Hits Keep A-Rollin'

Out of 44 staffers and cabinet members who worked for Trump, 41 have either come out in support of Harris, or have directly refused to endorse Trump.

93% of the people who used to work with you are telling the company not to rehire you.

Basically:

When the whole world is calling you an asshole, one thing you should stop to consider is that maybe you're an asshole.

Ronald Reagan's former staff back Harris-Walz ticket: "Today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery."

Seventeen former staff members of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan are endorsing the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris.

In a joint statement first obtained by CBS News, the staff members wrote that Reagan, if alive, would have supported Harris.

"President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a 'Time for Choosing.' While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket," the group writes. "The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz," the group added. "Our votes in this election are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy."

Over 230 former officials for Republican presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have also backed Harris, in addition to campaign staffers for Republican presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney. Biden received a similar amount of GOP support in his 2020 run against Trump.

Former Reagan staff backing Harris includes Ken Adelman, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and U.S. arms control director under Reagan, as well as B. Jay Cooper, the special assistant and deputy press secretary to Reagan. Adelman had endorsed former President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, as well as President Biden's 2020 run. He backed Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, but was against Trump's 2016 run.

The list also includes Pete Souza, the chief White House photographer for both Reagan and Obama.

The group says they are looking to convince other former Reagan staffers to back the Harris-Walz ticket, calling it "the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come."

CBS News has reached out to the Trump campaign for reaction. Trump has gotten support from only a couple of Democratic officials who have since distanced themselves from the party, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who ran for president as an independent before ending his bid and endorsing Trump last month, and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who left the Democratic party in 2022.

In April 2021, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, launched a speaker series that featured several Republican presidential candidates who later ran against Trump in the 2024 Republican primary. The library did not invite Trump to speak and told Politico it was because he is a former president and they wanted speakers who haven't held that level of office.

Their backing of Harris follows a swath of endorsements from Republican officials, including several staffers during Trump's first term, as well as former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney.

"We're not the only ones that are taking a stand here. You've heard it, many people who have worked for Donald Trump have said that they do not support Donald Trump coming back to the presidency. And I think that speaks volumes, because we know him," said Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, prior to Tuesday's debate between Harris and Trump in Philadelphia.

Troye, former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger and former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan all had speaking slots at the Democratic National Convention in August.

The new endorsements arrive as the Harris campaign works to siphon support away from Trump in what remains a margin-of-error race in the battleground states, according to CBS News polling. Outside groups and the campaign have made a concerted effort to target battleground state voters who voted for former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley in the Republican primaries earlier this year.

CBS News polling of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this month indicates that only a small number of undecided voters remains. Harris and Trump have near total support with their party's voters, though Harris has a slight edge over Trump with the sliver of moderate voters in these states who say there's still time left to make a final decision.

"The choice between truth and lies demands support for Harris-Walz. The choice between freedom and suppression of freedoms means support for Harris-Walz. The choice between serving the people and serving the few leads us to support Harris-Walz," the Reagan White House staffers wrote in the letter.

Statement from Reagan Alumni

President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a “Time for Choosing”. While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the Administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket.

The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz.

The choice between truth and lies demands support for Harris-Walz.

The choice between freedom and suppression of freedoms means support for Harris-Walz.

The choice between serving the people and serving the few leads us to support Harris-Walz.

We join our friends and colleagues from the George W. Bush White House, his Administration, and his campaigns, and those from the McCain and Romney campaigns in supporting Vice President Harris and Governor Walz.

Our votes in this election are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy. It’s our hope that this letter will signal to other Republicans and former Republicans that supporting the Democratic ticket this year is the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come.

• Ken Adelman - US Ambassador to the UN & US Arms Control Director, Ronald Reagan Administration
• Carol Adelman - USAID Assistant Administrator
• Elizabeth Board - Deputy Assistant to the President for Communications, Director Media Relations Office, RonaldReagan
• John E. Bowman - Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance, Department of the Treasury (Reagan and George H.W. Bush)
• Gahl Burt - White House Social Secretary, Ronald Reagan White House
•  B. Jay Cooper - Deputy Assistant to the President, Ronald Reagan; Deputy White House Press Secretary, George H.W. Bush
• Paul O’Neill - Advance Office, Ronald Reagan White House
• Ashley Parker Snider - Trip Coordinator White House Advance, Ronald Reagan; Office of Public Affairs Department of Housing and Urban Development, George H.W. Bush Administration
• Elizabeth Penniman - Research Assistant, Presidential Speech Writing, Ronald Reagan White House; Policy Analyst, National Security Council, Ronald Reagan Administration; Deputy Director, Presidential Transition, Ronald Reagan; Director of Communications, US Surgeon General, George H.W. Bush Administration; Speechwriter, McCain for President 2008 Wing Pepper Press Advance, Ronald Reagan White House
• Charles Sethness - Assistant Treasury Secretary for Domestic Finance
• Kathleen Shanahan - Staff Assistant, National Security Council, Ronald Reagan Administration; Special Assistant toVice President Bush, Ronald Reagan White House; Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, George W. Bush Administration
• Nancy Sinnott Dwight - Campaign Director, NRCC (1979-1981); Executive Director, NRCC (1981-1983); RNC Delegate for George W. Bush and Mitt Romney
• Pete Souza - Official White House Photographer, Ronald Reagan White House
• W. Grey Terry - Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director, Advance Office, Ronald Reagan WhiteHouseRobert Thompson

Don't Make Me Look

I ask myself what it is I want done about "the homeless problem"?

• How do we house everybody?
• Can we house everybody?
• How do we identify the causes &/or the remedies?
• and and and

When I hear somebody either fretting about "those poor people", or spouting off about "lazy bums", I don't know if they want to do something positive about it, or if they just don't want to see it - like they want to sweep up "the undesirables" and dispose of them.

These problems of homelessness - and migration - and the cycle of poverty, ignorance, and crime are just going to get worse.

In fact, these problems are starting to accelerate as Climate Change picks up the pace.

And as the problems driven by migration due to Climate Change increase, so will the political desire for a "strong hand to keep it all in line."

Weirdly, as efforts to solve problems become more dependent on collective action, we get more resistance from the "rugged individualist" crowd, while at the same time, they push for a strong leader to bring us all together to make the bad things go away - or something like that. It's all very contradictory, and the harder I try to make sense of it, the more it hurts my brain.

Crisis is the surest way to get people to give up their individuality and knuckle under to top-down authoritarian rule.

Seems pretty clear that's why we hear Republicans telling us about

1. Crisis at the border
2. Crisis of crime
3. Crisis of illegal immigrants
4. Crisis of National Debt
5. Crisis of inflation
6. Caravans
7. Fentanyl
8. Cartels
9. MS13
10. Dangerous vaccines
11. Antifa
12. 5G mind control
13. Weather weapons
14. (go to #1 above)

We hear about nothing but one crisis for a few days, and then it's on to next, and then on to the next, and on and on and on, until the rubes are ready to start it over.

Enough of this crap already. I'm sick to fuckin' death of this attempt at Government By WWE Promo - we tried that - it's bullshit.

Given me calm, competent, believable leadership, along with an opposition party that can offer something other than cruelty, immiseration and death.

Paraphrasing Bill Clinton:

These are our problems.

Can you help us solve them?

These are our opportunities.

Can you help us seize them?

These are our fears.

Can you help us ease them?

These are our dreams.

Can you help us achieve them?

That Pritzker Guy

When someone's path through this world is marked with acts of cruelty, they have failed the first test of an advanced society.

Gov JB Pritzker, D-IL

Consequences Schmonsequences

I'm not predicting disaster - even if Trump wriggles out of this and scampers away Scot free - and I don't think I'm being all Pollyanna and shit either - I'm just keeping my fingers crossed while not holding my breath.

One thing I've learned in 50 years of watching and dabbling in politics is that even when it's over, it ain't over.

At least one of the myriad possible outcomes of all this Trump dictatorship / Plutocracy shit could in fact spell the "end" of our little experiment in self-governance. But even that won't mean it's all over. It just means that, as always, the evolution of the thing outlives us all.

This fight will outlive me, the same as it's outlived everybody before me. About all I can do is to go on trying to build a legacy of clear-thinking resistance to shitty authoritarian ideology, and in favor of good government that's appropriately regulated and balanced and flexible - that can be adjusted and improved as time and circumstance require. You know - that silly notion of a more perfect union.

No union was less perfect than the one we started with, but that union was a metric fuck-ton better than anything that had come before it.

I keep reminding myself that, in 235 years, this particular fight has already outlived hundreds of millions of us.

It'd be a little silly to stop fighting for something better now.

If convicted in his hush money trial, here’s what Trump could face next

A guilty verdict for Trump in the New York trial would mean a mix of routine court processing and extraordinary logistical considerations, legal experts say.

Donald Trump has complained of the indignities of a cold, uncomfortable Manhattan courtroom during his hush money trial, which began jury deliberations Wednesday morning.

If convicted, Trump could face other conditions he may consider insulting, including a required inmate review by New York City’s Department of Probation.

The probation office on the 10th floor of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse prepares presentencing reports for judges. There, Trump would be interviewed about his personal history, his mental health and the circumstances that led to his conviction.

Lawyers say the process is humbling.

“If you think the courtroom is dingy, just wait until you go to the probation office,” said Daniel Horwitz, a white-collar criminal defense attorney in New York and former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Former prosecutors sketched out a mix of likely experiences for Trump if he were found guilty of any charge in the case, which includes 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The case involves $130,000 in payments allegedly authorized by Trump to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter she says they had.

The routine processing of convicted felons into the New York criminal justice system would include the timeline of a potential appeal. There would also be extraordinary considerations — such as how the Secret Service would protect him if he were sent to prison and whether he would be allowed to travel to campaign events if sentenced to home confinement — given Trump’s standing as a former president and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for the election in November.

Legal experts said incarceration appeared unlikely for Trump, 77, who has no criminal record.

The Class E felony charges are punishable by 16 months to four years in prison. Among the key issues to be determined if Trump were convicted would be whether he faces some form of incarceration, either in a government facility or a private location, or a less-restrictive experience through probation.

New York Mayor Eric Adams said this month that the city’s Rikers Island jail complex and Department of Corrections were prepared if Trump were ordered to serve time.

A conviction would not disqualify him from running for office or serving as president if elected, constitutional experts said.

During the trial, which began April 15, prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said Trump falsely recorded the payments involving Daniels as legal expenses and alleged they were improper campaign expenditures. Defense attorneys said Trump, who pleaded not guilty, made personal payments to protect his family from an embarrassing disclosure.

The jury, which heard closing arguments from defense lawyers and prosecutors Tuesday, must unanimously agree on a conviction or an acquittal, while a split among jurors could prompt New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to declare a mistrial. In that situation, Bragg could decide to retry Trump, who likely would paint the outcome as a victory in his efforts to discredit the prosecution as politically motivated.

Trump’s punishment if convicted would be up to Merchan, who would receive input from the prosecution and defense in the presentencing report. Though jail or prison are unlikely, the former prosecutors said, alternatives such as probation or home confinement would create logistical challenges and potential political concerns.

If he is sentenced to probation, for example, Trump would be required to clear any out-of-state travel — such as to campaign rallies and fundraisers — with a probation officer. If Trump were to serve home confinement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., New York authorities would likely have to work with counterparts in Florida to accommodate him, the experts said.

Such arrangements are not uncommon for convicted felons, experts said, but the details must be approved by probation officers.

“If you have a probation officer, you are not supposed to travel without permission. Your home is subject to random search because you don’t have a Fourth Amendment right to your home being private. You can get drug-tested, potentially. Travel outside the country is difficult,” said Matthew Galluzzo, another former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

“That would be super awkward for someone on the campaign trail, but not impossible,” Galluzzo said. “If he had to go to a debate against Biden, he probably could go, but you’re supposed to make that request far in advance.”

Trump and Biden have agreed to two debates, the first scheduled for June 27 in Atlanta — which is likely to take place before any potential sentencing of Trump — and the second planned for Sept. 10 at a yet-undisclosed location.

Before a sentencing date were scheduled, Trump’s lawyers would likely ask Merchan to nullify the verdict, though the legal experts said the judge almost certainly would not do so.

Instead, the probation office would put together a presentencing report for Merchan. As part of that process, Trump would be required to participate in an interview with a probation officer who would produce a biography of him of about five or six pages, legal experts said. Such documents are confidential, intended only for the judge and the lawyers.

Trump has called his prosecution politically motivated and denigrated Merchan, Bragg and others, leading the judge to fine him 10 times for a total of $10,000 during the trial for violating a partial gag order. How Trump would react to questions from a probation officer about the case could get him into more hot water with the court. Legal experts said his lawyers likely would advise him not to discuss the case.

Convicts are “expected to tell the truth. If they are convicted and then say, ‘No, it’s a lie, it didn’t happen,’ that will go back to the judge. And that’s not good,” said defense attorney Jeremy Saland, who also served as a Manhattan prosecutor.

The prosecution and Trump’s defense team also are expected to submit recommendations about the sentencing.

Because he was charged with nonviolent crimes, Trump is an unlikely candidate to be detained in prison as he awaits sentencing, said the experts, who added that it is also unlikely that Merchan would impose bail as a condition for his release.

Trump’s team has 30 days to file notice of appeal and six months to file the full appeal if he is convicted.

A key question is whether the court would agree to stay Trump’s sentence pending an appeal, a process that is likely to last well beyond the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Former prosecutors suggested such a scenario is plausible given that any punishment of Trump could be short enough in duration that the sentence would be fully carried out before a legal appeal is litigated.

The legal experts said Merchan could grant Trump a conditional discharge tied to the requirement that he not commit another legal offense.

Merchan also could impose a financial penalty or require him to do community service or undergo counseling, some legal experts said.

If the judge were to impose a more onerous penalty, such as home confinement, Trump could still find ways to continue campaigning, even if he were not on the road.

“He could be confined but go to Mar-a-Lago and hold a news conference every day, be on TV, hold rallies remotely,” Horwitz said. “There’s a lot he can do as a candidate while under home confinement.”

In The Eyes Of The World

... if you're American, you're Mississippi.

The good news:

It's fairly probable that "Trump, but with brains" isn't a real thing.

The bad news:

That may be the point - because they really are looking for a guy with Trump's charisma (but with less debilitating emotional baggage), and just enough intellectual horsepower not to give the game away while also not getting any funny ideas about how he's actually in charge of anything.

The Needle Moves?

I'm really hoping the guys in these videos indicate a trend - that maybe some of the less rabid Republicans are beginning to see the glaring cynicism of the GOP - especially where Trump and his MAGA goons are concerned, and rebelling enough to get that party's shit together.

Like the first guy, I don't hold the Dems up as total paragons of civic virtue. They've got their share of manipulative assholes and smarmy characters too. And that's not to get all Both Sides-y or anything. I just always want to take some precaution against becoming too much of a fanboy.

Anyway, Tony Michaels is new to me, and he just popped up on my YouTube feed. I'll give him a try for a bit, but he's referred to as The Rush Limbaugh Of The Left, so I'm thinking I can prob'ly go without. We'll see.

Something Is Afoot

  

Jennifer Rubin

• VP Elise Stefanik? Kristi Noem? Marge The Impaler Greene?
• Press Poodles are missing the point (surprise surprise)
• Another special election (FL State House) flipped red-to-blue
• MAGA clowns keep shooting themselves in the foot
• The depth of a parent's agony
• Bibi's got bad problems

Fly Away Now

Why vote for Biden?

Cuz he beat Trump last time by 7 million votes, and he'll beat him again.

Jennifer Rubin

Trump has a strangle hold on the GOP. If there's any good news, it's simply that the Republican party is shrinking, so he has more and more influence over fewer and fewer people.

The MAGA GOP has entered its final Geejy Bird phase.

There is reason for hope

Coming Soon

Some interesting thinking.

1. Watch Ohio
2. Political shift
3. The return of manufacturing
4. Resurrection of Labor
5. The new swing voter

As The Worm Turns

And it begins to come into full flower. The need for building lifeboats is seeping into the MAGA hive brain.

The 'elite' that the rubes have been taught to loathe are busily deflecting in order to take the thing in a slightly different direction. They're now telling the unwashed Republican masses that they've been betrayed, which is pretty easy to do because they've been conditioned to see themselves as victims all along - it's one of the main tools authoritarians use to manipulate people.

hat tip = The Professional Left

Gearing Up

We can expect the usual chorus of "conservative" voices telling us not to conserve anything, and what the world really needs is real Americans who eat whatever they want to eat, and shit wherever they want to shit.

I guess we can only hope we raised our kids right - that they're beginning to see that nothing good happens if good people don't step up, get involved in whatever big or small way, stay involved, and insist on better.

E.P.A. Lays Out Rules to Turbocharge Sales of Electric Cars and Trucks

The Biden administration is proposing rules to ensure that two-thirds of new cars and a quarter of new heavy trucks sold in the U.S. by 2032 are all-electric.

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Wednesday will propose the nation’s most ambitious climate regulations to date, two plans designed to ensure two-thirds of new passenger cars and a quarter of new heavy trucks sold in the United States are all-electric by 2032.

If the two rules are enacted as proposed, they would put the world’s largest economy on track to slash its planet-warming emissions at the pace that scientists say is required of all nations in order to avert the most devastating impacts of climate change.

The new rules would require nothing short of a revolution in the U.S. auto industry. Last year, all-electric vehicles were just 5.8 percent of new car sales in the United States and fewer than 2 percent of new heavy trucks sold.

“By proposing the most ambitious pollution standards ever for cars and trucks, we are delivering on the Biden-Harris administration’s promise to protect people and the planet, securing critical reductions in dangerous air and climate pollution and ensuring significant economic benefits like lower fuel and maintenance costs for families,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Michael S. Regan, said in a statement.

The E.P.A. cannot mandate that carmakers sell a certain number of electric vehicles. But under the Clean Air Act, the agency can limit the pollution generated by the total number of cars each manufacturer sells. And the agency can set that limit so tightly that the only way manufacturers can comply is to sell a certain percentage of zero emissions vehicles.

The proposed tailpipe pollution limits for cars, first reported by The New York Times on Saturday, are designed to ensure that 67 percent of sales of new light-duty passenger vehicles, from sedans to pickup trucks, will be all-electric by 2032. Additionally, 46 percent of sales of new medium-duty trucks, such as delivery vans, will be all-electric or of some other form of zero-emissions technology by the same year, according to the plan.

The E.P.A. also proposed a companion rule governing heavy-duty vehicles, designed so that half of new buses and 25 percent of new heavy trucks sold would be all-electric by 2032.

Combined, the two rules would eliminate the equivalent of carbon dioxide emissions generated over two years by all sectors of the economy in the United States, the second biggest polluting country on the planet after China.

But some autoworkers and manufacturers fear that the transition to all-electric vehicles envisioned by the Biden administration goes too far, too fast and could result in job losses and lower profits.

Major automakers have for the most part invested heavily in electrification. Nonetheless, several are apprehensive about customer demand for the pricier all-electric models; the supply of batteries; and the speed with which a national network of charging stations can be created.

Automakers and union workers have been expressing those fears directly to the president since 2021, when Mr. Biden announced an executive order directing government policies to ensure that 50 percent of all new passenger vehicle sales be all-electric by 2030.

As word began to spread last week that his new regulations were designed to go still further, some automakers pushed back.

John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents large U.S. and foreign automakers, questioned how the E.P.A. could justify “exceeding the carefully considered and data-driven goal announced by the administration in the executive order.”

“Yes, America’s transition to an electric and low-carbon transportation future is well underway,” Mr. Bozzella said in a statement. “E.V. and battery manufacturing is ramping up across the country because automakers have self-financed billions to expand vehicle electrification. It’s also true that E.P.A.’s proposed emissions plan is aggressive by any measure.”

“Remember this: A lot has to go right for this massive — and unprecedented — change in our automotive market and industrial base to succeed,” Mr. Bozzella said.

Engineers and scientists at the E.P.A. have been working over the past year to determine how much electric vehicle technology is likely to advance in the next decade in order to set the strongest, achievable tailpipe emissions limits.

Tensions between the auto industry and the Biden administration played out over the past week, as the administration was forced to rearrange its rollout of the proposal, according to three people familiar with what happened.

Officials had originally planned for Mr. Regan to announce the policies in Detroit, surrounded by American-made all-electric vehicles.

But as auto executives and the United Auto Workers learned the details of the proposed regulations, some grew uneasy about publicly supporting it, according to the people familiar with their thinking. The setting was moved from Detroit to the E.P.A. headquarters in Washington, where Mr. Regan is scheduled to make remarks Wednesday at 11 a.m.

In an interview, Mr. Regan acknowledged that some auto executives and leaders of the United Auto Workers had expressed anxiety over the proposals — adding that they could be amended to assuage those fears.

“We’re very mindful that this is a proposal, and we want to give as much flexibility possible,” he said. The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rules before they are finalized next year. The rules would take effect starting with model year 2027.

Environmentalists praised Mr. Biden for delivering on a promise he made during his first days in office, when he called climate change a “moral imperative, an economic imperative” that would be central to all his decision-making.

A 2021 report by the International Energy Agency found that nations would have to stop sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 to keep average global temperatures from increasing 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Beyond that point, scientists say, the effects of catastrophic heat waves, flooding, drought, crop failures and species extinction would become significantly harder for humanity to handle. The planet has already warmed by an average of about 1.1 degrees Celsius.

Mr. Biden has pledged to cut the country’s emissions in half by 2030 and to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2050. He took a major step toward meeting that target last summer, when he signed the Inflation Reduction Act. It includes $370 billion in spending over the next decade to fight climate change, including tax incentives up to $7,500 for the purchase of American-made electric vehicles.

That law is projected to help the United States cut its emissions by 40 percent by 2030 — not quite enough to meet Mr. Biden’s pledge. Experts said the new E.P.A. regulations, if enacted as proposed, are needed to reach Mr. Biden’s goal.

“The EPA standards are a huge step forward in addressing the largest source of climate pollution: transportation,” said Luke Tonachel, senior director of the clean vehicles and buildings program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.

A sharp rise in electric vehicles in the United States could mean wider availability and sales of electric vehicles outside its borders, Mr. Tonachel said. “This can be a world-leading standard that puts the world on a much-needed pathway for curbing global pollution from transportation,” he said.

Laurence Tubiana, the CEO of the European Climate Foundation who helped broker the 2015 Paris climate accord, welcomed the E.P.A.’s action.

“This is confirmation to the world of the seriousness of the engagement of Joe Biden on climate change and keeps the U.S. as a front-runner on climate,” Ms. Tubiana said. “It’s resonating very well in Europe and the world.”

Still, others see the proposed regulations as government overreach and say they will surely face legal challenges.

“They are using this established longstanding statute for an entirely new purpose, to force an entirely new goal — the transformation of the industry to electric vehicles,” said Steven G. Bradbury, who served as the chief legal counsel for the Transportation Department during the Trump administration. “This is clearly driven by the president’s directive to achieve these results. I don’t think you can do this. Congress never contemplated the use of statutes in this way.”

Key Phrase:

"I don't think you can do this"

Translated:

• We don't want to do this because it threatens the status quo that makes us a very comfortable living, and keeps a few of us in power at the expense of everybody else
• We'll burn this joint to the ground fighting to keep from having to make the changes necessary to ensure a planet suitable for human habitation

Traditional conservative doctrine

has transformed the GOP

into a full-blown death cult.

The Turning Worm

Six in 10 Americans don't want Trump to be president again: 2024 poll

The poll found 39% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Trump

Kellyanne Conway:

We are seeing a competition for the Republican nomination in 2024.

The majority of Americans do not want former President Donald Trump to be elected in 2024, while voters remain split on whether he participated in any illegal activity regarding his hush money scandal.

A new NPR/Marist poll found that only 38% of national adults want Trump to be president again, while the majority of 61% do not want the Republican to serve another term in office.

According to the survey, 76% of Republicans, 34% of independents and 11% of Democrats want Trump to serve another four years in the White House.

On the flip side, 89% of Democrats, a whopping 64% of independents, and 21% of Republicans do not want Trump to return to the White House next cycle.

About 39% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Trump, down 3 percentage points from a November poll that found his favorable opinion at 42%, but up from 38% in the summer.

As Trump makes another bid for the White House, 81% of Republicans and 37% of independents have a favorable opinion of the former president.

Trump is currently under investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for reportedly reimbursing his then-attorney for hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. After a years-long investigation, Trump claimed on March 18 that he would be arrested within days

When asked about the criminal probe, 46% said they think Trump has done something illegal. About 29% of Americans believe it was unethical, but not illegal, while 23% don't think he did anything wrong.

About 56% of Americans say the investigation is fair, while 41% consider it a "witch hunt" as he makes another run for office.

"Amid multiple allegations of wrongdoing against former President Trump, what's striking is that, although Republicans still largely back him, White evangelical Christians are not as strongly behind him," Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, said alongside the poll results. "There is a consensus among Republicans that, although everything may not have been above board, Trump has done nothing illegal."

The survey was conducted from March 20 to 23 with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

About That Waco Rally

A few things

1. I don't know for sure that Trump is a Christo-Fascist White Supremacy Asshole. I do know that an awful lot of Christo-Fascist White Supremacy Assholes are pretty sure he is one, so all he has to do is whistle, and they come a-runnin'
2. That whistle's getting very loud again
3. The reason for the louder whistle may be that fewer people are willing to rally to him because they're not as willing to accept being perceived as Christo-Fascist White Supremacy Assholes as they were just a few years ago

We can hope that some peer pressure is kicking in, and while we can't expect any big shift to "the left", at least it seems more people are pulling back away from the cliff's edge.

Why is Donald Trump holding the first rally of his 2024 campaign in Waco, Texas, on Saturday?

There’s a little history there that you may recall.

The Branch Davidians were led by David Koresh and were headquartered at Mount Carmel Center ranch in the community of Axtell, Texas, northeast of Waco. In 1993, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) obtained a search warrant for the compound from a federal judge, as well as arrest warrants for Koresh and other members of the group. There was evidence the group was stockpiling illegal weapons and had explosive devices.

The planned execution of the search warrant was disrupted when Koresh’s brother-in-law, a mail carrier, learned of the search from a reporter who, tipped off to the search warrant, stopped him to ask for directions to the compound. By the time federal agents arrived to execute the warrant, the Branch Davidians were armed and on alert. A gunfight broke out—each side subsequently accused the other of starting it. Four ATF agents and six Branch Davidians died.

Next, there was a siege that lasted for 51 days, from February 28 to April 19. Federal agents attempted to negotiate with Koresh to end the standoff or at least to permit the children inside to leave. Koresh refused. Ultimately, then-Attorney General Janet Reno approved the use of tear gas to force the Branch Davidians out of their compound. Agents went in on April 19, 1993. The compound became engulfed in flames—how and who was responsible has been the subject of dispute.

- snip -

Despite the evidence, there has always been controversy, with Davidians claiming federal agents were responsible... 

By the end of the effort to end the standoff, 76 Davidians, including Koresh, 25 children, and two pregnant women, were dead.

- snip -

Over the past three decades, Waco has become a touchstone for far-right anti-government, Christian-nationalist white supremacists who likely know little about the Branch Davidians and their motivations. And here is Trump, holding a rally on their sacred ground to launch his 2024 campaign right in the middle of the 30th anniversary of the siege. Going to Waco sends a clear message to anti-government groups, and it should send one to the rest of us as well. It’s too important to miss. Trump is willing to embrace far-right extremism, and everything it brings along with it, to restore himself to power.

That means embracing violence...

- snip -

I asked my former boss, Alabama’s former Senator Doug Jones, who prosecuted members of the KKK responsible for the racially motivated 1963 bombing at 16th Street Baptist church in Birmingham, Alabama, that killed four young girls, about Trump’s upcoming rally. I asked if he was concerned about what Trump’s appearance in Waco during the 30th anniversary of the siege could encourage groups or individuals to do, since Waco has taken on major significance for people in anti-government movements and militia groups. “Of course,” he told me. “Trump is the master of dog whistles, whether it is his rhetoric or photo ops. Waco is a wonderful city, but for the far-right fringe that Trump caters to, an appearance by Trump can be a call to arms. Not action—arms.”

- snip -

Donald Trump’s niece Mary Trump has a unique vantage point for assessing what the choice of Waco for his opening rally might signal. She has a PhD in clinical psychology and, before his presidency, when they parted ways, the unique access to observe her uncle that only family members have. I asked Mary whether the former president’s decision to go to Waco for his first rally in the 2024 campaign could be just a coincidence. This was her response:

“It’s clear to me that the decision to hold Donald’s next rally in Waco, TX, during the 30th anniversary of the FBI siege of the Branch Davidian compound is entirely intentional. I doubt it was Donald’s idea—more likely Stephen Miller or somebody of his ilk made the connection. I think this is a signal that they don’t have to hide anything anymore. Much like David Koresh and his followers, Donald and his followers are an apocalyptic, anti-government cult. And they’re coming for us.

“The pattern has been established over decades—Donald pushes the envelope, his transgressions are overlooked, he pushes the envelope further. This week, after he manipulated the entirety of the American media to do his bidding, Donald took to social media to warn of widespread violence if the rule of law were upheld and he was finally, at long last, indicted. He used vile racist and anti-Semitic tropes and charged images to threaten the life of the New York District Attorney who dares hold him accountable—according to the law. Openly declaring war on the government he hopes once again to lead by appealing to the most violent, self-destructive instincts of those who continue to enable him is the next logical step.”

- more -

Branch Davidian Pastor Says Trump Is Making A ‘Statement’ With Waco Rally

In choosing Waco, Texas, as the setting of what he calls the first rally of his 2024 campaign, former President Donald Trump raised some eyebrows.

- snip -

This week, a pastor with the group, Charles Pace, told multiple outlets he believes that Trump’s choice to rally in Waco was definitely “a statement” as the former president awaits possible criminal charges.

- snip -

Trump is “making a statement, I believe, by coming to these stomping grounds where the government, the FBI, laid siege on this community just like they laid siege on Mar-a-Lago and went in and took his stuff. That’s what they wanted to do here, they wanted to come in and take the guns and everything,” Pace told Texas Tribune reporter Robert Downen.

Pace made similar comments to The New York Times, saying that the FBI was “accusing [Trump] of different things that aren’t really true, just like David Koresh was accused by the FBI.”

The Times noted that Pace had spoken highly of Trump in his sermons, calling him “the anointed of God.”

- more -

Meanwhile - over on the Not So Bad News front:

Trump Rally Sees 'Quite a Few' Leave Early Despite Large Crowd: Report

Former President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Waco, Texas, Saturday saw "quite a few" of his supporters leave early despite drawing a large crowd, according to local media.

Thousands of Trump supporters flocked to the first rally of his presidential campaign in the Lone Star State, a traditionally conservative state viewed as potentially competitive in the 2024 race, Saturday night. During the rally, Trump addressed looming indictments in several investigations and hit out at his potential Republican opponents, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Trump supporters have viewed the rally as a substantial show of support from his voter base, as polls show him as the favorite to snag the GOP nomination, despite concerns from some Republicans about his electability. His supporters have pointed to the large crowd size as evidence of his ongoing popularity among conservatives.

However, Waco Tribune-Herald journalist Mike Copeland reported that "quite a few fans did not last" until the end of the rally.

"About 30 minutes into the rally, the crowd began to thin, with people getting a head start on the walk back to the parking lots, designated and otherwise," the report reads. "Several leaving early said they accomplished what they wanted to achieve by showing up for the rally, enduring traffic and long lines. Some said after hours on the tarmac, they were tired, hungry or both and wanted to get home."

Others, however, pointed out that Trump still brought in a substantial crowd.

"In case the mainstream media tries to tell you no one showed up to Pres. Donald Trump's Waco rally. You be the judge," tweeted Daniel Baldwin, a reporter for the right-leaning One America News Network, alongside a video showing thousands of Trump supporters in the crowd before the rally.

"No other GOP candidate or would be candidate could pull this crowd hours before a rally. The polls reflect the momentum, and Trump is leading BIG," tweeted GOP consultant Garret Ventry.

The exact number of attendees was not known Sunday evening, and Newsweek reached out to Waco police for comment. The rally comes after some Trump critics have questioned whether he could still draw massive crowds.

Trump, during his 2016 and 2020 presidential bids, held a series of large rallies for his supporters across the country, and he has often boasted about his ability to bring in large crowds. He also held rallies in support of his endorsed candidates prior to the 2022 midterms, but Saturday's was the first since he announced his presidential bid last November.

Following Trump's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican who supported Trump's previous presidential bids, suggested his lack of presidential rallies could be due to his alleged inability to draw a large crowd earlier in March.

"You saw the scenes at CPAC. That room was half-full," Christie said.

Woke Is As Woke Does, Sir

I dunno what you thought should happen, George - or what you think needs to happen - but when things get as shitty as they are right now, people will rebel.

Ain't nobody happy to hear "leaders" bullying and abusing their neighbors, family, and friends.

And when it seems like everything is outa whack, then we're going to get lots of people trying to rectify the situation in a variety of ways.

60 years ago, using the n-word was common, and "normal", and acceptable. 40 years ago, we started to realize that was a really shitty way to talk.

Likewise with "faggot" and calling somebody "woman" in an attempt to drag them down.

So we began to make changes in the way we think, and talk, and act - because society has to evolve, and society's use of the language has to evolve too.

That doesn't mean you should be afraid to push back and try to make your stand - no matter what an atavistic dumbass fool you make of yourself while you're doing it. (I am quite familiar with this particular aspect)

Just know this: Yes, you get to speak your mind, but you don't get to demand never to suffer the blowback.

Opinion

Woke word-policing is now beyond satire - George Will

Sometimes in politics, which currently saturates everything, worse is better. When a political craze based on a bad idea achieves a critical mass, one wants it to be undone by ridiculous excess. Consider the movement to scrub from the English language and the rest of life everything that anyone might consider harmful or otherwise retrograde.

Worse really is better in today’s America (if you will pardon that noun; some at Stanford University will not; read on) as the fever of foolishness denoted by the word “woke” now defies satire. At Stanford, a full-service, broad-spectrum educational institution, an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” several months ago listed words to avoid lest they make someone feel sad, unsafe, disrespected or something. Problematic words include “American,” which suggests that America (this column enjoys being transgressive) is the most important country in North and South America. The list was quickly drenched by an acid rain of derision, and Stanford distanced itself from itself: The university’s chief information officer said the list was not a mandate. The list warns against using the “culturally appropriative” word “chief” about any “non-indigenous person.”

The University of Southern California’s school of social work banned the word “field” because it connotes slavery. So, Joe DiMaggio did not roam Yankee Stadium’s center field. Heaven forfend. Perhaps centerpasture. DiMaggio was a centerpasturer? An awkward locution, but it appeases the sensitivity police. The Chicago Cubs should henceforth play in Wrigley Meadow.

Such is the New York Times’s astonishment, last week the newspaper treated as front-page news the fact that few people like the term “Latinx.” The Times describes this as “an inclusive, gender-neutral term to describe people of Latino descent.” With “Latinx,” advanced thinkers, probably including hyper-progressive non-Latino readers of the Times, have exhausted the public’s tolerance of linguistic progressivism. Progressives’ bewildering new pronoun protocols ignited the laughter that “Latinx” intensified.

Back at Stanford, more than 75 professors are opposing the university’s snitching apparatus. The “Protected Identity Harm” system enables — actually, by its existence, it encourages — students to anonymously report allegations against other students, from whom they have experienced what the system calls “harm because of who they are and how they show up in the world.”

The PIH website breathlessly greets visitors: “If you are on this website, we recognize that you might have experienced something traumatic. Take a sip of water. Take a deep breath.” PIH recently made national news when someone reported the trauma of seeing a student reading Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The professors urge Stanford to avoid “a formal process that students could construe as some sort of investigation into protected speech, or that effectively requires them to admit their protected expression was problematic. Instead, Stanford can support students who are sensitive to speech without involving the speaker.” Perhaps by gently shipping those who are “sensitive to speech” to a Trappist monastery.

Early in the Cold War, some colleges and universities were pressured to require faculty to sign loyalty oaths pledging they were not members of the Communist Party. Liberals honorably led the fight against such government-enforced orthodoxy. Today, liberals are orthodoxy enforcers at the many schools that require applicants for faculty positions to write their own oaths of loyalty to today’s DEI obsession.

They must express enthusiasm for whatever policies are deemed necessary to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Fortunately, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina recently joined a growing movement to ban requiring DEI statements in hiring and promotion processes, a recoil against aggressive wokeness.

Being dead, Roald Dahl is spared watching woke editors inflict on his children’s books what Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, calls “social-justice blandification.” To make them “inclusive,” Dahl’s edited characters are no longer “fat” or “ugly” or anything else that might harm readers. The derisive laughter you hear is from parents who know how unwoke their children are in their enjoyment of vividly, sometimes insultingly, presented fictional characters.

A story is told of a revolutionary socialist who was strolling with a friend when they encountered a beggar. The friend began to hand a few coins to the mendicant, but the revolutionary stopped him, exclaiming: “Don’t delay the revolution!” The socialist thought worse would be better. More social misery would mean more social upheaval. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” and all that.

In America (take that, Stanford), the worse wokeness becomes, the better. Wokeness is being shrunk by the solvent of the laughter it provokes.

And c'mon, George - what is it about being awake, and aware, and alert, that you're having a problem with?

She Is At Home

It's been said, and it bears repeating: The fact that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a leader in the GOP is a very bad sign that should motivate everybody with a living thinking brain to do whatever it takes to stop this nonsense.

If there's any good news here, it's only that the percentage of Republicans voicing approval for freaks like Greene indicates that freaks are about all that's left in that party.

That's right - the "good news" is that one of the two main political parties here in USAmerica Inc has been taken over by the kind of booger-eatin' morons who vote for demagogues and dead pimps every chance they get, just to stick it to the libs.

(pay wall)

Welcome home, Marjorie Taylor Greene

The first time The Washington Post wrote about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was in the context of what made her exceptional: She was an avowed adherent of QAnon. And not just of the this guy Q has some interesting thoughts variety; rather, Greene celebrated that “there’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles out” with Donald Trump in the White House.

This was June 2020, and Greene had simply made it to the runoff in the Republican primary. The article was caveated with ifs about winning the primary and then the general, but it was clear what path she was on. Reporter Colby Itkowitz contacted members of the Republican leadership — including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and the conference’s chair, Liz Cheney (Wyo.) — but they weren’t interested in offering comment.

What seemed to be afoot was that the Republican House caucus was adding another member to its fringe, someone who’d occasionally make headlines for saying something embarrassing or introducing some weird, doomed piece of legislation. That sense was probably reinforced when Greene, as a new member of the chamber, quickly generated headlines for past comments about leading Democrats; the Democratic majority stripped her of any committee assignments, moving her from backbench to no bench.

But that was not the path Greene was destined to follow. Past members of the right-wing fringe who earned spots in Congress responded largely by folding into the white noise of the legislative process. Perhaps in part because Greene so explicitly had no part in that process — or, more likely, because she never had any interest in it in the first place — Greene helped create a new style of fringe Republican legislator. She wasn’t former Texas congressman Ron Paul (R) wanting to eradicate the Federal Reserve and she wasn’t former Iowa congressman Steve King (R) advocating hard-line immigration policies well before Trump. She understood that the platform had more value for communications purposes than legislative ones.

In essence, election to Congress simply gave Greene a louder megaphone to attack the aforementioned cabal (even if she described them differently now). It allowed her to join her power with other fringe House members, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), to engage in an effort that’s equal parts trolling and exaggeration. Trump loved Greene from the outset, and her unwavering fealty to him has earned her the ability to hitch herself to him repeatedly. Trump rallies now regularly feature speeches from the first-term congresswoman from rural Georgia.

This is not because she is broadly popular. YouGov recently conducted polling for the Economist that asked people to evaluate a range of Republicans, from members of the media to politicians. Trump was the most popular among Republicans, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. Far fewer Republicans have an opinion of Greene than those more-famous names, but even if we adjust the responses, evaluating favorability just among those with an opinion, Greene was seventh of seven.

Yet, as the Associated Press reported Monday, Greene has been increasingly welcomed back into the mix with the Republican establishment. When McCarthy announced the party’s midterm agenda in Pennsylvania last month, Greene was seated right behind him.

“Greene’s political currency stretches beyond her massive social media following and her ability to rake in sizable sums from donors,” the AP’s Lisa Mascaro reported. “Her proximity to Trump makes her a force that cannot be ignored by what’s left of her mainstream GOP colleagues.”

This is the point: She may not be broadly popular or influential, but she is influential in a place that other Republicans aren’t. She’s popular with a set of Republicans who are antagonistic to people such as Kevin McCarthy.

It’s not entirely clear that McCarthy is extending an olive branch to the fringe. It’s that he can’t afford to let the fringe agitate at the fringe. In the minority (though perhaps not exclusively then), there’s more power in Greene’s approach to serving in the House — shouting into microphones and maintaining an omnipresence in conservative media — than in simply trying to come up with doomed legislation. Greene has some of that, certainly, but it’s often the case that she uses the policy documents to boost her media position and not the opposite. (She’s offered up innumerable impeachment articles, including several targeting President Biden.)

McCarthy, of course, has his own ambitions. If Republicans regain the majority in November, he’d like to be speaker of the House. Allying with Greene and Gaetz and that cadre of legislators will make such an ascension more likely. But it means that his party again shifts to the right, as it has over and over since at least 2010. In 2011, after the tea party wave brought a new contingent of conservatives to Washington, the New York Times profiled McCarthy’s tricky job in corralling their votes as majority whip. That’s still his job today but with a frequently more-extreme caucus. (And spotty success.)

Cheney, freed from the shackles of protecting the Republican caucus, is no longer refraining from comment on Greene. In August, she said she’d rather work with Democrats than with Greene. Of course, by that point she was freed of political shackles entirely, having lost her bid for reelection to a Trump-endorsed Republican primary opponent.

When she was conference chair, Cheney would often stand behind McCarthy as he spoke to the media. Cheney is no longer behind McCarthy. Greene is; her time in exile is coming to an end.

Consider the shift just since 2020. In two years’ time, who will be standing in the background as the leader of the GOP makes an announcement about policy and direction? More importantly, who will the leader be who is making the announcement?