Slouching Towards Oblivion

Showing posts with label political evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political evolution. Show all posts

Saturday, February 10, 2024

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.


Friday, February 02, 2024

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.



Friday, January 19, 2024

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

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

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


Wednesday, November 08, 2023

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

Sunday, June 11, 2023

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.

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

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.

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

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.

Monday, March 27, 2023

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.

Thursday, March 09, 2023

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?



Tuesday, October 11, 2022

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?

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Some Anecdotal Turning

Don't get happy. Don't get cocky.

Get together and get busy.


"...they're just really loud about their stupidity."


Thursday, September 01, 2022

A Minor Harbinger

... hoping it's more major.

For the first time in almost 50 years, Alaska is sending a Democrat to the House of Representatives.

She still faces an uphill battle in the fall, when she has to run again to stay in the House, but there's something happening that feels pretty encouraging right now.

(pay wall)

Democrat Mary Peltola wins special election in Alaska, defeating Palin

Peltola scored a rare Democratic win in the state while also becoming the first Alaska Native elected to Congress


Democrat Mary Peltola has won a special election for the U.S. House in Alaska, defeating Republican Sarah Palin and becoming the first Alaska Native to win a seat in Congress as well as the first woman to clinch the state’s at-large district.

Peltola’s win flips a seat that had long been in Republican hands. She will serve the remainder of a term left open by the sudden death of Rep. Don Young (R) in March. Young represented Alaska in Congress for 49 years.


Peltola, who’s Yup’ik, is a tribal fisheries manager and former state representative who led in initial counts after the Aug. 16 election. But her win wasn’t assured until Wednesday, when Alaska election officials made decisive second-choice counts using the state’s new ranked-choice voting system. Republican Nick Begich III, who finished third, was eliminated, and his supporters’ second-choice votes were redistributed to the remaining candidates.

“It is overwhelming. And it’s a very good feeling. I’m very grateful Alaskans have put their trust in me,” Peltola said in an interview with The Washington Post shortly after her victory at the office of her campaign consultants, where she had to break away in the middle of the conversation to take a call from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “I will be immediately going to work.”

Alaska’s special-election results come after other summer special elections for the House in which Democrats outperformed President Biden’s showing in their districts. Those outcomes, all following the Supreme Court decision to end a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, have been hailed by Democrats as encouraging signs for the November midterms that show voters are angered by the court’s decision and eager to vote for candidates supporting abortion rights.


The Alaska race adds another data point to the clues both parties are examining as they gear up for the stretch run to the Nov. 8 elections. But since it was decided under a unique new voting system, the Alaska race could be harder to read as an indicator of the national environment than the other contests.

For the moment, it helps Democrats expand their current narrow House majority and gives the party a better chance of winning the seat in the fall, according to at least one nonpartisan elections analyst.

Peltola had nearly 40 percent of first-choice votes after preliminary counts, which put her about 16,000 votes ahead of Palin. Half of the Alaskans who made Begich their first choice ranked Palin second, and 21 percent did not make a second choice. The remaining 29 percent — a surprisingly large fraction, even to some of Peltola’s supporters — ranked Peltola second, flipping from a Republican to a Democrat. The second-choice support for Peltola was enough for her to hold off Palin, leaving the Democrat about 5,200 votes ahead.

Peltola said in the interview that she thinks her win shows that Alaskans “want someone who has a proven track record of working well with people and setting aside partisanship.” She added, “I think it also reveals that Alaskans are very tired of the bickering and the personal attacks.”

Palin’s defeat comes in her first campaign since she stepped down as Alaska’s governor in 2009; former president Donald Trump endorsed her and held a rally on her behalf in Anchorage.

Peltola’s campaign focused on local issues, such as what to do about declining salmon returns. She is expected to be sworn in to office in mid-September.

The Democrat ran as a relatively moderate candidate with bipartisan bona fides; she conditionally supports hot-button natural resource projects like oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Ambler road, which would cross Gates of the Arctic National Park to access promising mining claims in the foothills of Alaska’s Brooks Range. But she also touted her abortion rights stance.

Asked in the interview about the significance of her soon becoming the first Alaska Native in Congress, Peltola said, “There’s maybe a little bit of personal significance, but really, I am a congressperson for every Alaskan, regardless of their background.” She added, “I am Alaska Native, but I am much more than just my ethnicity.”

Until she ran for Congress, Peltola was the executive director of the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which co-manages federal salmon fisheries in a partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Peltola’s Yukon-Kuskokwim region — named for two major salmon rivers that flow through the area — has seen unprecedented collapses of key subsistence salmon runs in recent years. Peltola pledged to tackle the issue if elected.

Peltola, who turned 49 on Wednesday, is the daughter of a Yup’ik mother and a father from Nebraska, who started in Alaska as a teacher in the village of Fort Yukon. There, he worked with Young, who also was a teacher before he ran for Congress. Peltola’s family was close with Young’s, and her father flew Young on campaign stops when he was first seeking statewide office; her mother also campaigned for Young while she was pregnant with Peltola, speaking in the Yup’ik language.

Peltola was in the Alaska state House for 10 years, ending in 2008, and served while Palin was governor. She was first elected to the state House at age 25, two years after losing her first attempt, which began at age 22.

Forty-eight candidates ran in a special primary election in June. That race narrowed the field to four — independent Al Gross later dropped out — before the Aug. 16 general election.

Meanwhile, a regularly scheduled election is playing out to decide who will hold the same U.S. House seat for the next two years, once the rest of Young’s term concludes. The primary for that race also was held Aug. 16, and Peltola, Palin and Begich are projected to advance, according to the Associated Press. There will also be a fourth spot on the ranked-choice ballot in November.

“Mary Peltola’s victory is a clear message from AK voters that they will not compromise their values or their rights at the ballot box. Mary is a pro-choice, pro-fish, common sense leader who knows what it takes to protect and create AK jobs. On to November!” tweeted former Democratic senator Mark Begich of Alaska. Nick Begich III is the nephew of the former senator.

Following Peltola’s win, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report moved the Alaska seat’s rating from “Likely Republican” to “Toss-up.”

National Democratic groups did not participate in the special election race even as Peltola was outraised by Palin, according to federal campaign finance reports. But party officials say they’re closely watching the general election race.

Palin and Peltola were at a candidate forum earlier Wednesday. Peltola mentioned the joint appearance in the interview with The Post and said that she had not yet heard from Palin, but “we are going to be reaching out to her.”

Asked what both campaigning for the seat and representing Alaskans in Congress would look like in the months ahead, Peltola said, “I don’t.” She added, “I will supposedly have the benefit of incumbency.” She added, “We’ll see how that works.”

Palin, Begich and other conservatives have sharply criticized Alaska’s new ranked-choice voting system, and the nonpartisan primary system that accompanies it. Palin, in an election night statement, called it “convoluted,” “cockamamie” and untrustworthy.

“The biggest lesson as we move into the 2022 General Election, is that ranked choice voting showed that a vote for Sarah Palin is in reality a vote for Mary Peltola. Palin simply doesn’t have enough support from Alaskans to win an election,” Nick Begich III said in a statement Wednesday.

The system’s supporters — some of whom are aligned with Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski — argue that it will result in the election of more-moderate candidates and reduce the risk of third-party politicians “spoiling” an election, because their supporters will be able also to rank mainstream candidates.

In the congressional race, Alaska Republicans ran a campaign urging voters to “rank the red” and fill out ballots for both Palin and Begich, rather than just one of them.

John Coghill, a Republican former state senator who ran in the special primary, attributed Peltola’s win to negative campaigning between the two GOP candidates in the race — which, according to Coghill and multiple strategists, may have made Begich supporters less likely to rank Palin second.

“They started taking shots at each other, and the supporters of one would not dare vote for the other Republican, because of so many cross words,” Coghill said in a phone interview Wednesday. “It’s a new system, and people campaigned like it was the old system.”

Coghill served with Peltola in the Alaska Legislature and said that he was still somewhat pleased to see her elected even though he only ranked the two Republicans on his own ballot. “I think she represents a very good chunk of Alaskans, and she has a broad view,” he said. “She and I argued a lot. And I found her to be a formidable debater, but willing to work where you could.”

Thursday, August 18, 2022

Not A Real Party Anymore


A reminder: Donald Trump did not remake the GOP in his own image. He is the perfect reflection of what that party has been morphing into for at least 2 or 3 generations.

The message I think I'm picking up is that the GOP is in fact pushing hard to tear down our experiment in self-government in order to replace it with plutocracy.

They want plutocracy, it's just that they haven't quite settled on the right plutocrat yet.

WaPo: (pay wall)

Opinion
Voters are a problem. But GOP leaders are steering the radicalism.

Rep. Liz Cheney’s loss this week means that at most just two of the 10 House GOP members who voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump last year will stay in Congress. Casting out Cheney, who had become the more forceful anti-Trump figure in the party, is the latest illustration of the hard-right views of many GOP voters. Not only did those voters choose Trump over a field of much more mainstream and qualified GOP presidential candidates back in 2016, but this year they also have nominated dozens of candidates across the country who won’t fully acknowledge that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

But while the choices of Republican voters have been very bad, it’s Republican elected officials at the local, state and federal level who are really driving the party — and therefore the country — in a radical, undemocratic direction. These officials and politicians, including Trump, are the party’s most important and influential extremists.

To understand, and perhaps even combat, the GOP’s radical turn, it’s important to understand its root causes. I think of the GOP as having five distinct power centers: the party’s voters, elected officials, superwealthy conservative donors, GOP-appointed judges and grass-roots activists.

I have ranked these power centers in order of importance, at least in my view. But the precise order is less important than the general idea that the party’s radicalism is being reinforced at several different levels.

1. Republican elected officials


It’s Republican politicians who pass deeply unpopular laws that roll back individual rights. They break with traditional democratic norms and values, including by spreading the election misinformation that helped lead to Jan 6. They demean institutions and people who try to act in nonpartisan ways, including the FBI, which was viciously attacked by some Republican politicians last week after its search of Trump’s house. And to insulate themselves from accountability from voters, GOP officials aggressively gerrymander legislative districts, particularly at the state level.

It’s not clear that there was a groundswell of Republican voters in early 2021 who had even heard of critical race theory, much less wanted to ban books written by numerous LGBTQ and Black authors from public schools and libraries. The results from a ballot initiative in Kansas this month suggest many Republican voters are wary of the near-total bans on abortion being adopted in red states. Likewise, many of these Republicans vote in favor of raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid and limiting gerrymandering on ballot referendums, policies that GOP legislators won’t adopt even though they are common-sense and popular.

Wyoming voters chose to formally end Cheney’s tenure in Congress. But in reality, Republican Party officials had all but guaranteed that result by their actions over the last year. After the majority of House Republicans voted to disqualify some of the 2020 election results, and after all but 10 opposed Trump’s impeachment, any GOP official who said that Biden won the election and voted for impeachment was going to seem anti-Republican to party activists.

And GOP officials then took even more steps to make sure Wyoming voters got the message that Cheney was no longer a Republican in good standing. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) backed the effort to remove Cheney from her leadership post, and he joined with Trump and others to aggressively campaign against her reelection.

2. Superwealthy conservative donors

Wealthy conservatives are a huge reason the Republican Party has moved in an extreme direction. They pump millions into conservative policy groups such as the Federalist Society. They fund media and grass-roots organizations that move voters to the right. They create super PACs that help Trump-aligned conservatives win Republican primaries. And, just as importantly, they often don’t fund organizations or candidates who would move the party back to the center.

Charles Koch, who with his now-deceased brother David created a network of right-wing organizations that have pushed state-level GOP politicians to the right, is perhaps the conservative billionaire most responsible for the party’s turn to extremism. But that title could also go to Rupert Murdoch, who founded Fox News and has allowed it to become a haven for anti-Black and anti-Latino sentiments.

3. GOP-appointed judges


Conservative judges, including those on the Supreme Court, usually aren’t executing the most extreme parts of the GOP’s agenda. But through their rulings, these judges enable and at times even encourage it. The aggressive gerrymanders and voter suppression laws adopted by GOP-controlled states over the past decade never would have happened if the Supreme Court had struck down a few of them. They set off a wave of aggressive antiabortion laws by overruling Roe v. Wade.

4. Republican activists and organizations

Republican elected officials don’t come up with their extreme rhetoric and ideas totally on their own. Conservative activists and organizations often write radical proposals and then demand party officials pass them into law. For example, the leading figure in the party pushing for limits on how racism is taught in public schools is Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.

In Cheney’s case, the Wyoming Republican Party central committee, made up of party activists, censured her in February 2021, only weeks after she voted for Trump’s impeachment. Cheney wasn’t alone: Many of the congressional Republicans who voted either for Trump’s impeachment or his conviction were quickly censured by local and state Republicans. Those censures sent a clear message to the rest of the party: Activist Republican types whose support GOP officials need to stay in office were standing firmly behind Trump — and would disavow anyone who did not.

5. Republican voters

I don’t want to understate the role of Republican voters in moving the party toward radicalism. Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and other extremist Republicans would not have power without voters backing them in primaries and general elections. In Wyoming, Republican primary voters could have ignored the views of Trump and other Republican leaders and reelected Cheney, who remains very conservative on most policy issues.

In polls, the clear majority of Republican voters say that Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election, meaning that they either believe the “big lie” or simply aren’t willing to accept that their candidate lost. Despite Jan. 6 and all of the other terrible things he did while in office, and since leaving, Trump is the leading candidate when Republican voters are asked about a potential 2024 primary — numbers that no doubt are part of the reason he might run for president again.

And the Republican voters who oppose Trump-style politicians and back ones such as Cheney in primaries aren’t blameless either. These voters tend to back Trumpian candidates in the general election. Trump himself won more than 90 percent of self-identified Republicans in 2016 and 2020, meaning nearly all of those who opposed him in the 2016 primary eventually fell in line. The Wyoming Republicans who backed Cheney in this week’s primary probably won’t support Democratic candidate Lynnette Grey Bull in the general election.

Trump-skeptical Republican voters, in my interviews with them, tend to be very tied to their identity as Republicans. They are largely unwilling to vote for any Democrat. And they are very open to arguments that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other figures on the left are just as dangerous as Trump-style Republicans, which frees them to vote for candidates such as Greene.

The big problem is that these five groups create a kind of feedback loop: GOP voters initially chose Trump; party donors, activists, judges and elected officials started embracing Trump-style politics and elevating Trumpian figures; now, the Trumpian figure in a given GOP primary is often also the person who has been on Fox News and raised the most money, so the voters are very likely to choose her. And that person will then move the party further right. It’s not an accident that the Trump presidency produced someone such as Greene.

Because these five groups are reinforcing one another, I see no easy or clear path for the Republican Party to shift toward a George W. Bush-style conservatism (one that embraces multiculturalism and respects core democratic values) anytime soon. As someone who started his political journalism career in 2002, I never expected Republicans to deem someone whose last name is Cheney insufficiently conservative. But that’s today’s Grand Old Party.

Friday, August 12, 2022

Saving Us


I don't know that I can call it more than a slow roll right now - though it may well be an honest-to-golly trend - but there are signs of a (continuing) power shift.

Remember back in 2017, when the Pussy Hat Gang rose up to warn "conservatives" that electing Trump was prob'ly going to turn out to be a big mistake, and then proving it by bringing down the hammer in the 2018 midterms, and then stomping him in 2020, in spite of all the shit the GOP tried to pull.

So yeah - it could be a trend.


Miss America 2018 Cara Mund, Inspired to Protect Women's Rights, Launches Bid for Congress in North Dakota

Mund, a 28-year-old recent Harvard Law School graduate, is collecting signatures to get her name on the November ballot as an independent. “I'm not a party — I'm a person,” she says


The 28-year-old announced her candidacy Saturday and quickly began gathering signatures to get her name on the November ballot. She'll need to collect 1,000 from North Dakota residents and hand them over to the secretary of state by Sept. 6, according to The Forum, a Fargo-area newspaper.

She hopes to run as an independent for her state's only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. If she wins, she'll make history.


"On the 57th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I am proud to announce that I am seeking to be North Dakota's first female in the U.S. House of Representatives," Mund said in a Facebook post on Saturday.

5 Things to Know About the New Miss America Cara Mund

It will be tough, though, in North Dakota, where Republicans hold every statewide office and conservative values run deep.

"I already know it's an uphill battle, and some people likely aren't even going to vote for me because they think there's no shot, but you don't know until you try," Mund told The Bismark Tribune. "I think the best part is I can take the best of both parties and find what's best for North Dakotans."

Mund says she decided to join the race out of concern for the waning reproductive rights of American women since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional guarantee of abortion access across the country.

She told the AP that the ruling for her was "just a moment where I knew we need more women in office."

Most abortions are set to become illegal in North Dakota later this month. The AP reports that the state's only abortion clinic is preparing to move from Fargo to a location across the border in Minnesota.

Forcing people seeking an abortion "to travel across state lines is going to impact women, and women of lower social economic status," Mund told the AP.

"I don't think the government should be in your bedroom. I don't think the government should be in your doctor's appointments. It's your right to privacy, and as the first woman running for this position, I recognize the importance of that and the importance of having a woman's voice heard," Mund said in an interview with The Forum. "It's an individual's choice."

Mund, who's entering the race just months before Election Day, will be her own campaign manager and reportedly lacks the fundraising capabilities of her would-be opponents, Democrat Mark Haugen and Rep. Kelly Armstrong, the Republican incumbent who won reelection in 2020 in a landslide, according to The Forum. The GOP has held North Dakota's House seat since 2011.

But Mund, a Bismark native who attended Brown University and recently graduated with honors from Harvard Law School, is up for the challenge and feels most comfortable running as an independent. "I'm not a party — I'm a person," she said, adding that she agrees with Republicans on some issues and with Democrats on others.

She points to her experience representing her state at countless public appearances during her reign as Miss North Dakota and later as Miss America.

Also, Mund believes she has essential skills that apply to business and public service thanks to a nonprofit fashion show she started at age 14 that benefitted the Make-A-Wish Foundation during its 10-year run.

As an undergrad at Brown University, Mund sought leadership positions at various extracurricular groups, The Forum reports. And at Harvard Law School, she performed more than 1,000 hours of pro bono work and won an award for "her commitment to justice, her advocacy, compassion for her clients, and stellar representation of each of those clients."

Mund is in it to win it but said there are other benefits to launching a long-shot bid for Congress. Campaigning will give her the opportunity to hear from voters across North Dakota and to hold elected leaders accountable, she noted to The Forum.

"I want women in our state, especially after the [Supreme Court's] Dobbs decision, to know that they have an avenue to be heard," she said.

Here's Beau's take:


It's possible
that women will save us -
if we can just stay the fuck
out of their way.