The GOP Clown Car

Knives are out for Vance in the GOP. His allies say it’s a coordinated ‘op.’

The vice president has faced a barrage of attacks recently that are unusual for their intensity and how early in the political calendar they are taking place.

As JD Vance prepares to make a decision about his 2028 plans, the vice president is facing a barrage of online attacks from within his party, criticism his allies say appears to be part of a coordinated attempt to poison the well for him politically.

His detractors have adopted the “Never Vance” slogan and flooded social media, especially over the past week, with attacks including claims that Vance is “unfit” to be vice president due to his efforts to negotiate a peace deal with Iran. They have asserted, without evidence, that Vance is making policy decisions not supported by President Donald Trump. They have likened him to former president Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

The sustained public hostility from Vance’s own side of the aisle is unlike that faced by other vice presidents in decades, both in intensity and in the early timing — two years before the party will choose its next presidential nominee. The unusual nature is a product of the central role that social media plays in today’s political discourse, as well as the high stakes as Republicans prepare to select a new standard-bearer after Trump, Vance allies and critics say.

Vance’s political team remains dismissive of the social media onslaught and its impact on Republican voters, believing that many of the attacks are not organic, a close ally of the vice president told The Washington Post — a sentiment echoed by two other people with knowledge of Vance’s strategy. The ally and other advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Vance’s allies are keenly aware of and monitoring the online attacks, but his team says the criticism sends a signal to the conservative base that establishment Republicans and opponents they label as neoconservatives hate Vance. That, they say, could ultimately strengthen his standing in a GOP primary.

“Loud Washington establishment voices form an online cacophony,” said Steve Cortes, a conservative commentator supportive of Vance, “but they do not remotely represent the consensus views of Republican voters.”

Vance, whose brand of politics is populist and skeptical of foreign wars, has remained the front-runner in 2028 Republican primary polling. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the favorite of many more traditional, business-minded Republicans, has gained ground in recent months, however, although Rubio has insisted he will support Vance if he runs.

The knives have long been out for Vance within the GOP, since before Trump selected him as his running mate. At the time, hawkish donors and conservative media personalities lobbied for Trump to reject Vance in favor of Rubio or Doug Burgum, now secretary of the interior.

Polling of Republican voters shows Vance’s favorability within the party as roughly on par with Trump’s.

Intense criticism from some Republicans, largely over Vance’s foreign policy views, has ebbed and flowed since the start of the second Trump term. The criticism reached a first peak in the fall as neoconservatives and pro-Israel activists portrayed Vance as antisemitic for sympathizing with figures who expressed skepticism over the U.S. relationship with Israel. More recently, attacks ticked up again after Vance sat for a nearly three-hour interview July 15 on Joe Rogan’s widely watched podcast.

During the show, Vance described himself as a “reasonable moderate” in the debate over the U.S.-Israel relationship. He also cited a recent Time report about an online pro-Israel influence operation run by a former Trump campaign official, through which Vance said he was being attacked “in dishonest ways” by paid influencers.

“You know, my response to that is, ‘Well, go to hell,’” Vance told Rogan. “I’m going to do what I have to do for the American people. I represent Americans first, and that’s the way that I’ve tried to do this job.”

Pro-Israel conservatives erupted. A Washington Post analysis of conservative influencers’ posts on X found that criticism of Vance spiked immediately after his appearance on Rogan’s podcast.

Critical posts poured in from prominent commentators including Ben Shapiro, Marc Thiessen and Batya Ungar-Sargon, as well as online right-wing influencers and little-known X users whose anti-Vance posts quickly gained traction. Some of the users who pledged to oppose Vance and support Rubio in 2028 had profiles that strongly suggested they aren’t American voters and are based in other countries.

It was “obvious to anyone with an IQ above 70″ that the barrage of attacks has been “totally inauthentic and probably coordinated to a certain extent,” the close Vance ally said.

The upsurge in online criticism “hasn’t been reflected in any data correlating with Vance’s image among GOP voters, which currently tracks President Trump’s image to a T,” the person said. “If it were organic, authentic or effective,” Vance’s favorability rating with Republican voters would have cratered over the past nine months, since the intense online criticism first peaked, the person said. “And that just hasn’t happened.”

A spokesperson for the vice president said Vance’s only focus is “fighting for the president’s agenda and delivering wins for the American people,” and that he is not concerned with social media.

Vance allies have pushed back publicly against some of the attacks, at times calling attention to common language used among those posting insults.

Jon Schweppe, a Vance supporter and senior adviser at the American Principles Project, who worked for Trump’s Federal Trade Commission until earlier this year, posted a chart on X last week that showed the vice president’s favorability among Republicans had remained steady despite an “anti-Vance op.” His post quickly received dozens of replies from accounts that didn’t follow him — all attacking Vance. Schweppe described the response as curious, since his post had not been shared by any high-follower accounts.

“Primary season — I guess it’s beginning before the midterms this year,” Schweppe said, adding that Vance’s detractors are “trying to create a divide and separate him from the president.”

“There’s going to be folks within the party structure, within the influencer structure, who are going to try to knock him down a few pegs in hope that a challenger can emerge to beat him, and that’s just what we’re seeing,” Schweppe said. “But it’s absolutely organized.”

The intense focus on the vice president is unusual. Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, didn’t face intense backlash from Republicans until the final weeks of his term, as the president and his supporters blamed Pence for failing to act to overturn the 2020 election results. Before that, Pence had been widely liked by Republicans, with few prominent conservatives raising their heads to harshly criticize him.

For a significant stretch of her vice presidency, Kamala Harris faced a version of the succession anxiety now surrounding Vance. Democratic donors, strategists and commentators questioned whether her low favorability ratings, uneven political performance and widely reported management problems left her prepared to become president — an especially consequential concern given President Joe Biden’s age.

But there are significant differences: Vance is confronting a public, ideological revolt from prominent figures within the conservative coalition. The criticism of Harris, by contrast, generally was framed around competence and electability with jabs at what critics considered misstatements and gaffes. Few major Democratic figures publicly demanded that Biden remove her.

Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to Pence in the White House, acknowledged that the attacks against Vance are far more intense than what Pence endured for nearly four years in office — at least until Trump turned against him at the end of his term.

Pence, however, was adamant throughout that term not to show any distance between himself and Trump, even to staff or other Cabinet officials, Short said. Vance has at times signaled a different perspective regarding the war with Iran, he noted.

Trump has confirmed that Vance is “philosophically a little bit different” than him on Iran, and “maybe less enthusiastic about going” to war, although Vance has publicly expressed support for Trump’s decisions.

“I think that there’s been a difference in the way that the current team has made clear their policy differences,” Short said. “So I think that does create more scrutiny when you do that.”

The Republican primary in 2028 may not be as large and unwieldy as the Democratic field, but political observers on both sides of the aisle say that doesn’t mean it won’t be as compelling.

For months, speculation has been building over who will inherit the Republican mantle after President Trump leaves office. The conversation has only intensified as Trump has quietly asked allies at dinners and closed-door meetings whom they prefer.

While it’s still early, here are our rankings for the Republican nomination.

JD Vance

The vice president, for now at least, is the heir apparent to Trump.

Most recently, he took the lead role in negotiations on a long-term peace deal with Iran that would curb that country’s nuclear ambitions. It was a war Vance was hesitant to have, allies have said, and the negotiations in recent days have been overcome by new fighting between the U.S. and Iran.

Last month, Vance released a new book, “Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith,” and subsequently appeared in a string of interviews further boosting his profile.

Vance remains the front-runner in all of the early polls, with one survey from Echelon Insights showing him leading Secretary of State Marco Rubio by 27 points. That, at least temporarily, put to rest any speculation that Rubio is the favorite among Republicans.

But it remains to be seen how the on-again, off-again war in Iran and inflation will translate in the 2028 election and how Vance will be tethered to them.

“There are a lot of factors,” one Republican strategist said. “How the war plays out, what the economy looks like in a couple of years, what the end of the Trump administration looks like, but also who Trump wants to carry his legacy.”

Marco Rubio

As secretary of State, Rubio has become one of the administration’s prominent voices on foreign policy, including the war in Iran and the U.S. military operation to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

But his stature in the administration and within the party has grown exponentially, and some say that would work in his favor if he chooses to launch a 2028 presidential bid.

While polling indicates Vance is on top of the field, there are some Republicans who say the secretary of State will emerge as the front-runner in due course, particularly for those who say the party will move away from the MAGA movement when the Trump administration ends.

“Certainly it feels like Marco is situated to have the best chance of victory come 2028, but here’s the question I ask: What’s the nomination worth?” one Trump ally said. “If the Democrats nominate a noncrazy, if they nominate a centrist, it may be tough for us after four years of Trump.”

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio agreed with that assessment.

“Rubio becomes the strongest candidate because people remember him before he was secretary of State, and while he has to be loyal to Trump, he has a record that precedes that,” she said.

Ted Cruz

The Texas senator has been eyeing the presidency since the 2016 race, and some say he could be a good alternative for Republicans who want something different from Vance and Rubio.

Since his first White House run, Cruz has built an impressive governing resume including serving as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, where he has helped shape Republican policy on artificial intelligence and transportation issues.

He has also built a broader audience through his popular podcast, “Verdict,” providing him with a direct pipeline to his listeners across the country.

Still, Del Percio and other Republicans say while Cruz could at the very least launch an exploratory committee, it’s unlikely he’ll gain much traction.

“I don’t see it happening now, but it doesn’t mean it can’t,” Del Percio said.

Ron DeSantis

After losing the 2024 presidential campaign, the Florida governor lost some political capital. But he has been quietly building a story he could tell on the campaign trail if he does make another bid for the White House.

“Who took a state that had more Democrats than Republicans by 300,000 when he got elected and now has 1.5 million more Republicans? Who had a state that had a trillion-dollar economy and now has $1.8 trillion?” DeSantis said at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles.

Asked at the conference if he would run in 2028, the governor replied, “You never know.”

But Republicans say the term-limited governor, who leaves office in January, won’t have a platform to command attention, so “he’s going to have to get creative,” one strategist said.

Donald Trump Jr.

While most Republicans say 2028 is really a race about two men — Vance and Rubio — early polls consistently show Trump’s eldest son in the top five of Republican contenders. And Republicans acknowledge that it makes sense.

“It’s still very much Trump’s party and voters want someone who is most like Trump, and so why not his own blood?” one strategist said. “You can’t dismiss him.”

Donald Trump Jr. has repeatedly said he has no plans to run in 2028, but he does remain among the most influential voices in the MAGA movement through both endorsements and his loud megaphone on social media.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

The Arkansas governor and former White House press secretary has been seen for some time as a presidential hopeful — particularly by those who would like to see a woman at the top of the ticket.

Republicans say she can point to her education overhaul in Arkansas that increased pay for teachers, as well as her income tax cuts in her state.

But Sanders has been hesitant to say she’s interested in wading into 2028 waters, saying she is focused on her state.

Asked by Politico about the 2028 race, she said, “It would be a mistake to focus on ’28 until we get finished with the ’26 midterms.”

Take It, Abe

“The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”

Abraham Lincoln

by Barack Obama

There isn’t any dream beyond our reach, any obstacle that can stand in our way, when we recognize that our individual liberty is served, not negated, by pursuit of the common good

Most Americans know Abraham Lincoln as a marble giant, the Great Emancipator, the president who saved the Union. But it is perhaps more instructive, and more honest, to see him as he was in the decade before he rose to the White House: a Springfield lawyer who’d served just a single term in Congress.

Possibly in his law office, his feet on a cluttered desk, his sons playing around him, his clothes a bit too small to fit his uncommon frame, he put some thoughts on paper — for what purpose we do not know. “The legitimate object of government,” he wrote, “is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”

It’s impossible to know for sure, but I suspect Lincoln’s conviction did not come from a belief that government always had the answer, or a failure to understand our individual rights and responsibilities.

Born in a log cabin of pioneer stock, Lincoln cleared a path through the woods as a boy, lost his mother and a sister to the rigors of frontier life, and taught himself everything he knew. He understood, perhaps better than anyone, what it means to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and how personal liberty and self-reliance are at the heart of the American experience.

But Lincoln also understood something else. He recognized that while each of us must do our part, work as hard as we can, and be as responsible as we can — in the end, there are certain things we cannot do on our own. There are certain things we can only do together. There are certain things only a union can do.

Only a union could harness the courage of our pioneers to settle the American west, which is why he passed a Homestead Act giving a tract of land to anyone seeking a stake in our growing economy — though at great cost to Native peoples.

Only a union could foster the ingenuity of our farmers, which is why he set up land-grant colleges that taught them how to make the most of their land while giving their children an education that let them dream the American dream.

Only a union could speed our expansion and connect our coasts with a transcontinental railroad, and so, even in the midst of civil war, he built one.

Only a union could spur innovation and ignite America’s imagination on a national scale, which is why he established a national academy of sciences, believing we must, as he put it, add “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery…of new and useful things.”

And only a union could serve the hopes of every citizen — to knock down the barriers to opportunity and give each and every person the chance to pursue the American dream.

In hindsight, this notion may seem uncontroversial. Yet Lincoln knew, better than anyone, that our union was not, and is not, inevitable. He’d witnessed how, at crucial moments, our improbable experiment in self-government nearly flickered out — and he was determined to keep the flame of liberty alive.

When the outbreak of war halted construction of the new Capitol dome, Lincoln ordered that work resume. Critics accused him of diverting resources and manpower from the war effort. But Lincoln recognized that the dome was more than a construction project. “If people see the Capitol going on,” he replied, “it is a sign that we intend the Union shall go on.”

Lincoln’s efforts went well beyond the symbolic. Throughout the fiery trial of civil war, he felt compelled to make compromises — some of them distasteful — to preserve the fragile Union. Intent on keeping the border states from seceding, Lincoln rebuffed demands from some in his party for immediate nationwide emancipation and revoked a premature emancipation order issued by one of his generals in Missouri. When Lincoln ultimately issued his own Emancipation Proclamation, he conspicuously exempted the border states. “I hope to have God on my side,” he reportedly said, “but I must have Kentucky.”

Nor was Lincoln above infringing on civil liberties when he deemed it necessary, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus, and arresting suspected secessionists in states like Maryland and Missouri. This was the price, as he saw it, of holding together an unwieldy coalition that could defeat the Confederacy.

Over the course of the war, Lincoln’s understanding of the Union deepened and expanded. What began as a constitutional battle to preserve the nation as a legal entity became, in his mind, a moral struggle over what kind of country America would be.

That evolution came into focus at Gettysburg. When Lincoln arrived there in November 1863, the rolling fields still bore the scars of one of the bloodiest battles ever fought on American soil. Workers had labored for ten days to clear the dead. Lincoln himself was exhausted and ill — “a ghastly color,” one of his cabinet secretaries observed. Edward Everett, one of the most celebrated orators in America, delivered a two-hour address. Then Lincoln rose and spoke for barely two minutes.

In just 272 short words, Lincoln transformed the meaning of the war and the Union itself.

No longer were the states mere parties to a contract, as he described them in his First Inaugural. The United States was now a nation “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The sacrifices at Gettysburg had given the Union a moral purpose beyond itself, an “unfinished work” testing whether government of the people, by the people, for the people could survive at all.

Once Lincoln came to see the Union this way, triumph on the battlefield was not enough. If the nation was to endure, it would have to emerge from war true to the ideals for which so many had fought and died. By the time Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address near the war’s end, he would call on Americans to move forward without malice, realizing that a lasting union required not only victory, but restraint; not only strength, but a sense of shared obligation to one another.

Lincoln understood what George Washington understood when he led farmers, craftsmen, and shopkeepers to rise up against an empire. What Franklin D. Roosevelt understood when he lifted us out of the Great Depression, built an arsenal of democracy, and created the largest middle-class in history with the GI Bill. What Dwight D. Eisenhower understood when he created an interstate highway system that knit together cities and towns across the country. What John F. Kennedy understood when he sent us to the moon.

All these presidents recognized that America is — and always has been — more than a band of thirteen colonies, more than a bunch of Yankees and Confederates, more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America and there isn’t any dream beyond our reach, any obstacle that can stand in our way, when we recognize that our individual liberty is served, not negated, by pursuit of the common good.

More than anything, that’s what Abraham Lincoln taught us. That union is not simply a matter of law or accident of geography, but a moral commitment we make to our fellow citizens and to our shared future. That democracies endure not only because of constitutions or armies, but because free people choose, again and again, to bind their fates together. That only by maintaining a sense of shared sacrifice and responsibility — for ourselves and one another — can we do the work that must be done in this country. And that it is precisely when the climb is steepest that we relearn how to take the mountaintop, as one nation and one people.

That’s the very definition of what it means to be American. And together, that’s how we will do what Lincoln called on us to do, and “nobly save…the last best hope of earth.”

Guilty AF

I guess my question has to do with Ex Post Facto. Is Trump "covered" by the SCOTUS Immunity Decision for actions he took before the decision was handed down?

On July 1, 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

Unfortunately, I think the default on that one is "yes".

So we'll be heading back to SmarmSpace® to argue it out all over again - ie: when Trump incited the Jan6 mob, was he acting as President Trump, or as Candidate Trump?

Today's Belle

It's Coming

But don't hold your breath.

MAGA loves nothing more than a sweet juicy conspiracy fantasy. They spent 4 years telling us Biden was dead and somebody in a mask was acting as president.

There's no reason for me not to assume they have something ready-made for when Trump finally croaks.

And it's not unreasonable to think it'll be a variation on Judge Roy Bean, and Eva Peron, and JFK Jr, and Elvis, and and and.

The cottage industry that pumps out horseshit "RealThink" will undoubtedly produce hundreds of "sightings".

• a dance club
• a golf course
• a ball game
• McDonald's
• climbing Denali
• returning from a visit to Mars with Elon

The only "saving grace" could be that whoever succeeds him will need to bury him. The new dictator really doesn't want the last guy casting any shadows.

Of course, there's always a fair shot that the new guy will claim that he's in touch with Trump - because why would you not invoke the power and authority of the Holy POTUS?

Fake lord have mercy.

Clap Back

The prick can't even be bothered

to signal the minimum respect

at the passing of a former President

Three ex-presidents denounce the current one in a two-week stretch

While presidents have been at odds before, there is often a sort of camaraderie among the small club of individuals who have served in the highest office in the land.

Barack Obama urged Americans to resist President Donald Trump’s bullying. Joe Biden warned that Trump is wrecking the “sacred promise” of Social Security. Bill Clinton decried the emphasis on grievances and the need to dominate.

In an extraordinary stretch of just over two weeks, three former presidents have taken to the public stage to sound the alarm against the current occupant of the White House, despite the tradition that former presidents generally refrain from publicly criticizing their successors.

Obama, Biden and Clinton did not explicitly name Trump, but their message was unmistakable. The three Democrats said, as much by their presence as their words, that these are unusual times for American democracy, that norms are being disregarded and extraordinary measures are required. The only living president who has not spoken out since Inauguration Day is Republican George W. Bush, though he has made little secret of his antipathy for Trump.

“Former presidents are uniquely qualified and situated to raise their voices and warn the American people if the country is taking a dangerous turn,” said Timothy Naftali, a historian at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “Think of them as a sort of advisory council to the people of the United States. And when the advisory council sounds the alarm, the people should listen.”

The ex-presidents made their statements in settings that underlined their points and their alarm.

Obama spoke on April 3 at Hamilton College in Upstate New York, one of the country’s oldest colleges, pushing back against Trump’s pursuit of universities and other institutions and urging those with resources to fight back.

“It is up to all of us to fix this,” Obama said. “It’s not going to be because somebody comes and saves you. The most important office in this democracy is the citizen, the ordinary person who says, ‘No, that’s not right.’”

Biden, speaking in Chicago on Tuesday at the national conference of Advocates, Counselors and Representatives for the Disabled, denounced Elon Musk’s cuts to Social Security, his first public remarks since leaving office. “The last thing [beneficiaries] need from their government is deliberate cruelty,” Biden said, adding, “In fewer than 100 days, this administration has done so much damage and so much devastation.”

Clinton spoke at an emotional ceremony in Oklahoma City on Saturday morning to commemorate the bombing 30 years ago of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which killed 168 people. Clinton compared the way that city has come together with the current national divisions.

“It’s like everybody is arguing about whose resentments matter most, whose resentments are more valid, when it’s okay to stretch the truth a little bit to gain an advantage,” Clinton said. “If our lives are going to be dominated by the effort to dominate the people we disagree with, we are going to put the 250-year march to a more perfect union at risk.”

Clinton praised the service of federal workers at a time when Trump is slashing the federal workforce. He also made a case for humility. “It does you good every now and then to admit you’re wrong,” he said.

It is unusual for a single president to publicly excoriate his successor, historians say, given the American tradition of seamless transfers of power and the principle that the country has one president at a time. For three to do so in such short order may be unprecedented.

“What is really significant is this is happening before the end of the first 100 days of the Trump presidency,” Naftali said. “Ordinarily, former presidents give the current president space to establish himself and learn the rules of the road. … But these presidents already see the contours of the changes that President Trump wishes to bring.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The three Democratic presidents spoke in terms of fundamental American traditions and values. But their relationship with Trump is also marked by personal animosity, as Trump has aimed attacks and insults at each of them or their family members.

He has repeatedly mocked “Sleepy Joe” Biden as a senile, elderly figure who has no idea what he is saying much of the time. Three months into his second term, Trump continues to regularly disparage Biden.

After Biden defeated him in 2020, Trump falsely claimed the election was stolen, an assertion he still clings to. He has attacked Biden’s son Hunter as a criminal and drug addict, recently ending Secret Service protection for Hunter and Biden’s daughter Ashley. (Hunter acknowledges spiraling into addiction after the death of his brother, Beau.)

When Obama first ran for president, Trump falsely suggested he had not been born in the United States, an assertion seen by many as racist. And he harshly attacked Clinton’s wife, Hillary, his opponent in the 2016 election, calling her “Crooked Hillary” as his crowds chanted, “Lock her up!”

The Democratic presidents, in turn, have said Trump’s violations of legal and democratic principles make him unfit for the presidency. Biden in 2022 called Trump supporters “a threat to our very democracy” and said the GOP under him had turned toward “semi-fascism.” He has said he ran for president in 2020 because of Trump’s support of white supremacists after violence in Charlottesville.

Obama, during the last presidential race, called Trump “a 78-year-old billionaire who has not stopped whining about his problems” and compared him to former Cuban president Fidel Castro “ranting and raving about crazy conspiracy theories.”

Clinton, who left office 24 years ago, mocked Trump’s age at the Democratic National Convention in August and again on Saturday, noting that he himself is younger. “Donald Trump — a paragon of consistency — is still dividing, blaming and belittling,” Clinton said.

This sort of rancor is not typical for the men who have held the country’s highest office. While presidents have been at odds before, there is often a sort of camaraderie in the small club of individuals who have borne the weight of the job.

After running a bitter race against each other in 1976, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford developed what Carter called “mutual respect” and “intense personal friendship,” agreeing that the longest to live would speak at the other’s funeral.

When Bush unveiled Clinton’s portrait in 2004, he spoke with affection, saying, “The years have done a lot to clarify the strengths of this man. … Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He’s a man of enthusiasm and warmth.”

Such sentiments have not been much in evidence in recent years, even as the presidents appeared together at Carter’s funeral and Trump’s inauguration, both in January.

Obama, Biden and Clinton have all seemed struck by the sheer frenzy of the first stretch of Trump’s second term. At the end of his talk on Saturday, Clinton stressed that the United States has a wealth of institutions and assets.

He asked, “Are we really going to put them at risk to prove we’re always right and our resentments are more important than someone else’s?”

A Real POTUS

Siri, show me something a real president does.

@hollywood.smooth NO HONOR OR RESPECT FROM THAT POS. #trump #honor #soldierscominghome ♬ original sound - HOLLYWOOD ★AKA★LOLO💜💙💜💙💜

Today's Trae

Trae Crowder breaks it down.

Remember This

The last paragraph from Jack Smith's report:

"The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."

Today's Quote (redux)

Teddy Roosevelt

To announce that there be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Go, Jimmy Go

Jimmy Carter is a man of kindness and grace - a man who's done well at living his values - and apparently, he's one tough motherfucker.

The Surprising Greatness of Jimmy Carter

• Carter brought more positive change to the Middle East than any president in the decades before or since
• He signed more legislation than any post–World War II president except LBJ
• He warned of the dangers of climate change before the threat even had a name
• His human rights policy played a huge and largely uncredited role in the collapse of the Soviet Union - more so, perhaps, than any policies enacted by his successor Ronald Reagan.

Jimmy Carter condition: ‘No change,’ says his grandson

• Jason Carter updated his grandfather’s condition
• Nobody expected this long in hospice care, he said
• Carter not always conscious, but still talks to family

(NewsNation) — Former President Jimmy Carter has been in hospice care for 15 months, and his grandson says there is “really no change” in his condition.

Jason Carter, the oldest of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter’s 22 grandchildren, updated the former president’s status for Southern Living magazine. He said the 99-year-old is “experiencing the world as best he can as he continues through this process.”

The average hospice stay is around 70 days, although for many it may only be a couple of weeks. Carter entered hospice care in February of 2023.

“God had other plans,” Jason Carter said about his grandfather unexpectedly hanging on for so long. Rosalynn Carter died last November. The two were married for 77 years.

“After 77 years of marriage… I just think none of us really understand what it’s like for him right now,” Jason Carter said.

The younger Carter says his grandfather isn’t awake every day, but still talks to his relatives when he is awake.

Jason Carter recently visited his grandfather, who is receiving care at his modest home in his tiny hometown of Plains, Georgia. He says the two watched an Atlanta Braves game and talked about The Carter Center, as well as the family.

“I said: ‘Pawpaw, you know, when people ask me how you’re doing, I say, ‘Honestly, I don’t know.’ And he kind of smiled and he said, ‘I don’t know, myself.’”

“It was pretty sweet,” he said.

POTUS Rankings

Presidents ranked by people who know about such things

1. Lincoln - 93.87%
2. FD Roosevelt - 90.83%
3. Washington - 90.32%
4. T Roosevelt - 78.58%
5. Jefferson - 77.53%
6. Truman - 75.34%
7. Obama - 73.8%
8. Eisenhower - 73.73%
9. LB Johnson - 72.86%
10. Kennedy - 68.37%
11. Madison - 67.16%
12. Clinton - 66.42%
13. J Adams - 62.66%
14. Biden - 62.66%
15. Wilson - 61.8%
16. Reagan - 61.62%
17. Grant - 60.93%
18. Monroe - 60.15%
19. GHW Bush - 58.54%
20. JQ Adams - 55.41%
21. Jackson - 54.7%
22. Carter - 54.26%
23. Taft - 51.67%
24. McKinley - 51.23%
25. Polk - 49.83%
26. Cleveland - 48.31%
27. Ford - 46.09%
28. Van Buren - 45.46%
29. Hayes - 41.15%
30. Garfield - 40.98%
31. Harrison - 40.64%
32. GW Bush - 40.43%
33. Arthur - 39.61%
34. Coolidge - 39.38%
35. Nixon - 36.41%
36. Hoover - 34.08%
37. Tyler - 32.99%
38. Taylor - 32.97%
39. Fillmore - 30.33%
40. Harding - 27.76%
41. Harrison - 26.01%
42. Pierce - 24.6%
43. Johnson - 21.56%
44. Buchanan - 16.71%
45. Trump - 10.92%

Today's WTF

The judge in Denver found that Trump did indeed engage in an insurrection, but somehow, she opines that doesn't disqualify him under the 14th amendment.

A face that will live in infamy

WTF, lady!?!

I think I kinda get it. Sometimes, the courts are saying "You guys in the legislature have to fix this shit so we can help you", but goddamn - this sounds like such a fucking cop out.

Donald Trump can appear on Colorado’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot, judge rules

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other parts of the country, none of which have been successful

Donald Trump incited an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but he can still appear on the Republican presidential primary ballot in Colorado next year, a Denver District Court judge ruled Friday in a case that could have national consequences.

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s 102-page ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by a liberal political nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. It argued that Trump’s role in the deadly Jan. 6 riot disqualifies him from running for president under the 14th Amendment and that he shouldn’t be allowed to appear on Colorado’s presidential primary ballot.

Section 3 of the amendment bars “officers of the Unites States” who took an “oath … to support the Constitution of the United States” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from holding federal or state office again.

Wallace found that while Trump “incited an insurrection … and therefore ‘engaged’ in an insurrection,” the 14th Amendment “does not apply to Trump” because he is not an “officer” of the United States.

“Part of the court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three,” she wrote.

Sorry not sorry, but saying Trump isn't "an officer of the government" may be true now - on Nov 17, 2023 - but on Jan6 he was President Of The United Fucking States. So your whole premise is total fucking bullshit.

Wallace’s ruling came after she heard five days of testimony, including from police officers who were at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, two congressmen and constitutional experts.

While Trump is unlikely to win the general election in Colorado in 2024 if he is the GOP nominee — he lost to President Joe Biden, a Democrat, by 13 percentage points in the state in 2020 — the ballot-access case could still have major consequences on the national stage.

The nonprofit that brought the lawsuit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, which doesn’t disclose its donors, is likely to appeal the ruling. The Colorado GOP, which fought the lawsuit, said it expects Wallace’s finding to be challenged.

Legal experts believe the questions of whether Trump should be allowed to run for president again will eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other parts of the country, none of which have been successful.

On Tuesday, Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Redford said deciding whether an event constituted “a rebellion or insurrection and whether or not someone participated in it” are questions best left to Congress and not “one single judicial officer.” A judge, he wrote, “cannot in any manner or form possibly embody the represented qualities of every citizen of the nation — as does the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

Last week, Minnesota’s Supreme Court rejected another effort to block Trump from appearing on Minnesota’s GOP primary ballot next year.

The Colorado lawsuit was brought on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated voters. The defendant was Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat whose office took a neutral stance on the case.

“The court determined that Donald Trump is eligible to be placed on the Colorado ballot in the March presidential primary,” Griswold said in a written statement on Friday. “This decision may be appealed. As secretary of state, I will always ensure that every voter can make their voice heard in free and fair elections.”

Colorado’s presidential primary will be held March 4.

Aaaaaargh!!!

Again?

Jesus H Fuq. Pretty goddamned sloppy.

Can we please stop fucking up the whole State Secrets thing?

It has to be obvious now that several somebodies in various places at various levels of government either aren't paying attention, or are actively fucking with things they're not allowed to fuck with.

Classified Documents Found at Pence’s Home in Indiana

The documents were “inadvertently boxed and transported” to the former vice president’s home at the end of the Trump administration, Mr. Pence’s representative wrote in a letter to the National Archives.

Aides to former Vice President Mike Pence found a small number of documents with classified markings at his home in Indiana during a search last week, according to an adviser to Mr. Pence.

The documents were “inadvertently boxed and transported” to Mr. Pence’s home at the end of President Donald J. Trump’s administration, Greg Jacob, Mr. Pence’s representative for dealing with records related to the presidency, wrote in a letter to the National Archives.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, 2023, said that the former vice president was unaware of the existence of the documents and reiterated that he took seriously the handling of classified materials and wanted to help.

Mr. Jacob wrote that Mr. Pence relied on an outside lawyer after classified documents were found in recent days at the residence and former private office of President Biden. Mr. Jacob also said the lawyer could not specify anything more about the documents because the lawyer had stopped looking once it was clear the documents had classified markings.

The disclosure adds more questions about how classified material is handled at the top levels of government at a moment when Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are both subjects of special counsel investigations on the matter.

Mr. Trump has been under federal investigation for nearly a year for how hundreds of documents with classified markings, as well as hundreds of pages of presidential records, wound up at his private club and residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Mr. Trump resisted the urging of aides to give boxes of documents with unknown contents to the National Archives. When he eventually turned over 15 boxes, archives officials found hundreds of pages with classified markings. Mr. Trump later faced a grand jury subpoena to turn over any remaining documents, and one of his lawyers wrote a statement saying everything had been turned over. When investigators found evidence that was not the case, the F.B.I. searched his club in August.

Mr. Biden, by contrast, has cooperated since the discovery of documents at his nonprofit offices and then his home. Mr. Jacob, who was Mr. Pence’s general counsel while he was vice president, stressed cooperation in the letter to the National Archives.

Still, aides to Mr. Pence had previously said they were confident that the vice president had not retained any classified documents after he left office.

Teddy Roosevelt, POTUS #26

On April 23, 1910 - a year after leaving office - Theodore Roosevelt gave what would become one of his greatest rhetorical triumphs.

The most famous section of his speech still resonates and inspires.

It is not the critic who counts.

A Reminder

Zachary Taylor (November 24, 1784 – July 9, 1850) was an American military leader who served as the 12th president of the United States from 1849 until his death in 1850. Taylor previously was a career officer in the United States Army, rose to the rank of major general and became a national hero as a result of his victories in the Mexican–American War. As a result, he won election to the White House despite his vague political beliefs. His top priority as president was preserving the Union. He died sixteen months into his term, having made no progress on the most divisive issue in Congress, slavery.

As president, Taylor kept his distance from Congress and his cabinet, even though partisan tensions threatened to divide the Union. Debate over the status of slavery in the Mexican Cession dominated the political agenda and led to threats of secession from Southerners. Despite being a Southerner and a slaveholder himself, Taylor did not push for the expansion of slavery, and sought sectional harmony above all other concerns. To avoid the issue of slavery, he urged settlers in New Mexico and California to bypass the territorial stage and draft constitutions for statehood, setting the stage for the Compromise of 1850. Taylor died suddenly of a stomach disease on July 9, 1850, with his administration having accomplished little aside from the ratification of the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty. Fillmore served the remainder of his term. Historians and scholars have ranked Taylor in the bottom quartile of U.S. presidents, owing in part to his short term of office (16 months), though he has been described as "more a forgettable president than a failed one".

Happy Anniversary

We can have a long hot vociferous discussion about his presidency - whether or not he did OK, or if the fact that he didn't start any shit with any other countries was a good thing or a weak thing, or if he deserved the blame for this or that, or credit for something else, or whatever.

But there's no debating the fact that Jimmy Carter is a good and decent man.

...or that he got lucky and married well.

The Rankings Are In

It seems weird, but 45* does not come last in the survey of Best Presidents.

They put him at 41st - just 3 places from the bottom.

A note, if you please: Remember that while there have been 46 "presidencies" (including Biden now), there have been only 45 men who've served as president. Grover Cleveland occupies 2 slots because his terms weren't consecutive.

C-SPAN Survey Results

Anyway - WaPo: (pay wall)

Historians just ranked the presidents. Trump wasn’t last.

Despite being impeached twice, former president Donald Trump is not the worst president in U.S. history, according to 142 presidential historians surveyed by C-SPAN, the results of which were released Wednesday.

But the survey doesn’t give Trump much to brag about either. He ranked lower than William Henry Harrison, who was only president for 31 days, and John Tyler, the only former president buried in a coffin draped with the Confederate flag.

So who ranked worse than Trump? According to the historians, presidents Franklin “Bleeding Kansas” Pierce, Andrew “First to Be Impeached” Johnson and James “Failed to Stop the Civil War” Buchanan, who came in last.

To be clear, this was an informal survey whose respondents were selected by C-SPAN, not a scientific poll. Dozens more historians were invited to complete the survey this time than in years past. C-SPAN said this was to reflect “new diversity in race, gender, age and philosophy,” but that also makes it harder to compare it to previous surveys.

Still, the respondents are all distinguished presidential historians covering a broad range of perspectives, and there are insights to gain from their collective opinions.

Even with all the new historians participating, the top and bottom rankings remained unchanged. Since 2009, the top four presidents have been: 1) Abraham Lincoln 2) George Washington 3) Franklin D. Roosevelt and 4) Theodore Roosevelt. (Washington and FDR switched places in the 2000 survey.) The bottom three have been always been Pierce, Johnson and Buchanan, in that order.

The survey is conducted only when there is a change in administration, so that each presidency can be evaluated in its entirety. The historians do not rank the presidents themselves. Instead they are asked to rate each president from 1 to 10 on 10 leadership categories; the averages of all of the ratings are then ranked. The 10 categories are public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursuit of equal justice for all and performance within the context of the times.

Trump got his best average rating on public persuasion, in which he came in 32nd. On moral authority and administrative skills, however, he came in dead last.

Alexis Coe is one of the historians invited to do the survey for the first time, after her well-regarded 2020 book “You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington.” In her newsletter, she said she “jumped for joy” when she received the survey, then “agonized over every rating” for months. What about vision/setting an agenda for James K. Polk, who brought enslaved people to the White House and also annexed Texas? Warren G. Harding certainly rates low on moral authority, she wrote, but how low for his policies and how low for cheating on the first lady?

“I’ve yet to study a president who’s a perfect 10,” Coe wrote.

The president whose reputation has improved the most in the past two decades? That’s Ulysses S. Grant, who started at No. 33 and is now ranked 20th. Grant has had a number of sympathetic biographies in recent years, and these days gets more credit for Reconstruction and his diplomacy than condemnation for his alleged corruption.

No president has fallen quite as much as Grant rose in the same period; but Trump-favorite Andrew Jackson fell the most, from No. 13 to No. 22. It is perhaps a reflection of changing attitudes in the public. Soon Jackson may fall right off the $20 bill.

Other interesting patterns reveal themselves in the rankings. The five presidents from 1933 to 1969 — FDR, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson — rank in the top 11, making it the best stretch of presidents historians say America has had. The worst stretch came from 1837 to 1869, with the notable exception of four-time champion Lincoln.

In 2017, former president Barack Obama entered the ranking at No. 12, though Howard University historian Edna Greene Medford warned The Washington Post at the time that “historians prefer to view the past from a distance, and only time will reveal his legacy.” Four years later, a little distance seems to be doing Obama’s legacy good — he is now ranked No. 10.

President Biden will not be included in the C-SPAN survey until he has left office.

C-SPAN is not the only outfit conducting presidential rankings, and other recent surveys have included Trump before he left office. In 2018, when Boise State University surveyed presidential scholars for its Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness survey, Trump came in last. And that was before the two impeachments, the coronavirus pandemic and the Capitol insurrection.

Read more Retropolis:

The 10 worst presidents: Besides Trump, whom do scholars scorn the most?
‘A hack job,’ ‘outright lies’: Trump commission’s ‘1776 Report’ outrages historians
The 10th president’s last surviving grandson: A bridge to the nation’s complicated past
‘His Accidency’: The first president to die in office and the constitutional confusion

AKA: Consciousness Of Guilt

Glenn Kirschner, on Bill Barr's interview in The Atlantic:

And be sure to catch the Mitch McConnell piece of it (starting at about 6:50).

These guys crooked as fuck. I'll go ahead with a blanket condemnation, saying all politicians are first and foremost concerned with gaining and keep and wielding power. The cliche is true - you can't do as much if you don't win the election.

OK fine, but when you have to stay in power in order to stay out of prison, you've taken things just a few steps too far.

How We Got Here

Joe Biden is one of those guys who sees the shit that goes on and tries to do something about it.

If he can be faulted for anything, it's that his sense of indignation-spurring-immediacy has made him a little over-reactive in the past.

I think his instincts are good, especially those for peace-making, but he can come off as a little impetuous, and as a painter of blue skies and rainbows.

And if he manages to stay out of the trap where you end up totally uncool for having tried to be cool, then he's got a real shot.

The really good news so far is that he's able to choose his gang from a huge talent pool of qualified professionals who're eager to jump in and serve.

We'll see.

NYT: (pay wall)

Susan Bro recognized the palpable anger and open bigotry on display in the mob that attacked the United States Capitol this month. It reminded her of the outpouring of hate that killed her daughter, Heather Heyer.

That was in 2017, when white supremacists, self-avowed neo-Nazis and right-wing militias marched on Charlottesville in the name of intolerance — and former President Donald Trump — and one of them drove a car into a crowd, fatally injuring Ms. Heyer. More than three years later, Ms. Bro and other Charlottesville residents say they have a message for the nation after the latest episode of white violence in Washington, and for President Biden, who is emphasizing themes of healing and unity in the face of right-wing extremism.

Healing requires holding perpetrators accountable, Ms. Bro said. Unity follows justice.

“Look at the lessons learned from Charlottesville,” she said. “The rush to hug each other and sing ‘Kumbaya’ is not an effective strategy.”

The Capitol attack and Mr. Trump’s handling of it felt eerily familiar to many residents of Charlottesville, where the 2017 Unite the Right rally not only forever tied the former president to violence committed by white extremists, but also inspired Mr. Biden to run for president and undertake “a battle for the soul of this nation.”

After the rally and Ms. Heyer’s death, Mr. Trump declared that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the conflict and defended the actions of the right-wing mob. It was all a harbinger of things to come: the mix of misinformation and prejudice that Mr. Trump had inspired among a segment of Republicans; the reliance on false equivalency with progressive protesters; the willingness to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to inflame tensions; and the continued episodes of violence.

Charlottesville also showed the electoral backlash that Mr. Trump’s actions inspired, and how a movement to affirm multiracial democracy has grown in response to threats. Locally, a surge of activism helped elect the city’s first Black female mayor, Nikuyah Walker, and changes have been instituted like the creation of a civilian review police board.

Mr. Biden regularly invoked Charlottesville during a campaign in which he reclaimed five states that Mr. Trump had won in 2016. And though Mr. Biden nodded to the violence here and at the Capitol during his inaugural address on Wednesday, he framed the solutions in the sort of terms that Ms. Bro questioned, demonstrating a belief that kindness and compassion could overcome systemic discrimination.

“I know speaking of unity can sound to some like a foolish fantasy these days,” Mr. Biden said. “I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real. But I also know they are not new. Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we all are created equal, and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear and demonization have long torn us apart.”

Mr. Biden’s tone was echoed by several other inaugural speakers, who delivered a clear and unified message: Democracy was tested in Mr. Trump’s administration, through events like the mob violence in Charlottesville and Washington. They argued that Mr. Biden had been elected to directly confront it — and that he knew the gravity of the challenge.

“We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature,” Mr. Biden said. “For without unity, there is no peace — only bitterness and fury.”

But in interviews this week, Charlottesville activists, religious leaders and civil rights groups who endured the events of 2017 urged Mr. Biden and the Democratic Party to go beyond seeing unity as the ultimate political goal and prioritize a sense of justice that uplifts the historically marginalized. When Mr. Biden called Ms. Bro on the day he entered the presidential race in 2019, she pressed him on his policy commitments to correcting racial inequities. She declined to endorse him, she said, focused more on supporting the antiracism movement than any individual candidate.

Local leaders say this is the legacy of the “Summer of Hate,” as the white supremacist actions and violence of 2017 are known in Charlottesville. When the election of Mr. Trump and the violence that followed punctured the myth of a post-racial America, particularly among white liberals, these leaders committed themselves to the long arc of insulating democracy from white supremacy and misinformation.