News to depict this in a way that’s completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here in the Capitol thinks,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday.

The Senate has dealt with the absence of other lawmakers less than three months into the session. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the oldest senator at 89, was recently hospitalized for shingles and is recovering at home. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for clinical depression nearly three weeks ago.

The Ex-Emperor's New Old Clothes

The GOP is, itself, a fraud - fast losing even the hope for Paper Tiger status.

Listen to Lindsey Graham (eg) and you get the idea that Trump is the golden ticket. Graham has said straight out that Republicans are going nowhere without Trump - that he is absolutely the key to their hope chest.

But, then there's this at HuffPo:

GOP Leadership Reportedly Hid Trump's Weak Numbers At Recent Retreats

Internal data reveal that voters in "core districts" have unfavorable views of Trump — but rank-and-file Republicans don't want to hear it.

The Republican Party might be high on Donald Trump, but key voters are not, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

Internal GOP polling data revealing Trump’s weak numbers in key battleground districts was kept under wraps by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) at recent retreats for Republican lawmakers, sources told the Post. NRCC staffers reportedly held back the bad news, even when a member of Congress asked directly about Trump’s standing at a retreat last month.

The Post obtained the full results of the party’s data, which found that Trump’s unfavorable ratings were 15 points higher than his favorable ones in “core districts.” In addition, nearly twice as many voters had a strongly unfavorable view of him than those who had a strongly favorable one in those areas, the newspaper reported.

The internal NRCC poll found that President Joe Biden was “perilously” (for the GOP) popular in core battleground districts, with 54% favorability, compared to Trump’s 41%. Vice President Kamala Harris was also more popular than Trump.

Trump’s weak numbers were reportedly also sharply downplayed at a retreat in March for GOP ranking members of congressional committees. Both situations revealed that the GOP leadership was eager to hide information to dodge the truth about Trump and the possible damage he could wreak on future elections. The debate over Trump’s potentially negative impact on swing districts is likely to escalate as vulnerable Republicans prepare for reelection.

The poll numbers were part of an extensive story in the Post about Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and her battle with colleagues over Trump. She has repeatedly bashed the former president for his lie that the presidential election was rigged, and for his incitement of the Capitol insurrection. While Trump’s weak numbers could theoretically bolster her fight, Cheney’s dissent may result in her removal from House leadership in an upcoming vote.

Despite the internal numbers — and Trump’s loss in the presidential election — the Republican Party appears to be marching into his camp more strongly than ever, and GOP leaders appear at a loss about where else to turn.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared on Fox News on Thursday that the Republican Party “can’t grow without” Trump. “There is no construct where the party can be successful without him,” Graham said.

But Cheney warned in a Post op-ed earlier this week, “The Republican Party is at a turning point. Republicans must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution.”

It's not time for the happy dance - Dems have plenty to worry about, including a coupla snags of their own in Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema - but it's really starting to pan out now that the more closely the Republicans cling to Trump's leg, the weaker they actually are.

And it's a little weird.

I've been saying for a long time: "Trump has not remade the GOP in his image - he's the near-perfect reflection of what that party has been morphing into for decades", meaning the party has been playing on lies and paranoia and racist bullshit for a long time, so it comes as no surprise when the voters in that party flock to a racist lying asshole in record numbers.

But except for poor little old Liz Cheney - bless her heart - it's like the Republican "leaders" have kinda recently decided they no longer have any chance to countervail all that negative sentiment (the monster they created can't be controlled and is on the loose), so they can't very well reverse course now - they'll have to double down again by fully embracing all that shit, thus becoming the totally empty null set that Trump himself is.

• We criticized them for being greedy, and they said, "Yup - we're greedy alright. Greed is good."
• We said they weren't treating people kindly, and they said, "Even Granny has to pull her own weight or get outa the boat."
• We said they were sounding kinda racist and intolerant, and they said, "Well, what about black-on-black crime, and the welfare queens in the inner cities?"
• We said maybe we oughta be doing something to cut back on pollution, and they invented "rollin' coal".
• We said they were behaving deplorably, and they adopted "Deplorables" as one of their nicknames.
• We pointed out 30,000 lies during 45*'s term, and now we've got QAnon, and Jewish Space Lasers, and fealty to a "president" who first became gravely ill with a disease he called a hoax, and then got vaccinated against the same disease that he continues to refer to as a hoax.
• and on
• and on
• and on...

...until they don't stand for anything but whatever's expedient at any given moment - or sounds about right, as long as nobody remembers what they said yesterday, which was exactly opposite of what they said this morning, which was exactly opposite what they said 30 minutes ago.

So, as they press towards the logical extreme (flying in tighter and tighter circles, as all Geejy Birds do) it just makes sense that they're about to disappear up their own assholes.

But remember the kicker: 

The rank-n-file Republican voters - the ones who aren't all that stoopid - the ones who just want low taxes and a police force willing to keep White Supremacy in place without it looking quite so obvious - those "good Republicans" are bailing out.

Being a Republican just isn't fashionable anymore. And maybe that's enough for now.

That 3rd Party Thing

Still waiting for a discussion on this one.

Trump lost in 4 critically close states by a total of 95,568 votes.

In those 4 states, Jorgensen got a total of 227,162 votes.

These's been no conversation that I've heard regarding how this little phenomenon materialized, and that surprises me a bit.

We have gotten a good bit of noise about how The Lincoln Project collected a shitload of money - enough to ensure their entry into the Big Media fray now that the dust is settling - while moving zero votes from Trump to Biden.

Maybe we're overlooking a successful attempt at moving "traditional" voters (ie: US Military) from Trump to Jorgensen, while ensuring a very important core group of voters stay away from those nasty mean libruls (?)

This would fit in with the slicing-n-dicing that's become a real hallmark of political marketing.

It's a slight variation on The Wheeler Dealers, where you just keep nudging 49% to one side, and 49% to the other side, while gaining some control over the 2% that will ultimately make the difference in who wins the big prize.

I love it and I hate it all at the same time.

What's The Goal Here?

The point is to feed yourself. You need a good meal.

But if you're thinking you'll have to fuck somebody over so you can grab a bite - when there's actually enough for both of you - then you're raising the probability that you both go hungry instead.

I want my favorite (right now that's Elizabeth Warren) to get the Democratic nomination, and I'm going to talk her up when I get the chance. But I'm not gonna shit on any other Democrat in the process.

The GOP jumped off the cliff and mashed itself into this weird amalgam of TheoCons and Radical Libertarians and Mindless Robotic Cheerleader Rubes - right 'round the fuckin' bend.

And for the last 25 or 30 years it's meant the Dems have had to do the work for both major parties. "Progressives" vs "Lefties" vs "ConservaDems" vs "Limousine Liberals" etc etc etc.

If we get hung up on any kind of purity tests or we shit on each other for backing "the wrong Democrat", then sure as fuck, we're going to be standing there with our dicks in our hands watching the impala run away. Again. Don't bring the DINO shit in here.

There are plenty of factions that make up the Democratic Voter Cohort. Every one of those factions is important if not absolutely vital in every election. But not one of them is more vital than all the others.

What I'm thoroughly sick of hearing is the contest between factions to lay claim to the title of "Single Most Important blah blah blah".

Yes, your issues are important, because your votes are important, and everybody - EVERY-FUCKING-BODY - gets that. Congratulations. Whoopty-fuckin'-doo for you. 

Now chop the wood and carry the water. Cuz y'know what? If the Dem doesn't win, then your issues don't mean shit. Your chances of even getting a hearing on your issues are less than shit.

And can you guess why? Because you wouldn't work together last time, and they're at it again.

So even when you know Putin and the Mercers and Steve Bannon (et al) are still doing everything they can do to get us to fight with each other, you can't figure out how to ignore all that divisive shit and do what it takes to send the Republicans straight to political hell?

C'mon.

GET TOGETHER

GET TO WORK

GET SHIT DONE

GOP Thuggery Explained

Taking a peek around the pay wall to see what I (and plenty of others) have been saying this whole fucking time.

NYTimes, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt:

The greatest threat to our democracy today is a Republican Party that plays dirty to win.

The party’s abandonment of fair play was showcased spectacularly in 2016, when the United States Senate refused to allow President Barack Obama to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. While technically constitutional, the act — in effect, stealing a court seat — hadn’t been tried since the 19th century. It would be bad enough on its own, but the Merrick Garland affair is part of a broader pattern.

Republicans across the country seem to have embraced an “any means necessary” strategy to preserve their power. After losing the governorship in North Carolina in 2016 and Wisconsin in 2018, Republicans used lame-duck legislative sessions to push through a flurry of bills stripping power from incoming Democratic governors. Last year, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a Republican gerrymandering initiative, conservative legislators attempted to impeach the justices. And back in North Carolina, Republican legislators used a surprise vote last week, on Sept. 11, to ram through an override of Gov. Roy Cooper’s budget veto — while most Democrats had been told no vote would be held. This is classic “constitutional hardball,” behavior that, while technically legal, uses the letter of the law to subvert its spirit.⚠️

That right there is worth including in the definition of "Smarmspace" - the distance between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Constitutional hardball has accelerated under the Trump administration. President Trump’s declaration of a “national emergency” to divert public money toward a border wall — openly flouting Congress, which voted against building a wall — is a clear example. And the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, manufactured by an earlier act of hardball, may uphold the constitutionality of the president’s autocratic behavior.

Constitutional hardball can damage and even destroy a democracy. Democratic institutions function only when power is exercised with restraint. When parties abandon the spirit of the law and seek to win by any means necessary, politics often descends into institutional warfare. Governments in Hungary and Turkey have used court packing and other “legal” maneuvers to lock in power and ensure that subsequent abuse is ruled “constitutional.” And when one party engages in constitutional hardball, its rivals often feel compelled to respond in a tit-for-tat fashion, triggering an escalating conflict that is difficult to undo. As the collapse of democracy in Germany and Spain in the 1930s and Chile in the 1970s makes clear, these escalating conflicts can end in tragedy.

Why is the Republican Party playing dirty? Republican leaders are not driven by an intrinsic or ideological contempt for democracy.  ⚠️ Your favorite blogger begs to differ, but please continue.  They are driven by fear. ⚠️ Exactly - fear of democracy.

Democracy requires that parties know how to lose. Politicians who fail to win elections must be willing to accept defeat, go home, and get ready to play again the next day. This norm of gracious losing is essential to a healthy democracy.

But for parties to accept losing, two conditions must hold. First, they must feel secure that losing today will not bring ruinous consequences; and second, they must believe they have a reasonable chance of winning again in the future. When party leaders fear that they cannot win future elections, or that defeat poses an existential threat to themselves or their constituents, the stakes rise. Their time horizons shorten. They throw tomorrow to the wind and seek to win at any cost today. In short, desperation leads politicians to play dirty.

Take German conservatives before World War I. They were haunted by the prospect of extending equal voting rights to the working class. They viewed equal (male) suffrage as a menace not only to their own electoral prospects but also to the survival of the aristocratic order. One Conservative leader called full and equal suffrage an “attack on the laws of civilization.” So German conservatives played dirty, engaging in rampant election manipulation and outright repression in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In the United States, Southern Democrats reacted in a similar manner to the Reconstruction-era enfranchisement of African-Americans. Mandated by the 15th Amendment, which was ratified in 1870, black suffrage not only imperiled Southern Democrats’ political dominance but also challenged longstanding patterns of white supremacy. Since African-Americans represented a majority or near majority in many of the post-Confederate states, Southern Democrats viewed their enfranchisement as an existential threat. So they, too, played dirty.

Between 1885 and 1908, all 11 post-Confederate states passed laws establishing poll taxes, literacy tests, property and residency requirements and other measures aimed at stripping African-Americans of their voting rights — and locking in Democratic Party dominance. In Tennessee, where the 1889 Dortch Law would disenfranchise illiterate black voters, one newspaper editorialized, “Give us the Dortch bill or we perish.” These measures, building on a monstrous campaign of anti-black violence, did precisely what they were intended to do: Black turnout in the South fell to 2 percent in 1912 from 61 percent in 1880. Unwilling to lose, Southern Democrats stripped the right to vote from millions of people, ushering in nearly a century of authoritarian rule in the South.

Republicans appear to be in the grip of a similar panic today. Their medium-term electoral prospects are dim. For one, they remain an overwhelmingly white Christian party in an increasingly diverse society. As a share of the American electorate, white Christians declined from 73 percent in 1992 to 57 percent in 2012 and may bebelow 50 percent by 2024. Republicans also face a generational challenge: Younger voters are deserting them. In 2018, 18- to 29-year-olds voted for Democrats by more than 2 to 1, and 30-somethings voted nearly 60 percent for Democrats.

Demography is not destiny, but as California Republicans have discovered, it often punishes parties that fail to adapt to changing societies. The growing diversity of the American electorate is making it harder for the Republican Party to win national majorities. Republicans have won the popular vote in presidential elections just once in the last 30 years. Donald Trump captured this Republican pessimism well when he told the Christian Broadcasting Network in 2016, “I think this is the last election the Republicans have a chance of winning because you are going to have people flowing across the border.”

“If we don’t win this election,” Mr. Trump added, “you’ll never see another Republican.”

The problem runs deeper than electoral math, however. Much of the Republican base views defeat as catastrophic. White Christians are losing more than an electoral majority; their once-dominant status in American society is eroding. Half a century ago, white Protestant men occupied nearly all our country’s high-status positions: They made up nearly all the elected officials, business leaders and media figures. Those days are over, but the loss of a group’s social status can feel deeply threatening. Many rank-and-file Republicans believe that the country they grew up in is being taken away from them. Slogans like “take our country back” and “make America great again” reflect this sense of peril.

So like the old Southern Democrats, modern-day Republicans have responded to darkening electoral horizons and rank-and-file perceptions of existential threat with a win-at-any-cost mentality. Most reminiscent of the Jim Crow South are Republican efforts to tilt the electoral playing field. Since 2010, a dozen Republican-led states have adopted new laws making it more difficult to register or vote. Republican state and local governments have closed polling places in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, purged voter rolls and created new obstacles to registration and voting.

In Georgia, a 2017 “exact match law” allowed authorities to throw out voter registration forms whose information did not “exactly match” existing records. Brian Kemp, who was simultaneously Georgia’s secretary of state and the 2018 Republican candidate for governor, tried to use the law to invalidate tens of thousands of registration forms, many of which were from African-Americans. In Tennessee, Republicans recently passed chilling legislation allowing criminal charges to be levied against voter registration groups that submit incomplete forms or miss deadlines. And in Texas this year, Republicans attempted to purge the voter rolls of nearly 100,000 Latinos.

The Trump administration’s effort to include a citizenship question in the census to facilitate gerrymandering schemes that would, in the words of one party strategist, be “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” fits the broader pattern. Although these abuses are certainly less egregious than those committed by post-bellum Southern Democrats, the underlying logic is similar: Parties representing fearful, declining majorities turn, in desperation, to minority rule.

The only way out of this situation is for the Republican Party to become more diverse. A stunning 90 percent of House Republicans are white men, even though white men are a third of the electorate. Only when Republicans can compete seriously for younger, urban and nonwhite voters will their fear of losing — and of a multiracial America — subside.

Such a transformation is less far-fetched than it may appear right now; indeed, the Republican National Committee recommended it in 2013. But parties only change when their strategies bring costly defeat. So Republicans must fail — badly — at the polls.

American democracy faces a Catch-22: Republicans won’t abandon their white identity bunker strategy until they lose, but at the same time that strategy has made them so averse to losing they are willing to bend the rules to avoid this fate. There is no easy exit. Republican leaders must either stand up to their base and broaden their appeal or they must suffer an electoral thrashing so severe that they are compelled to do so.

⚠️ 

The GOP is not particularly interested in the kind of "elections" they can lose. The Plutocracy Project is in full swing and out in the open.

Liberal democracy has historically required at least two competing parties committed to playing the democratic game, including one that typically represents conservative interests. But the commitment of America’s conservative party to this system is wavering, threatening our political system as a whole. Until Republicans learn to compete fairly in a diverse society, our democratic institutions will be imperiled.

⚠️ 

Republicans make a lot of noise about "the marketplace of ideas", and then they spend a shit ton of money time and energy manipulating that marketplace -  up to and including their efforts to manipulate the voting itself.

Take everything NYT says in this piece and then go that one step further to include the increasingly obvious factor that the GOP is hell-bent on tearing down our little experiment in self-government in order to replace it with plutocracy - the Daddy State.

We can't afford to let these guys up easy this time.

Burn the lifeboats and leave the survivors to the sharks.

Mayor Pete

Yes - you have to articulate the values that inform your policy.

But you can't ignore the absolute need to demonstrate how those values - through the implementation of the policies - work to improve people's lives. 

Not to solve their problems for them, but to remove obstacles that the Republicans (mostly) have been putting in everybody's way for more than a generation.

Pete Buttigieg:

Today's Tweet

Things change.

BREAKING: Democrat Josh Harder wins election to U.S. House in California's 10th congressional district. #APracecall at 6:20 p.m. PST. @AP election coverage: https://t.co/miEWlbTVZW #Election2018 #CAelection

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) November 14, 2018

We can stop bitching at "the Democrats" for lacking a "unifying message" and for not presenting some kind of a consolidated agenda.

Fuck that shit.

Stop asking "why did Democrats win?" and start seeing why any individual candidate managed to pull it off given the uphill slog that Republicans have strewn with obstacles for us.

The Dems targeted 8 swing districts with GOP incumbents who've enjoyed large NRA support, ran candidates with strong Gun Safety messages, and they won all of them.

8 for 8. Every. Fucking. Race.

And no, it wasn't just because of the gun thing. There's always a multitude of factors, and voter demographic slices, and and and. But if there's a single overarching take-away, I have to say it was because DNC and the other Dem Party managers were smart and let each candidate go with their strength, and to run to their own constituencies' issues.

Get hip, people. Lock Step is what those other idiots do. We're not them.

Today's Quote

"There has always been a section of the left, which I call the Whiny Party - the party that really doesn't wanna win. They just wanna be pure. And if they go down swinging purely, then that's fine. Well, the problem with that is it leaves behind the people who really need their help. If we're gonna have a single-payer or Medicare For All or whatever we're gonna have in healthcare, then we all have to pull together. And people who sit out or crank on some candidate because they did this or that that wasn't to their purity test are basically turning their back on the very people they pretend to represent. So I don't have a lot of patience with this wing of the progressive party." 

--Howard Dean

That Thing That Isn't Really

New Republic:

Wikileaks’s tweets conjured dark and menacing conspiracies, but these are not borne out by the emails themselves. Take the group’s claim that the “DNC knew of Hillary paid troll factory attacking Sanders online.” The highlighted email isn’t some secret communication laying out nefarious plots. It’s a summary of a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday.

But forget the emails for a second. The main problem with the notion that the DNC rigged the results for Clinton is that it requires one to assume the improbable. The DNC had no role or authority in primary contests, which are run by state governments. Clinton dominated the primaries. The DNC, through state parties, had a bit more influence over caucuses … where Sanders dominated Clinton.

None of the thousands of leaked emails and documents show the DNC significantly influencing the results of the nomination. Furthermore, if it is true that last fall Clinton campaign chair John Podesta tried but failed to have DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sacked, the underlying premise of the entire WikiLeaks dump—that Wasserman Schultz machinated to deliver Clinton the nomination—is hard to believe.

So, yeah - bad news for the DNC Truthers, except that truthers usually believe the conspiracy no matter what.  Not that this one's anywhere near the weirdnesses of JFK or 9/11 - there is some little bit of substance to this - but then again, that's always the case, and it's also always the case that once it's in the bloodstream it prob'ly won't be going away any time soon.

The handful of (known) emails so far, indicate to me something along the lines of: tired staffers who hit the hotel a little late, and about halfway thru their 3rd mini-bar scotch are suddenly seized by the revelation that they possess the most amazing political chops, and they're having such a flood of genius ideas they just have to share them ASAP, so they fire off a few brainstorm emails etc etc etc.  You tell them to knock off the shit; you discipline them; you fire them; you force them out - kinda like what happened.

What I'm really not shocked about: Democrats "conspiring" to nominate a Democrat.  C'mon, guys.

Today's Lesson

Samantha Bee on Super Delegates:

Seymour Hersh

From Democracy Now

Gone But Not Ever Really Gone

From HuffPo:

Tuesday night, during a televised town hall interview on CNN, Stygian homunculus and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked if he still planned to honor a pledge he made some months prior, in which he promised to support the eventual GOP nominee. As you might imagine, given Trump’s famous flexibility toward concepts such as “honor” and “promises,” the candidate answered that no, he had no intention of following that pledge’s directive, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “No, I don’t anymore.”

So now, everyone in the political universe is coming to grips with one of the most foreseeable events in the Western hemisphere finally coming to pass — Trump’s explicit abrogation of a contractual obligation he made with Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus. Now, the remaining competitors for the nomination — Ted Cruz and John Kasich — are slowly coming around to the notion that they might want to similarly withdraw their tacit offer of support for a candidate they have long despised. Perhaps the most shocking thing about this is that it’s only now that these men have decided to embark on a spree of thinking for themselves.

But the failure of this pledge should stun nobody. Priebus’ pledge was always a catastrophically dumb idea and its utter collapse was always just a matter of time. It was a bonehead gamble from the outset, tying the hands of the very people it was ostensibly designed to protect, and empowering a serial con artist to run roughshod over the Republican Party. It should end Priebus’ career.

Does anybody really expect anybody to "lose his job" over any of this? As in "clean out your desk and stay the hell away from the GOP"? That is (and should be) the reasonable expectation on the part of every normal person with a living thinking brain - because that's how it works for everybody with a real job - but that's not how it works for an Aristocracy.

Reince Priebus prob'ly won't stay in the Chair for very long after November 8th, but the guy's not gonna be sellin' shoes or baggin' groceries. The Wingnut Welfare System will kick in almost immediately to make sure he doesn't fall too far. He'll write his book, and he'll pop up in all the ususal places as "a contributor", and eventually, he'll land in some sweet little gig that one of the "Think Tanks" has had custom-made just for him - and it'll pay him plenty as long as he spins his work in favor of the Daddy Mega-Bucks Patron du jour.

Our "leaders" keep preaching "Accountability", but it doesn't apply to anyone with the right connections to Money & Power. When I start seeing a few dozen Political Leaders and Press Poodles and Military Brass and Wall Street Bosses (et al) "running onto their swords", then maybe I start to think we're getting back to where we need to be.

Until then, all bets are off.  Anything goes.  Guys like you set the tone, Mr Priebus - the populace isn't behaving in any way that isn't in line with the examples you and your guys put on display almost every day - so go ahead and bitch about "Moochers" and "Free Stuff" and "Lawlessness" and "the degradation of society", etc - but you'd best be looking to yourselves first.  This isn't terribly more complicated than Practice What You Preach - and in case you hadn't noticed, even the rubes are starting to figure it out.

You wanna be counted among the Nobility? (First, no, asshole - we don't do that here).

But yeah OK, Mr Priebus - here's the thing though: nobility carries some big-time baggage, not the least of which is a Code of Honor, and that code requires you to pay a very high price when you fail it.  You've brought shame and dishonor on this country, and on your fellows, and on yourself. You're now expected to pay that price so the rest of us can have a better chance to get back to living in a nation of laws, and not of despots who would place themselves above the law.

Do you get it?  Good.  Now do your duty and fuck off.

Down To 3

Well, at least we're back to having Drumpf right smack in the middle again.  The stage craft and show biz crap is just crazy stoopid obvious.  And there's great promise for lots more because of the drama of the GOP elders wanting so desperately to keep Trump out of their club, that the worst-kept secret in politics now is that they'll run a 3rd party candidate against him just to make sure they lose.  And won't that be fun?    And to be sure, let me say that one part again: The GOP is taking steps to make sure their presumptive candidate loses the general election in November.

They have to find somebody to run against Trump, but then run the campaign in a way that doesn't smack of panic, so it generates enough turnout that they get the down-ballot support they need to stave off some potentially humungous Dem gains in House and Senate seats, as well as all the little stuff like state houses and governorships. 

And they have to stake out their territory and try to reclaim the tiny bits of GOP that can still be pieced back together so it looks more or less like a political party again; which is a herculean task that this GOP has been trying very hard to countervail for the last 20 years. So if that Grand Unifier exists - maybe Rubio can collect a few more paychecks after all - just who the hell is he? Her?

I don't like making sweeping predictions and pimping some circumstance or another as so totally dire that there's nothing but disaster ahead, but dang - this looks pretty damned dire, dude.

So, Trump's done it (almost anyway) - he's practically pulled off a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

And we've still got 5 months of televised circle jerk to go before Cleveland. Woohoo.

So, Dems - how's that party unity thing going for you guys?  The next 2 months or so, it's going to be kind of important to get people out of the house and into the streets to move voters out to the polls during the primaries, so you have some organization in place for the general. You know that, of course, but it seems like this is the kind of near-freebie you guys have made a habit of screwin'-the-pooch on.  So here it is.  This is your shot.  Quit fuckin' around and go do it.

What's Wrong With Those Guys?

A good long look at what's happening inside the GOP from NYT Magazine:

One afternoon last month, I flew with Anderson to Columbus, Ohio, to watch her conduct two focus groups. The first consisted of 10 single, middle-class women in their 20s; the second, of 10 20-something men who were either jobless or employed but seeking better work. All of them voted for Obama but did not identify themselves as committed Democrats and were sufficiently ambivalent about the president’s performance that Anderson deemed them within reach of the Republicans. Each group sat around a large conference table with the pollster, while I viewed the proceedings from behind a panel of one-way glass.

The all-female focus group began with a sobering assessment of the Obama economy. All of the women spoke gloomily about the prospect of paying off student loans, about what they believed to be Social Security’s likely insolvency and about their children’s schooling. A few of them bitterly opined that the Democrats care little about the working class but lavish the poor with federal aid. “You get more off welfare than you would at a minimum-wage job,” observed one of them. Another added, “And if you have a kid, you’re set up for life!”

About an hour into the session, Anderson walked up to a whiteboard and took out a magic marker. “I’m going to write down a word, and you guys free-associate with whatever comes to mind,” she said. The first word she wrote was “Democrat.”

“Young people,” one woman called out. “Liberal,” another said. Followed by: “Diverse.” “Bill Clinton.” “Change.” “Open-mind.” “Spending.” “Handouts.” “Green.” “More science-based.”

When Anderson then wrote “Republican,” the outburst was immediate and vehement: “Corporate greed.” “Old.” “Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.”

Anderson concluded the group on a somewhat beseeching note. “Let’s talk about Republicans,” she said. “What if anything could they do to earn your vote?”

A self-identified anti-abortion, “very conservative” 27-year-old Obama voter named Gretchen replied: “Don’t be so right wing! You know, on abortion, they’re so out there. That all-or-nothing type of thing, that’s the way Romney came across. And you know, come up with ways to compromise.”

“What would be the sign to you that the Republican Party is moving in the right direction?” Anderson asked them.

“Maybe actually pass something?” suggested a 28-year-old schoolteacher named Courtney, who also identified herself as conservative.

The session with the young men was equally jarring. None of them expressed great enthusiasm for Obama. But their depiction of Republicans was even more lacerating than the women’s had been. “Racist,” “out of touch” and “hateful” made the list — “and put ‘1950s’ on there too!” one called out.

Showing a reverence for understatement, Anderson said: “A lot of those words you used to describe Republicans are negative. What could they say or do to make you feel more positive about the Republican Party?”

“Be more pro-science,” said a 22-year-old moderate named Jack. “Embrace technology and change.”

“Stick to your strong suit,” advised Nick, a 23-year-old African-American. “Clearly social issues aren’t your strong suit. Stop trying to fight the battle that’s already been fought and trying to bring back a movement. Get over it — you lost.”

So at least two things to think about here - for me anyway.  First is that it's clearer now that the GOP elders are more than a little frightened about the monster they've created.  Driftglass is always on about this; Repubs have been cultivating and encouraging the radical wingnuts for a long time; it was OK as long as they were good little soldiers on Election Day, but now that they're taking over the party apparatus, the bosses are pretty freaked.

But second, we're hearing more and more about just how narrow the GOP Brand-Appeal has become.  And we're hearing it in different terms - like in the vein of "there's something wrong with one of our political parties".  So even though the muzzles on the Press Poodles are loosened a bit, the story is still being buried inside very long articles that few of us will be able to spend the ergs or the time or the bother to read.

hat tip = Democratic Underground

One other thing - what really happened with Dick Armey?  He got his knickers horribly twisted in a very public cat fight during his breakup with Freedom Works (Davie and Chuckles Koch).  Guys who play at that level don't throw tantrums.  Makes me wonder.
(You can catch up with that one at MoJo)

Professional Left Podcast

If you do nothing else to stay current on political shit goin' on 'round this joint, listen to the podcast these guys put up every week (they record on Wednesday, and usually have it up by about noon on Friday).

They don't have a convenient way for me to embed the player, so here's the link:

http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/

Be aware - this is nothing if not "very liberal", but for a conservative like me it's pure tonic to hear somebody speaking what sounds like real truth.

Differences

I know way too many people who don't vote.  They cop an attitude, saying politicians and their parties are all alike, so what's the point?

Here's one point: On the one really huge question of how we fund candidates and campaigns, it's pretty easy to see a difference.

	1956 "We condemn illegal lobbying for any cause and improper use of money in political activities."	2012 "We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals."
	1956 "The Democratic Party pledges itself to provide effective regulation and full disclosure of campaign expenditures and contributions in elections to Federal offices."	2012 "We support campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary. We support legislation to close loopholes and require greater disclosure of campaign spending."

There are some other points as well - Mother Jones breaks it down.

Willard's GOP

What in the blue-eyed buck-naked fuck were they thinking?

Old (and maybe a little tipsy?) white guy arguing with an imaginary Obama.  That was the big electrifying surprise?

Really, Repubs?  You wanted us all talking about Clint Eastwood the day after your convention, and not about the guy you just got done nominating for president?



I can get a little squirmy when Alec Baldwin or Barbara Streisand start diving into it, but that Eastwood schtick was cringe-worthy on an epic scale.

It's Not Unusual

Repubs needed desperately to get rid of Todd Akin as a way of putting a nice looking slipcover over their extremely extremist extremism.  A bunch of 'em kicked Akin in the head as hard as they could trying to make us think he was some kind of outlier; some crazy uncle who just showed up uninvited (and drunk) at Thanksgiving dinner or somethin'.  They need us to see him as not one of their own - and definitely not of their own making.

As it turns out (and as many have suspected all along), Todd Akin is no real exception.  (hat tip =  Blue Virginia)

via MorningCall - in a post about a GOP candidate for US Senate named Tom Smith:

When a reporter asked Smith Monday how he'd tell a daughter or a granddaughter who'd gotten pregnant as a result of a sexual assault that she'd have to keep the baby, the Republican nominee told reporters that he'd "lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life. I commend her for that. She knew my views, but fortunately for me, I didn’t have to … she chose the way I thought."

--and--

Smith quickly clarified, adding, "Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape,"

Smith then appeared to imply that having a child out of wedlock was similar to rape, but then quickly added, "No no no, but put yourself in a father’s position, yes. It is similar. This isn’t … but back to the original, I’m pro-life period.”

So it's pretty obvious that guys like Akin and this knot head Smith aren't the aberrations the GOP leadership is telling us they are - because oddly enough, guys like Mike Huckabee (arguably among the leaders of the party) are charging to Akin's defense, saying he's just articulating a core value of mainstream Republicans.

I think it's clear the GOP has a huge problem.  They've been pimpin' the wingnuts for 30 years to get themselves elected, only to turn around and punk 'em once they're in office.  Well, that worm's been turning at an accelerating pace for awhile now, and it could get real messy real quick.

Hurricane Isaac is a good thing, BTW, because it provides an excuse for the GOP to take this fight "indoors" - and we all know how much political parties love to make a show of their "open and inclusive process" while all the deals are made in private, and the outcome of every "vote" is known well ahead of time.

Anyway, I don't know what signals to watch for, but I'm betting this will get more interesting as it goes along.

Packaging Paul Ryan

LA Times explodes the bootstrap myth that's being woven around Paul Ryan.  The guy is not quite the typical SIlver Spoon Legacy Fuck I love to hate, but damned close.

And yet Ryan, 42, was born into one of the most prominent families in Janesville, Wis., the son of a successful attorney and the grandson of the top federal prosecutor for the western region of the state. Ryan grew up in a big Colonial house on a wooded lot, and his extended clan includes investment managers, corporate executives and owners of major construction companies.

The seeming contradiction appears to have its roots in a family crisis in 1986, when at the age of 16, Ryan discovered his father dead of a heart attack.
The death of Paul Murray Ryan forced the family to make adjustments. Ryan’s mother went back to work. And Ryan took up jobs, as well….

But there was also more to it than work. Ryan’s rise to political power and financial stability was boosted by family connections and wealth. The larger Ryan family has repeatedly helped the candidate along in his career, giving him a job when he needed one and piling up tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions…

By the time Ryan had entered Congress in 1999 at the age of 28 and filed his first disclosure statement, he reported assets between $167,000 and $1.3 million, owned a home and had three rental units.

No more Roosevelts, no more Kennedys, no more Rockefellers, no more Bushes, no more Clintons etc etc etc.

No Dynasties, no Legacies, no Entitled Aristocracy.  Not here.  Not now.  Not ever.