Tuesday
Feb042020
The Commentariat -- February 5, 2020
Late Morning/Afternoon Update:
Mrs. McCrabbie @12:30 pm ET Wednesday: Looks as if the Iowa Democratic party has gone on vacation. It's been more than 12 hours since they updated results; they still have reported on 71% of the results of an election that ended Monday night. Update: The party has reported more results this afternoon. Nearly 85% of the caucus results now have been reported.
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "The Senate acquitted President Trump on Wednesday of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress, as Republicans turned back an election-year attempt by House Democrats to remove him from office for pressuring a foreign power to incriminate his political rivals. The tally for conviction fell far below the 67-vote threshold necessary for removal and neither article of impeachment garnered even a simple majority. The first article, abuse of power, was rejected 48 to 52, and the second, obstruction of Congress, was defeated 47 to 53. Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, was the only member to break with his party, voting to remove Mr. Trump from office." The Guardian's story, by Tom McCarthy, is here.
~~~ Neal Katyal & Joshua Geltzer in a New York Times op-ed: "The vote to acquit President Trump was a dark day for the Senate. Uninterested in hearing from witnesses (and likely scared by what they would say), uncritical of outrageous legal arguments made by the president's lawyers and apparently unconcerned about the damage Mr. Trump has done to the integrity of America's elections, a majority of senators insisted on looking the other way and letting him off the hook for a classic impeachable offense: abuse of public office for private gain.... But ... This impeachment ... was a process, and that process yielded a public education of extraordinary value."
~~~ Thanks to PD Pepe for the link. ~~~
~~~ Mitt Stands Alone -- the Sole Republican Patriot. Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said he would vote to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abuse of power, describing his actions as an 'appalling abuse of public trust.' In a stunning break with his party, Romney became the first Republican to say that he would find Trump guilty of an impeachment charge, with his remarks coming just hours before the Senate was set to vote. 'The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did,' Romney said in remarks on the Senate floor. Not a single GOP senator was in attendance for Romney's somber remarks on the floor and only a few Democrats were on hand in the chamber." ~~~
~~~ Burgess Everett of Politico: "Mitt Romney brought a stunning twist to the end of ... Donald Trump's impeachment trial: A bipartisan vote to convict the president on charges of abuse of power. The Wednesday announcement by the Utah Republican made him the only member of the GOP to break with the president and his party on the crucial question of whether Trump deserved to be removed from office. The 2012 Republican nominee said he was left with no other options, regardless of the volcanic reaction instantly delivered by some of the president's supporters." ~~~
~~~ Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "No senator ever voted to remove a president of his party from office. Until Mitt Romney.... What's particularly remarkable about Romney's decision is the political environment in which it comes. Congress is much more polarized now than it was for the Johnson or Clinton impeachments. So is the electorate: Data from Gallup released on the day Trump's impeachment trial began show that the gap in approval of Trump between the parties is wider than it has been for any president on record.... Also noteworthy: The total in favor of Trump's acquittal is itself entirely partisan. Only Republicans voted Trump not guilty on the impeachment charges -- the first time no members of the opposing party have voted with the president. The votes to convict will come from Democrats, independents and a Republican." ~~~
~~~ Alexander Bolton: "Sen. Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat whose home state of West Virginia gave President Trump his biggest margin of victory in 2016, said he would vote Wednesday with other Senate Democrats to convict the president on two articles of impeachment. 'The charges brought against President Trump are serious and carry grave consequences for our nation,' he said. 'The evidence presented by the House Managers, including video testimony of witnesses under oath in the House of Representatives, clearly supports the charges brought against the President in the articles of impeachment,' he added. Manchin's decision is a setback for Trump who was hoping to be able to point to a bipartisan acquittal in the Senate trial." ~~~
~~~ Rebecca Klar of the Hill: "Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) said she would vote to to convict President Trump on both House impeachment charges, stating shortly before the Senate vote that the facts were clear that Trump had withheld security aid from Ukraine for personal gain. 'Today, I vote to approve both articles, as my highest duty, and my greatest love, is to our nation's Constitution,' Sinema said in a statement first shared with The Arizona Republic." ~~~
~~~ Profile in Courage (Even though Jones Says It Isn't). Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), viewed as the most vulnerable Senate Democrat running in November, said on Wednesday that he will vote to convict President Trump on both articles of impeachment. 'After many sleepless nights, I have reluctantly concluded that the evidence is sufficient to convict the President for both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,' he said in a statement. Jones's announcement comes hours before the Senate's votes on the two House-passed articles of impeachment: abuse of power over the delayed Ukraine aid and obstructing Congress's investigations into those actions." ~~~
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in a New York Times op-ed: "In private, many of my [Republican] colleagues agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out.... I have asked some of them, 'If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?' Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks. They will not say that they are afraid.... But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause -- those tax cuts -- but often it's a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured by fear."
Cristina Marcos of the Hill: "House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that it is 'likely' that the House will issue a subpoena to President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton."
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ OR NOT ~~~
The New York Times has Iowa vote totals, so far, here and on the front page. Early this morning, the party dumped another batch of results, bringing the total to about 71% of the count. The new batch left the candidates' percents of the vote unchanged.
** Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: Iowa Democratic party chairman Troy Price said in remarks beginning just before 5 pm ET Tuesday that they would be reporting 62 percent of results from all 99 counties, with more "batches" of results to follow. I'll get a print report up ASAP. The results are showing first preferences, final preference and maybe delegate counts. Looks as if, on the delegate count, it's Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren, Biden, Klobuchar, in that order. BUT ~~~
~~~ Politico's report (as well as the NYT report far down the page) also shows the popular vote count, and with about 62% reporting, Sanders edges out Buttigieg, & Warren is quite a bit ahead of Biden & Klobuchar.
The New York Times' latest liveblog is here. This includes some info on the caucus count that's been released. ~~~
~~~ The Washington Post's liveblog is here. And here's the Guardian's. The Guardian posts a link to the newest Gallup poll that shows Trump's approval rating at the highest evah. (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ An earlier (but not yet dead) New York Times' liveblog is here (link corrected).
Bill Barrow & Brian Slodysko of the AP: "Joe Biden's third presidential bid enters a critical stretch after a disappointing finish in the Iowa caucuses sent the former vice president on to New Hampshire with a skittish donor base, low cash reserves and the looming threat of billionaire rival Michael Bloomberg and his unlimited personal wealth.... That leaves some establishment Democrats, including some Biden supporters, questioning his contention that he'll reclaim clear front-runner status in the race against ... Donald Trump once the primary fight moves beyond overwhelmingly white Iowa and New to more racially diverse electorates. And it's a reminder of how Biden's previous presidential campaigns never advanced beyond Iowa."
Elizabeth Bruenig of the New York Times in an op-ed: "With Mr. Biden's front-runner status compromised, Mr. Sanders emerges from Iowa as a formidable candidate -- without establishment imprimatur.... Mr. Sanders's strong showing ... is a powerful repudiation of establishment hegemony -- and an inflection point in the battle between the party's center and left wing.... It is difficult to see a robust centrist victory in the months ahead." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Based on the most recent (early Wednesday morning) Iowa reporting, if you consider only the top four candidates, then the progressives Sanders & Warren received far more votes than more moderate Buttigieg & Biden: 58,600 to 48,000. But if you add Klobuchar's votes to the Buttigieg-Biden total, the number is 63,600, demonstrating that centrists received more votes than progressives.
Jennifer Medina & Alexander Burns of the New York Times: "Michael R. Bloomberg's presidential campaign moved on Tuesday to exploit the chaotic outcome of the Iowa caucuses, escalating an already enormous campaign of television advertising and publicly making the case that a messy outcome in the early states opened the way for Mr. Bloomberg.... Encouraged by the murky outcome, Mr. Bloomberg authorized his campaign team to double his spending on television commercials in every market where he is currently advertising and expand his campaign's field staff to more than two thousand people, strategists involved in the conversations said." An AP story is here.
Jamie Lovegrove of the Charleston, S.C., Post & Courier: "A group of prominent Upstate Republicans is preparing to launch a wide-scale effort this week to encourage GOP voters across South Carolina to vote for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Feb. 29 Democratic primary, The Post and Courier has learned. The Republican plan to impact the Democratic race, emerging just weeks before the 'First in the South' primary, has two goals: Boost the candidate who the Republicans believe presents the weakest general election threat to ... Donald Trump and pressure Democrats to support closing state primaries in the future. South Carolina has open primaries, meaning voters do not have to register by party and can participate in either party's contest.&"
Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post has this right: "... the most important tally of the night has been reported, and it should worry Democrats. Even as the Iowa Democratic Party was trying to sort out the chaos in its reporting system, a party official announced that turnout was 'on pace' with what they had seen in 2016. In other words, it was mediocre. About 170,000 people participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses, far short of the unprecedented 240,000 voters who turned out in 2008 and launched Barack Obama on his way to the White House. What was so exciting a dozen years ago was not only how many Iowans showed up, but who they were: young people, first-time caucusgoers, an ethnically diverse mix of voters in an overwhelmingly white state." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ David Siders of Politico agrees.
Nate Silver of 538 explains why Iowa "might have screwed up the whole nomination process[:]... The lead story around the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses is now -- and will forever be -- the colossal shitshow around the failure to release results in a timely fashion. Maybe there will eventually be a decent-sized Iowa bounce despite all of this. But there's a good chance that the candidates who did well in Iowa get screwed, and the candidates who did poorly there get a mulligan.... There's very little importance in a mathematical sense to who wins 41 delegates. Iowa is all about the media narrative it produces and all about momentum, and that momentum, whoever wins, is likely to have been blunted." (Also linked yesterday.)
Steve Peoples, et al., of the AP: "The Iowa Democratic Party said Monday night that results from the state's first-in-the-nation caucus were greatly delayed due to 'quality checks' and new reporting rules, an embarrassing complication that added a new layer of doubt to an already uncertain presidential primary season.... Long before any significant results were released, the candidates pressed ahead with post-election rallies claiming momentum." Mrs. McC: With no results announced, Pete Buttigieg delivered a speech implying he had won. Since there's more than one way to "win" in Iowa, he may be right. Besides, why not claim the prize? Klobuchar's campaign chairman said their internal count shows Klobuchar matched or bested Biden. (Also linked yesterday.)
Quint Forgey of Politico: "Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders each declared triumph -- and war on each other -- after a technical meltdown prevented the release of results from the Iowa caucuses, plunging the Democratic field into chaos. The former South Bend mayor was the most aggressive out of the gates, anointing himself 'victorious' in a speech to supporters and releasing unverified internal counts that the campaign said showed it was 'on our way to winning' the delegate count.... Sanders' campaign quickly followed suit, releasing its own unverified internal caucus numbers that portrayed the Vermont senator with a sizable lead in the Iowa delegate race." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Natasha Korecki, et al., of Politico: "The biggest 'winner' might have been Joe Biden. According to the Iowa entrance poll, he was hovering close to the viability threshold of 15 percent statewide. But the questions surrounding the vote-counting served to obscure a potentially poor performance. The former vice president, facing potentially ugly headlines going into New Hampshire and beyond, couldn't get out of Iowa fast enough." (Also linked yesterday.)
Not Ready for Prime Time. Not Meant to Be Ready for Prime Time. Nick Statt of the Verge: Shadow, the company that built the poorly-performing app, deployed the app only as a beta test designed to discover bugs and lacking proper authentication & encryption software, not as a finished product. "... it looks like the company used the version of TestFairy anyone can try for free, which deletes any app data after 30 days and limits the number of test users that can access the app to 200.... According to the NYT, Shadow was also building tools for the Nevada Democratic Party, but earlier this morning, the Nevada party said it would no longer be using Shadow for its upcoming primary." ~~~
~~~ Alexis Madrigal of the Atlantic: "Shadow incorporated only in September, meaning that a crucial piece of the Iowa caucus was in the hands of a company that was technically five months old. Despite serious warnings from experts, Iowa's Democratic Party handed part of its election infrastructure to a highly networked start-up with a handful of engineers building an entirely untried app. The resulting mess shows the deeply interconnected nature of political operatives and the risks of chasing the newest new thing.... The biggest question is: Why and how did an unproven company end up building this one-off caucus app, which seems entirely distinct from its primary work?... The problem with conspiracy theories, though, is that they assume high levels of coordination and competence. Look around and that seems far-fetched." Madrigal outlines some of the interrelationships among the perps, like their connections to Clinton & Buttigieg and the fact that they're married to each other or brothers. ~~~
~~~ Nick Corasaniti, et al., of the New York Times: "The app that the Iowa Democratic Party commissioned to tabulate and report results from the caucuses on Monday was not properly tested at a statewide scale, said people who were briefed on the app by the state party. It was quickly put together in just the past two months, said the people, some of whom asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak publicly. And the party decided to use the app only after another proposal for reporting votes -- which entailed having caucus participants call in their votes over the phone -- was abandoned, on the advice of Democratic National Committee officials, according to David Jefferson, a board member of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan election integrity organization." Read on. There were quite a few top chefs pissing in this broth; it was a recipe for epic fail, partly because none of the chefs even bothered to taste the broth. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: Is this going to be the second presidential election in succession where Democrats lose because they can't handle technology? And -- as comes as no surprise to me -- the second where the DNC is one of the culprits. New York's Intelligencer kinda captures the chaos. Scroll down the page (it won't be there forever). ~~~
~~~ Matthew Rosenberg, et al., of the New York Times: "The faulty smartphone app behind the chaotic aftermath of Iowa's Democratic caucuses was the work of a little-known company called Shadow Inc. that was founded by veterans of Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential campaign, and whose previous work was marked by a string of failures, including a near bankruptcy. The app grew out of a broader push by Democrats, backed by tens of millions of dollars in donor money, to match the Republicans' prowess in digital advertising and organizing after the 2016 election. Much of the energy and investment have gone into enterprises that are intended to both boost the Democrats' digital game and turn a profit, like Shadow." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: The NYT reporters note that Shadow's major investor is a [dark-money] nonprofit called Acronym, and one of Acronym's board member is 2008 Obama campaign guru David Plouffe. MSNBC had Plouffe on for several hours Tuesday as an expert pundit on all things Iowa. Plouffe, to my recollection, expressed shock & chin-scratching concern that the Iowa party had so badly screwed up reporting caucus results. When Chris Hayes asked him about Shadow, Plouffe said he knew "absolutely nothing about it."
Saying the Stupid Stuff Out Loud. Will Sommer of the Daily Beast: "Donald Trump's closest allies seized on Iowa's caucus woes on Tuesday to promote conspiracy theories about a 'rigged' process, and some Democrats lapped it up. 'The fix is in...AGAIN,' Donald Trump Jr. tweeted.... 'Mark my words, they are rigging this thing,' Eric Trump tweeted. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) ... trott[ed] out a connect-the-dots theory that sounded like it was ripped from a Scandal script. Democrats, he suggested, had suppressed a newspaper poll and then orchestrated a technical glitch to cover up a poor showing by Joe Biden.... Sanders supporters promoted hashtags like '#MayorCheat' and '#CIAPete,' a reference to conspiracy theories that Buttigieg is a CIA operative.... Much of the speculation has focused on Shadow, the obscure Democratic tech firm that designed the Iowa reporting app. Both Biden and Buttigieg's campaigns have previously paid Shadow, which was launched by Democratic dark money group ACRONYM, providing grist for conspiracy theorists' suspicious that the app's developers were biased against Sanders. Sanders fans also pointed out that Shadow CEO Gerard Niemira worked on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign." Read on for more inventive theories. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: My own conspiracy theory is one Libby Watson points to in the essay linked next: "that incredibly important functions in the Democratic Party are handed out to people with the right connections instead of the right expertise, and that those sorts of decisions can lead to massive screw-ups." (The NYT story, by Rosenberg, et al., linked above, backs up Watson.) The Democratic party establishment, just like the GOP establishment, is a clique corrupted by its false assumption that its elite friends are uniquely talented & deserve to be rewarded for their (fake) superiority. Even glaring evidence against this righteous belief will not shake them. Hillary Clinton is the avatar for this belief system, and 50 years of fuck-ups have shaken neither her faith nor the faith of her followers. They keep on keepin' on. ~~~
~~~ Libby Watson of the New Republic: "After Monday night's debacle, it is time to recognize that -- quirky and charming though we may find it -- there is too much at stake to continue treating the crucial first step of the Democratic nominating contest as an opportunity to play Model UN with our democracy.... a ridiculous and antiquated process, in which delegates can be won or lost depending on how loudly a person can shout across a high school gymnasium, which awards few delegates but feeds the already-gluttonous media beast.... The fact that we are still waiting to find out who won is largely due to the failure of a Democratic Party-endorsed app.... Every aspect of this misadventure warrants further investigation." ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait takes a more benign view, calling the clusterfuck "a banal organizational failure" and compares the Democratic "process" to Monty Python's lampoon in Holy Grail: "'We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune,' a peasant explains to the impatient King Arthur. 'We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major ...')" Chait blames Bernie & Bernie bros for forcing the party to complicate the count.
Eric Levitz of New York: "The 'first-in-the-nation' Iowa caucuses died Monday night after a protracted battle with advanced-stage omnishambles. Or so we can hope. Iowa's eccentric, endearing -- and wildly anti-democratic -- nominating contest has always been an indefensible institution. There is no reason why the most politically-engaged and/or time-rich citizens of America's 31st most populous state should have the power to veto presidential candidates before anyone else in the country has a say. And yet, few of Iowa's bitterest critics ever dreamed it would subject the country to something like this." (Also linked yesterday.)
This is the pre-SOTU edition of New York Times' reporter Peter Baker's take. I'm leaving it up as is because of some of the content emphasized. (There's a post-SOTU edition linked below): "President Trump will take the rostrum in the House chamber on Tuesday night to deliver his annual State of the Union address, making the case for his presidency even as he fends off charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in a Senate impeachment trial.... Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that he plans a low-key State of the Union address..., telling network anchors that he will reference the impeachment trial that is still underway without dwelling on it, according to people in the room. While low-key is not a phrase often applied to Mr. Trump, he has in past State of the Union addresses stuck close to his script and avoided the more incendiary language he uses in other settings. This time, he told the anchors, he plans to save his thoughts on impeachment for a separate speech he wants to give after the final vote on Wednesday, when the Senate is poised to acquit him." A Politico story is here.
Patricia Mazzei & Catie Edmondson of the New York Times: "Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said on Tuesday that she would vote to acquit President Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, calling his conduct 'wrong' but saying she could not support removing him from office." ~~~
~~~ Grace Segers of CBS News: "Republican Senator Susan Collins announced Tuesday she will vote to acquit President Trump in his Senate trial, telling CBS News she believes the president has learned a 'pretty big lesson' from impeachment and will be 'much more cautious' about seeking foreign assistance in the future." Mrs. McC: "He won't do again what he's always done" is apparently Collins' fallback rationale whenever she wants to pretend she's principled. She used it in her pivotal vote placing Brett Kavanaugh on The Supreme Court (of course in the first abortion-related case that passed across the bench, Brett voted with the anti-abortion "justices"). She and many of her GOP colleagues are like parents who choose to believe that their wayward children are "good boys" who will keep their promises to reform. The difference? Trump didn't even bother to make a hollow promise; rather, he said he would do it again. And he will. Thursday.
The Littlest Prick. Kyle Cheney & Burgess Everett of Politico: "Sen. Rand Paul read aloud the name of the alleged whistleblower who first raised alarms about ... Donald Trump's conduct toward Ukraine. And most Republicans didn't seem to care. After being denied by Chief Justice John Roberts last week, Paul used a period reserved for senators' impeachment speeches to read aloud the name of an intelligence community official alleged to be the whistleblower.... It's the type of move that might have prompted a backlash from within his own party not too long ago, and several senators said they would not have done it. But after three weeks of the impeachment trial and with Trump's firm grip over the party, there was little blowback from his colleagues on Tuesday.... Under the Constitution, Paul's own speech is protected on the Senate floor. That means 'he can do whatever he wants on the floor,' said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)."
The Washington Post's liveblog of impeachment developments is here.
Kyle Cheney & Andrew Desiderio of Politico: "An Arizona man indicted in October for threatening to kill Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told police he was likely reacting to a Fox News segment when he left the alcohol-fueled voicemail, according to newly filed court documents. Jan Peter Meister, a convicted sex offender with a long rap sheet, was indicted on Oct. 23, 2019 for leaving the voicemail with Schiff's Washington, D.C. office. After a search of Meister's residence, prosecutors also charged him with illegal possession of firearms, including a loaded .380 caliber handgun, a 9mm handgun and an American Tactical Rifle, along with 700 rounds of ammunition."
Peter Baker of the New York Times reports the "highlights" of Trump's State of the Union speech (also linked above):
"It was a night of awkward encounters and pointed snubs. As he arrived at the rostrum, Mr. Trump turned to hand copies of his speech to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence but when Ms. Pelosi offered her hand to shake, he turned away without taking it. She shrugged. Moments later, Ms. Pelosi announced Mr. Trump to the assembled lawmakers with the simple words, 'Members of Congress, the president of the United States' -- eschewing the more florid language that speakers, including her, have used in the past.... The snubbing continued right until Mr. Trump finished speaking, when Ms. Pelosi stood, an expression of vague disgust on her face, and tore up her copy of the speech -- in full view of the television cameras, while Mr. Trump had his back turned.
"Some of [Trump's] moves seemed cribbed straight from daytime television: bringing home a soldier from Afghanistan and reuniting him with his family, awarding a nine-year-old girl with a scholarship, and awarding the conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- complete with a ceremony in the First Lady's box." ~~~
~~~ Matt Fuller of the Huffington Post: "Delivered in a House chamber that had impeached him less than seven weeks ago, Trump ... mostly stuck to the teleprompter, delivering crafted lines peppered with an assortment of lies and half-truths. But Trump also stoked his normal partisan cheers, with sections of his speech focused on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, arresting undocumented immigrants, and attacking progressive health care proposals as dangerous socialism ― even saying that '132 lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system.' During his roughly 80-minute speech, Trump didn't bother striking much of a bipartisan tone, and he managed to spin some of his least populist policies as popular wins. At one point, he touted 7 million people 'coming off' of food stamps and 10 million people being 'lifted off' of welfare, an interesting way to describe kicking millions of people off of social programs.... GOP lawmakers routinely interrupted his speech to cheer everything Trump said." ~~~
~~~ Amber Phillips & Kristina Orrego of the Washington Post have the full transcript as delivered, annotated. Vox has the prepared transcript here.
~~~ Kevin Drum of Mother Jones liveblogged the speech, too. ~~~
~~~ Jim Newell of Slate: "The speech is being described as a Trumpian reality show for its assortment of stunt-pegged character call-outs in the gallery. It was more of a variety show, though, divided into alternating segments of election-season appeals to the middle, gags, and abrupt fascism." ~~~
~~~ Annie Lowrey of the Atlantic: "The White House has far less control over the economy than generally assumed. And Trump's signature economic legislation, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), has not provided anything like the economic 'rocket fuel' the Republican White House promised, particularly not for blue-collar workers in the heartland.Contrary to Trump's crowing at the State of the Union, the country's growth performance is not unusual or extraordinary.... Indeed, the economy remains on pretty much the exact same growth path it has taken for the past decade.... Trump inherited a decent economy that continues to be decent, and has managed to avoid tipping it into a recession. The state of the union, in economic terms, is okay. But the really good news for Trump is that voters seem to credit him with today's growth, and are likely to reward him for it in November." ~~~
~~~ Jordan Weissmann of Slate provides a bunch of economic charts to make Lowrey's point. They're worth beholding. ~~~
~~~ Fred Kaplan of Slate: "President Trump spent little time on foreign policy in his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, but nearly everything he said on the subject was wrong." Kaplan then scrolls thru a litany of the wrong stuff Trump said. "'Our job,' Trump said, reciting his campaign slogan, 'is to put America first.' This is less profound than he pretends. None of his rival politicians believe in putting America second. Where they differ is with Trump's concept of 'America first,' which has left America alone."
~~~ Christina Cauterucci of Slate: "Trump used an actual toddler to stoke fear about abortion" at the SOTU. "Trump and the pro-lifers who love him often equate fetuses with toddlers in an attempt to portray abortion as murder. On live TV, Trump directed the nation's attention to an actual toddler to do it.... Opponents of abortion rights love this type of juxtaposition, which suggests that women who choose abortion and the grateful parents of young children are somehow on opposing sides of an issue -- as if advocates for reproductive rights don't want premature infants to survive.... Banning abortion wouldn't do anything to help premature infants survive, but it would make it harder for women to govern their own lives -- to decide when, whether, and how to become parents." ~~~
~~~ Josh Boak & Hope Yen of the AP: "... Donald Trump's portrayal of American renewal Tuesday night drew on falsehoods about American energy supremacy, health care and the economy as well as distortions about his predecessor's record. The Associated Press fact-checked remarks from Trump's State of the Union speech." The reporters take "a look at some of the [false] claims."
Trump Hosts the "News" Quislings. Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast: "Much to the disappointment of folks at CNN, nobody at [Donald Trump's pre-SOTU lunch for news organizations] -- who included NBC's Lester Holt and Chuck Todd, ABC's David Muir and George Stephanopoulos, and CBS's Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan -- bothered to ask why the president had gone out of his way to exclude the cable network run by Trump's former friend Jeff Zucker. 'MSDNC isn't here as well,' Trump quipped -- to polite chuckles but zero protests (not even by ... MSNBC anchor Todd) from his captive audience, who were there ostensibly for a briefing on tonight's State of the Union address but instead were treated to a lot of presidential boasting about his poll numbers and the 'through-the-roof' stock market, and a lot of gloating about the 'fiasco' of Iowa's Democratic caucuses and the general disarray in the out-of-power party.... A good time was had by all." ~~~
~~~ Democracy Dies in Complicity. David Bauder of the AP: "The White House excluded CNN on Tuesday from its annual off-the-record briefing with television news personalities prior to the State of the Union address with no public protest from the network or any other journalists who attended. No news organization boycotted the event to show support for CNN, in contrast to the British journalists who walked out of a Monday meeting with an aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson to back competitors who were being kept from the session." ~~~
~~~ Kaitlan Collins, et al., of CNN: "... Donald Trump trashed former national security adviser John Bolton and handicapped the 2020 Democratic primary race as part of a wide-ranging off-the-record lunch with anchors from major news networks on Tuesday ahead of his State of the Union address.... The conversation is considered off the record, but CNN was excluded this year, and therefore did not agree to the mandate.... Trump characterized Bolton as a turncoat who used his position inside the West Wing to try to advance himself rather than serve the President. And he mocked him for always wanting to be referred to as 'ambassador,' the person said.... Trump said there should be a criminal penalty if Bolton publishes [his] book and he should not be allowed to use the ambassador title.... Trump called Sen. Bernie Sanders 'nasty,' but despite Joe Biden's apparent floundering in Iowa, he remained fixated on the former vice president and his perceived misdeeds in Ukraine, despite the lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Trump spoke for a long time about Biden's son, Hunter, and his dealings with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, characterizing both Bidens as corrupt, accusation that are at the heart of his impeachment trial."
Matthew Choi of Politico: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer hit back at ... Donald Trump's 'blue collar boom' Tuesday night in her Democratic response to the president's third annual address before Congress. The Democratic governor, who was selected by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver the Democrats' answer to Trump&'s address, focused on economic issues to counter the president's message of unprecedented economic growth.... 'Instead of talking about what he is saying, I'm going to highlight what Democrats are doing,' she said.... Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) offered the Spanish-language response and focused on similar themes. Escobar represents El Paso, a city shaken by a mass shooting in August that was targeted against the city's Latino community. Escobar lamented the state of health care in Texas, but offered an optimistic message centered on Democrats' efforts to lower drug costs and shore-up protections for people with pre-existing conditions."
Gabby Orr, et al., of Politico: "... Donald Trump plans to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- the highest civilian award in the U.S. -- to conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh after learning of his advanced cancer diagnosis, the president told television anchors at a private lunch.... A Florida resident himself, Limbaugh has repeatedly been spotted golfing with Trump at the president's Mar-a-Lago beach club and dining at the clubhouse afterwards." Update: Trump conferred the medal at the SOTU.
News Lede
New York Times: "Kirk Douglas, one of the last surviving movie stars from Hollywood's golden age, whose rugged good looks and muscular intensity made him a commanding presence in celebrated films like 'Lust for Life,' 'Spartacus' and 'Paths of Glory,' died on Wednesday at his home in Beverly Hills, Calif. He was 103."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (18)
A note from Goldilocks on the Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren 1-2-3 (as the Iowa results stand at 5:30 pm ET): "This candidate is too young. This candidate is too old. This candidate is just right."
Beyond tarnished. Beyond forever stained.
The Pretender will award the Presidential Medal of Free for White People to the baggiest of nasty wind bags.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/04/politics/rush-limbaugh-donald-trump-medal-of-freedom/index.html
@Ken W.: I think it's okay if we just change the spelling to Freee-dumb.
I want to point out something that is not being clearly presented in news media.
We have seen the death toll go from around 125 to 250 to nearly 500, which is indeed super scary, but I at least cannot find out how much time has elapsed between these numbers, and what - at the time of the reported deaths - the numbers were for how many people had the virus.
I don't see how they decided what the incubation time is. It does seem to be 14 days. That seems to be a little longer than, say, rubeola; but maybe within the time frame for the flu. But would be nice to hear a coherent description of the natural course of the illness.
I'm not talking medicine here; I want to know about something that might have serious effects on economies and policy. If people are not talking about it, it only serves to increase people's anxiety.
Remember, the government at the time of the 1918 pandemic forbad publication of the disaster as it evolved.
@Victoria: Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the incubation period, only that it is probably between two & 14 days. What troubles me is that I've read a couple of articles that say the U.S. is letting people who have been in Wuhan into the U.S. if they don't show symptoms.
What was missing from the "Let's Make A Deal" show last night was mention of what is the most crucial problem we face: Global Warming! But not surprising.
The Republican's hands were red and chafed at the end of this show, furiously clapping at everything and anything the King delivered. Unlike Oprah, nobody was given expensive do-dads like cars or cash but one trash-talk host got a ribbon round his neck for being such a solid citizen. The lady in white behind the King was checking his speech and marking the lies before she destroyed it at the end. All in all it was a glorious display of the theater of the absurd. Nothing gained––all of it lost.
See the Right (wrong) talking heads are up in arms about Jim Acosta calling Limbaugh a racist.
They want a list.
Here's one, in case any of you run into Ingraham, Hannity or Huckabee at the grocery store.
https://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
Bea,
As they often do, my fingers led me astray. Meant to type "Medal of Freedom for White People..." In any case, "Freee-dumb" is better.
PD,
Nice summary of of the SOTU. I wasn't asked to tell the Pretender what I thought. Just as well.
But Senator Portman did ask me what I thought of his NYTimes op-ed in which he offers his excuses for his craven failure to do his job.
So I told him.
"You're a silly man, Mr. Portman.
Others have and will mention all of those "consensus" issues you think we should be working on instead of holding this would-be autocrat to account. While I agree with the sensible-sounding sentiment, I have to point out its minor flaw:
There is no consensus and there never will be in this once-great nation of ours, in part because the country is and always has been varied in its peoples and interests, and today in larger part because your party survives by stoking the division you say you deplore and by eagerly serving the interests of the very wealthy minority.
The best we can hope for in a purported democracy is doing the will of the majority and on so many issues (gun control, abortion, drug prices, healthcare, minimum wage) your party panders to noisy one issue voters or to wealthy and influential minorities who lobby for less regulation of their businesses and lower taxes on their profits and who then in turn shower you with cash. None of that is seeking consensus. It's not even seeking sensible government.
So let's dump the pipe dream of consensus, Senator, and get to the real work of doing what's good for the majority of our people, actually serving them, even if some of those noisy and wealthy minorities you're beholden to don't like it.
Is that too much to ask of someone who has taken that oath of office?
And oh, while we're at it, there's that Constitutional thing about abuse of power and bribery you might want to re-consider, too."
Skimming others' comments, I'm sure he's glad he asked.
@Ken Winkes: Thanks. Probably the best defense of Limbaugh came in a tweet from Limbaugh's producer James Golden, who is black: "I just saw the footage from CNN's Jim Acosta saying Rush has a 'history' of saying disparaging things about African Americans. I have been in the studio with Rush for 30 years. I would like to formally challenge CNN and @Acosta to provide the list."
Read that without thinking & you'll conclude that Golden claims Rush hasn't uttered a racist phrase in 30 years. But first, you notice that Golden is writing about Rush's on-air performance, not what he might say when he's not being recorded. Second, you notice that Golden never denies Acosta's charge; he just asks CNN to come up with a list.
MIDNIGHT IN WASHINGTON:
"A stunning short film warns senators how they will be remembered if they vote to acquit [this] president."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/midnight-in-washington-video_n_5e3a5fd1c5b670682953cfb9
And Schiff's words reverberate throughout––strong, vibrant and passionate.
And so, today we see the (temporary, one must hope) victory of evil, of vile, contemptible traitors who hoist the banner of greed, power, hatred, treason, and congratulate each other on how greasily they and their corrupt king evaded justice and trounced the will of the Founders (and a majority of Americans) and have cast aside the American Experiment in favor of a mad cleaving to the cult of criminality.
We will endure the shouts and hurrahs and bug-eyed chest thumping from the right, loudly declaring their wanton despot without fault, he with his snide, vicious, mottled, jowly puss thrust upwards in glorious self-regard.
Meanwhile, Democrats, who are truly the only hope we have to avenge America from these crapulous sycophants, are trying, without much success, to learn to count. One, two, what comes next? Four? Call Hillary's people. They'll know.
In Washington, the Knights of the Media, sworn to tell the truth and inform the public, tremble under the weight of the little king's scorn and utter not a word as he points at them and laughs.
And now, from the east comes a bug that threatens all in its path, as scientists and those properly trained to meet such a threat are banished from the kingdom by the little king and his horde of treacherous simpletons.
Sanguine? Not I. At least not today.
Perhaps tomorrow. Perhaps not.
Irony: the screechers and screamers say that they are just aghast at the "childishness" of Nancy's literal rip-off of the so-called speech-- when they are ruled by someone with the maturity of a three-year-old...Today feels dreadful. Half the country feels or will feel all the triumph of every evil deed possible, and half is realizing that there isn't a damn thing we can do about any of it. It's all a horror.
I only saw clips: hearing that whiny, slush-filled voice makes me break out in hives. And YES, he is an unrepentent racist, regardless of their fake concern and staging of largess toward minorities. I heard that some Dems walked out, but I don't know whom, or when. And I am so sorry I missed the medal thing-- to a waste-of-air gasbag who is famous for his favorite words: slut and feminazi, and that was just the beginning...
May they all rot quickly, like their gasbag...
Jeanne: I also read a number of those comments degrading Nancy
Pelosi for doing what everyone else should have done, but didn't
have the cahunas. And to think that there's millions of them out
there who wish us jailed or worse. It bogles the mind.
My absentee ballot came today. It has 15 "contestants" listed as
Democrats running for president. It has to be returned by March 10.
What to do?
George Conway has become a believer (Not!) Thos trumpbots will fail to see the sarcasm.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/05/george-conway-trump-i-believe/
In the UK when Boris banned one financial reporter they all stayed away. To hear that no other network sided with CNN is disappointing.
Especially that NBC, the home of MSNBC, was so well represented.
It's 4:42. How long before tweets start claiming total exoneration?
@unwashed: @5:07 pm ET, Trump tweeted, "I will be making a public statement tomorrow at 12:00pm from the @WhiteHouse
to discuss our Country’s VICTORY on the Impeachment Hoax!"
Still, I don't think we'll have to wait till noon tomorrow.
Hate to agree with the Pretender, even a teensy bit. The impeachment, the trial certainly, was indeed a hoax.
Hence the great VICTORY! derived from a great hoax.