The Washington Post offers tips on how to keep your EV battery running in frigid temperatures. The link at the end of this graf is supposed to be a "gift link" (from me, Marie Burns, the giftor!), meaning that non-subscribers can read the article. Hope it works: https://wapo.st/3u8Z705
Tuesday
May242016
The Commentariat -- May 25, 2016
Afternoon Update:
Alan Blinder of the New York Times: "In a forceful challenge to the Obama administration’s stand on transgender rights, officials in 11 states sued the federal government on Wednesday, arguing that it had no authority to direct the nation’s public school districts to permit students to use the restrooms that correspond with their gender identity." -- CW
Rosalind Helderman & Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post: "The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the 'security risks in doing so.' The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was 'not an appropriate method' of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed. The report says Clinton ... should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.... The 83-page report reviews email practices by five secretaries of state and generally concludes that record keeping has been spotty for years. It was particularly critical of former secretary of state Colin Powell...." -- CW ...
... The report is here, via the New York Times. ...
... Steven Myers & Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times: "Mrs. Clinton and her aides have played down the inquiries, saying that she would cooperate with investigators to put the email issue behind her. Even so, through her lawyers, she declined to be interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general as part of his review. So did several of her senior aides.... Security and records management officials told the inspector general’s office that 'Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements,' the report said." -- CW ...
... A. J. Vicens of Mother Jones: "Two State Department staffers in the office of the executive secretariat — the people within State who coordinate the agency’s work internally — told the IG’s investigators that they discussed their concerns about the use of a personal email account with their boss. 'According to [one] staff member, the [boss] stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further,' the report states, adding that there’s no evidence that the agency’s internal legal office reviewed or approved the arrangement. The report notes that the other employee who raised concerns was told to 'never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.'” -- CW
Jenna Johnson of the Washington Post: "Despite his promise to unite the Republican Party, Donald Trump attacked New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez — the chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association — on Tuesday night and accused her of 'not doing the job.'" CW: Martinez is a Latina woman -- for Drumpf, knocking her is a two-fer.
*****
Darrel Rowland of the Columbus Dispatch: "A federal court ruling Tuesday declaring Ohio GOP lawmakers' voting restrictions unconstitutional could easily wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court — and generate a 4-4 split decision, a voting-rights expert says.... Judge Michael H. Watson of U.S. District Court in Columbus said the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature violated the federal constitution and Voting Rights Act in 2014 when it reduced the state's early voting period from 35 to 28 days. The move also eliminated the so-called Golden Week in which eligible residents could register to vote and cast an absentee ballot at the same time. Even though Ohio's early voting period is among the most generous in the nation, the reduction disproportionately affected African Americans, Watson ruled. The judge noted that blacks took advantage of Golden Week 3½ times as often as white voters in 2008, and more than 5 times as often in 2012." The state will appeal the decision. CW: Watson is a Bush II appointee. ...
... Rick Hasen comments on the decision on his Election Law Blog. -- CW
... Worst in the Nation. Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "With a U.S. Supreme Court deadline looming, judges on a federal appeals court [in New Orleans] Tuesday questioned whether accommodations could be made to protect minority voters and save Texas’s strictest-in-the-nation voter-ID law. Among the 15 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit who heard oral arguments Tuesday morning, there did not seem to be much support for striking down the law or blocking its use in November’s presidential election. But several questioned why Texas did not have more fallback provisions — as other states do — for voters who lack the kinds of identification that the state requires." -- CW
Mark Berman & Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post: "Federal prosecutors will seek the death sentence for Dylann Roof, the man accused of killing nine parishioners in a Charleston, S.C., church last year." -- CW
Ryan Mac of Forbes: "Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and one of the earliest backers of Facebook... , has been secretly covering the expenses for Hulk Hogan’s lawsuits against online news organization Gawker Media.... The involvement of Thiel, an eccentric figure in Silicon Valley who has advocated for teenagers to skip college and openly supported Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, adds another wrinkle to a case that has garnered widespread attention for its implications over celebrity privacy and a publication’s First Amendment rights." -- CW
Presidential Race
Stephen Ohlemacher of the AP: "... Hillary Clinton and ... Donald Trump each won primaries in Washington state Tuesday. Trump's win helps him inch closer to clinching the GOP nomination for president. He is within 41 delegates of the number needed to become the Republican nominee. Clinton's win might give her some momentum, but it won't get her any delegates. There were no delegates at stake in the Democratic primary. Washington Democrats already awarded their delegates based on party caucuses. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders won Washington's caucuses in March, getting 74 delegates. Clinton got 27. Republicans in Washington will allocate all 44 delegates to their national convention based on the primary results." -- CW ...
Washington State: In early results, Hillary Clinton received 54 percent of the vote 7 Bernie Sanders received 46 percent.
Washington State: Donald Trump received 76.2 percent of the vote, followed by Ted Cruz with 10.1 & John Kasich with 9.9 percent. ...
... The polls in Washington state close at 11 pm ET Tuesday. Only the Republican votes will affect delegate distribution.
Dave Weigel & Abby Phillip of the Washington Post: "Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) has requested a state-run recanvass of last week's Kentucky Democratic primary, hoping to earn at least one more delegate out of one of the year's closest races. The decision, first reported by the Associated Press, came just hours before the deadline to request a new look at the Kentucky vote. On election night, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton led Sanders by 1,924 votes out of 454,573 cast." -- CW
Kevin Drum: David Brooks wants to know what Hillary Clinton does for fun. "Brooks has a point. It doesn't matter if you think it's fair or not. Modern presidents all know perfectly well that TV has brought the American public into their lives, and the public wants to know what they do for fun. They want to feel like their president is someone who relaxes at the end of the day and lets off a little steam. But Hillary Clinton won't let them see that." -- CW ...
... Matt Yglesias: "... here I think we get to the sexist double standards that really do explain why Clinton is likely somewhat less popular than one might expect a similarly situated politician to be. For a would-be woman president to let her decisions be driven by 'feelings' and emotion [associated with sports] could be deadly, as would the impression that she's a dilettante. She needs to be all-professional and extravagantly qualified for the job. And yet having done all that, she's now this dreary, uncool workaholic who should play more golf." -- CW
Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday defended Bernie Sanders, saying the media should cut the Democratic presidential candidate some slack. 'I think we should just kind of lay off Bernie Sanders a little bit,' Reid told reporters after being asked whether he was concerned about Sanders’s 'tenuous loyalty' to the Democratic Party." -- CW
Jonathan Chait: "The liberal case against Hillary Clinton rests in large part upon her associations — people she surrounds herself with and whose judgment she relies upon. She has caught an enormous amount of flak, some of it fair, for her ties to figures in the finance industry or advisers with morally questionable worldviews. By the same token, what should we make of Bernie Sanders’s decision to appoint Cornel West as one of his advisers to the Democratic Party’s platform committee?" CW: As Chait amply points out, West is a crazed anti-Obama nut.
Abby Phillip & Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post: "Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has a new partner in her battle against Donald Trump: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who gave a speech Tuesday mirroring Clinton’s own talking points accusing Trump of profiting from the housing crash of 2008." Trump responded with name-calling slurs. -- CW ...
... Greg Sargent: "... Warren is making a broader argument about Trump’s fundamental cruelty.... [The argument is that] Trump is ... adeptly posing as the Man in the Street’s Billionaire. But he is personally cruel and rapacious: He, and his presidential candidacy, are directly screwing you.... One lingering question is what kind of affirmative argument Hillary Clinton will make in terms of how she’d be better than Trump on the economy." So far she has not made her case. -- CW
** Trump's "Bitch-Slap." Josh Marshall: "... the three big networks and in fact the major national dailies continue to blast out Donald Trump's charges that Hillary Clinton's husband raped or assaulted other women. And yet, CNN, MSNBC, let alone Fox refuse to discuss that at least twice Trump has himself been accused of sexual assault or rape in sworn statements - once by his wife and again a decade ago in a lawsuit brought by a woman named Jill Harth.... Listen to Trump's words and you hear repeated lines about hurting Clinton, warning her to back off and not forcing him to hurt her again. Cut and paste them out of the context of a campaign article and they read like dialog from a made for TV movie about a wife-beater. [Emphasis added.]... Trump [is] basically the embodiment of 'dominance politics' and assertive violence." -- CW ...
... Joan Walsh of the Nation: "Donald Trump has signaled the direction of his general-election presidential campaign, and it’s straight down the sewer. The question is whether the media will follow him there." -- CW
You know, you’re a nasty guy. You’re really a nasty guy. I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do. -- Donald Trump, to WashPo reporter (possibly Fahrenthold) who asked about the donation Monday ...
... David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post: "Almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans’ causes, Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge Monday evening — promising the entire sum to a single charity as he came under intense media scrutiny. Trump ... organized a nationally televised fundraiser for veterans’ causes in Des Moines on Jan. 28. That night, Trump said he had raised $6 million, including the [$1 million] gift from his own pocket.... As recently as last week, Trump’s campaign manager had insisted that the mogul had already given that money away. But that was false: Trump had not." CW: Also, everything Trump's campaign staff say is fake. ...
... Kevin Drum: "Even for Trump, this is inexplicable. Whenever you think he can't possibly be a bigger douche, he proves you wrong. What a revolting human being he is." -- CW
Donald Trump 'called theories of possible foul play "very serious" and the circumstances of [Vince] Foster’s death "very fishy.’” — Washington Post, May 24, 2016
There is nothing fishy or mysterious about Foster’s tragic suicide. -- Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, after reviewing five investigations of Foster's suicide -- CW
Brian McBride of ABC News: "Senior level Trump campaign sources confirmed to ABC News Wednesday that House Speaker Paul Ryan will be endorsing ... Donald Trump." CW: I'm so surprised.
CW: Oh, This Just In. Rick Santorum has endorsed Donald Trump. Sorry, no link to this riveting news at this time. Maybe later.
Clare Malone of 538: "Gary Johnson might be on the verge of becoming a household name.... He’s the former governor of New Mexico, likely Libertarian candidate for president, and he’s polling at 10 percent in two recently released national polls against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump." -- CW
Run, Mitt, Run. David French of the (right-wing) National Review: "At this moment, American voters face a choice between two historically corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent politicians....Both are walking impeachment risks who would bring horror shows of unending scandal and shame to the Oval Office.... And at this point, Mitt Romney is the only man who combines the integrity, financial resources, name recognition, and broad public support to make a realistic independent run at the presidency." -- CW
Congressional Races
Tamar Hallerman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "All of Georgia’s congressional incumbents appeared to survive their primaries last night, extending their political fortunes until at least November during an election year that many had predicted would be a rebuke of all things Washington.... U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson ... trounced his two primary opponents Tuesday evening." -- CW
Donald Who? Sean Sullivan of the Washington Post: "One after another, Republican senators on the front lines of the effort to hold their fragile majority dodged, diverted or acquiesced halfheartedly when asked if they would appear with Trump on the campaign trail. As the Manhattan mogul cements his position as the GOP standard-bearer, these down-ballot contenders are trying to save their jobs by running away from their party’s presumptive nominee." -- CW
Beyond the Beltway
David Goldstein of CBS Los Angeles: "A comparison of records ... has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County.... CBS2 compared millions of voting records from the California Secretary of State’s office with death records from the Social Security Administration and found hundreds of so-called dead voters. Specifically, 265 in Southern California and a vast majority of them, 215, in Los Angeles County alone.... In some cases..., they voted year after year.... It remains unclear how the dead voters voted but 86 were registered Republicans, 146 were Democrats...." -- CW
Baylorgate. Former Special Prosecutor Impeached or Something over Sexual Assault Cover-up. Matt Young of the Houston Chronicle: "Baylor refused to confirm or deny a report that it planned to fire school president Kenneth Starr in response to the sexual assault scandal rocking the school's football program. On Tuesday morning, Scout.com's Chip Brown reported that Starr had been fired. The Waco Tribune-Herald later published a story saying that numerous current and former regents wouldn't confirm or deny the report.... Baylor is accused of failing to respond to rape or sexual assault reports filed by at least six women students from 2009-2016. There were reports of rape and assault against at least five Baylor football players, with two of those players - Tevin Elliot and Sam Ukwuachu - being convicted of rape." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Update: Phillip Ericksen of the Waco Tribune-Herald: "Ken Starr remained as Baylor University’s president Tuesday, despite media reports that he had been fired from the job earlier in the day, outgoing board of regents Chairman Richard Willis said. Willis declined to elaborate on Starr’s future Tuesday afternoon, but confirmed that Starr was still the president Tuesday and told the Tribune-Herald by phone that the board will provide more information soon." -- CW
Nicholas Confessore & Stephanie Saul of the New York Times: The "widening influence" of Dandong, "one of China’s largest agricultural importers..., is coming under scrutiny by federal prosecutors, who are examining the relationship between Dandong’s wealthy and connected chairman, Wang Wenliang, and Gov. of Virginia, a Democrat who was elected in 2013." -- CW
Maxine Bernstein of the Oregonian: "Portland Mayor Charlie Hales on Tuesday placed Police Chief Larry O'Dea on paid administrative leave a day after new details emerged that the chief misled an investigator about his involvement in an eastern Oregon hunting accident. Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told The Oregonian/OregonLive that O'Dea initially indicated that his friend accidentally shot himself April 21 during the off-duty trip." -- CW
Graham Bowley of the New York Times: "Prosecutors in Pennsylvania on Tuesday crossed their final hurdle to bring to trial on charges that he drugged and sexually assaulted a woman he once mentored, with a judge ruling that enough evidence existed for the case to move forward." -- CW ...
... Chiqui Esteban & Manuel Roig-Franzia of the Washington Post: "... at least 58 women ... have said [Bill Cosby] raped or sexually harassed them between the mid-1960s and the late 2000s, including dozens who say he drugged them before the alleged assaults." -- CW
Way Beyond
the New York Times: "The broke their silence early Wednesday over the death of their leader, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, confirming in a statement that he had been killed in an American drone strike. Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, a deputy to Mullah Mansour, was selected as the new leader of the Taliban...." -- CW
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (24)
Expect to be confused again tomorrow when I don't hear local Sanders' supporters touting direct democracy as the only fair way to select delegates after HRC's Democratic primary win here in Washington State, but the results won't count because precinct and legislative district caucuses have already chosen Sanders....
Such a fickle lover, that dame democracy...
Well said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D) CN on the PBS Newshour in an interview with Judy Woodruff about the allocation of funding for fighting the Zika virus. Plain speaking ("my colleague's Bill is a sham") Rep. DeLauro really dished it to her Con colleague. Perhaps it is wrong of me to enjoy this interview, but sometimes we have to take joy where we can find it! Judy W. is half the interviewer she once was, but there was no stopping Rep. DeLauro.
@Ken Winkes: Thanks, Ken! -- for that gratuitous, baseless knock against Sanders supporters. Yesterday I mentioned in a Comment some clueless Obama campaign workers who dissed Republicans right in front of Republicans working for Obama. They had no idea there were Republicans in the room. You, however, have no excuse: you know perfectly well that there are plenty of Reality Chex readers who support Sanders, & it's safe to assume some of them live in Washington state.
For the record, I think caucuses are far more undemocratic than primaries. I favor delegate distribution based on primary votes. But go ahead; just assume I'm a self-serving partisan like all those horrible Sanders supporters in Washington.
Marie
P.S. I'll be voting for Hillary even if some of her supporters -- like you -- do their best to turn me off.
As some other readers have commented, I find myself getting fatigued by the presidential news coverage. So I want to thank Marie for the coverage of Baylorgate and the investigation of Terry McAuliffe. Even though Sex and Money are prominent enough in presidential politics, it is easier to look at on a slightly less prominent level.
I have tried to go to other sites for less depressing news, only to find, say, a report on the US Military's use of enlisted soldiers as guinea pigs. The report itself is slanted in an angry and sarcastic way; but it didn't need to have been - a droning factual account would have been far more effective:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16376
I only mention this because when I was much younger and just beginning my "grownup" job, I was sent to take deathbed testimony on WWII and Korea veterans. They told horror stories of being locked above decks during the H bomb tests near the Bikini atolls, then not being allowed to shower after the explosions. Or the men who, as lowly privates, were sent to pick up the dead animals when the A-bombs were detonated in the desert west in the US. Or when the man dying of kidney cancer told me that he had been courtmartialed because he recognized the light blue flash with the white fallout of an atomic blast in KOREA and ordered his men off the field of battle. Those who stayed died, those who followed the Sgt. lived.
I leave Realitychex to get some relief from the grotesque of the presidential race and look what happens. Better to stay with RC.
Another example of GOP working against the national interest:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278193-iran-and-heavy-water-five-things-to-know
The Energy and Water Bill is pretty important. Keeping Iran from getting nukes is pretty important. Republicans are stalling out on both, for the usual reasons (environment, regulation, etc.) but Senator Cotton's amendment to prohibit US purchase of heavy water from Iran is particularly stupid.
Iran's probable path to developing a weapon requires it to have more heavy water than it needs for commercial purposes. It has that surplus. The U.S. wants to remove that surplus, and hence remove from Iran a key material necessary for a weapon. The U.S. is willing to buy it and remove it from Iran. Tom Cotton sees this as helping Iran to be a supplier, rather than the U.S. helping itself (and the world) to deny a bomb. I suppose Cotton thinks that the Iranians should be made to pour it into the sand, which ain't agonna happen.
These people are not just fools, they are pernicious saboteurs.
Here are some numbers that support something you already know:
"... early results suggest that Trump’s general election candidacy alters the ingredients of some Americans’ vote decisions, making the 2016 election more about race and ethnicity and less about ideology than it would have been with Trump as the nominee."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/25/in-a-trump-clinton-match-up-theres-a-striking-effect-of-racial-prejudice/?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard
@Patrick: Thanks. Democrats in the Senate blocked Cotton's amendment earlier this month.
As for Cotton's claim that "sparkling water ... isn't served in Army...," I doubt that, too. I can't prove it, but I'll bet you can get Perrier's or San Pellegrino at military clubs.
Marie
@ Victoria
Get out of town. Three days of kayaking and exploring the bars and restaurants of Fort Meyers will take your mind off of politics. R&R is now over. At the airport heading back to the trenches.
Be brave citizen
@ Marie, re: WA caucuses partitioning delegates in an "undemocratic" fashion. IMHO many (most ?) people don't really care that much about politics other than to follow it in the news. Those that voted in the WA primary by mail-in ballot took all of 3 minutes of their busy day to strike a pencil line and paste on a postage stamp. Very minimal effort at being "democratic". No rubbing shoulders with the proles at the high school gym. No listening to illogical speeches, no frustrating waits for the precinct chairs to wade through the rules and make sure all of the requirements of order are met. No. Washington (state) is interested in what all of the armchair citizens are thinking, but we award delegates based on what the proportion of people who are impassioned enough to get out of their chairs and participate in the process. Those who are hopeful enough to take the trouble to participate should be rewarded with democratically determined proportional representation. Democracy is messy. You can't get one by saying "Meh...whatever...I'm out a postage stamp...not that it makes any difference". An upside to attending a caucus is that you might meet some people in your neighborhood that you would NEVER meet sitting in your armchair. enuf
From Yesterday: Note to Akhilleus:
Years ago when my son and I were taking a walk in a forest area in Freiberg, Germany, we came across a trail whose sign said: "The Martin Heidegger Walk." Surprised that Heidegger still deserved something like that in Germany, I voiced shock, but my son said, "Well, he still had some purchase" and I'm sure went on to explain why, but unfortunately I don't recall the conversation.
So I wanted to tell you, Akhilleus, that your words were thought provoking ––read your post again this morning. This whole matter of parsing the intellectual positives from the many negatives and the ability to, if not walk in the other's shoes, at least recognize the kind of shoes they might prefer. Anyway––appreciated your thoughts and a topic we may want to approach again.
@Gloria: Yes, thanks for the shout out to Rosa De Lauro. We here in Ct. love her––she's brassy and bold and if we could, we'd clone her.
The excellent job the reporter at WaPo did of exposing Trump's lie about his donation is exactly the way the media needs to cover (and uncover) Trump: on Twitter. It does no good to assail him in columns or blogs or straight news stores, flesh him out in real time in the medium he thinks he dominates.
No Perrier, maybe, but lots of Coke and Mountain Dew:
"... vending machines stocked with candy and energy drinks were installed in barracks. After the Iraq war began in 2003, fast food became available in combat zones."
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2011/02/chocolate_milk_at_every_meal.html
Cotton just makes stuff up. He's a real tool.
@Jeff K.: It's fair to say that expressing one's political will should not require one to go to a specific place on a specific day & specific time (many times a potential voter is barred if she's late), & spend hours listening to harangues.
Many good citizens cannot do that because they have other commitments for that time period or because it's otherwise difficult or impossible for them to attend (housebound, shy, no transportation, can't afford a sitter, sick that day, whatever).
As a result, in caucus states, a tiny portion of activists determines what candidate(s) the state party puts forward. That's just one step removed from having party bosses make the determination with no public input. It may make a little bit of sense in Iowa, where the presidential primary is an avid community pastime, but it's just plain undemocratic everywhere else.
I find insulting your premise that because I sometimes vote via the USPS, I'm dispassionate & choose my candidate with a "meh, whatever" 'tude. That simply is not true.
Voting should be made more, not less, convenient. That's a principal that most democratic countries appreciate & that most U.S. Democrats appreciate, too. I see no reason whatsoever to turn over to a small clique the selection of the major-party presidential candidates. The President represents one-third of the government & s/he is largely responsible for appointing another one-third. I don't think a few Bernie Bros & Hillarybots should be the ultimate deciders of who controls 2/3rds of the government.
Marie
P.S. Thanks for proving Ken Winkes' point.
Marie,
Will control my dander this AM, which isn't that hard in my mellow old age. I certainly wasn't trying to start a fight, certainly not provoke such a passionate response.
I'll begin with an apology. Sorry. Didn't mean to offend Sanders' supporters. That would be foolish, since I'm 2/3rds of one myself.
As I've said more than once before, of the two, I'm much more comfortable with and supportive of Sanders' past positions, his current policies and his assessment of what is wrong with the country, and while I think the talk about HRC's "negatives" are to a great degree unfair, based on her gender and created by the media's addiction to horse races, I'm still wondering who will be the stronger candidate in the general. I do find Sanders more "likable" and am genuinely impressed by the passion he has aroused.
In our own house, I believe we split our primary vote. If so, the split was quiet, without rancor.
Mostly, though, like you I just want to win in the fall.
I apparently didn't get it right, but my comment was not intended to be about the candidates but about the inconsistency exhibited by candidates' supporters when they attempt to define democracy. An open primary, a closed primary, a caucus system, any or all of those with delegates variously allotted?
We've seen many instances in both parties where the popular vote and the delegate harvest didn't align. What happened on the Democratic side here in Washington yesterday is only one case. Likewise, we've also seen the definition of which is the better, more democratic system switch as a matter of convenience, which I would translate as "I like that democracy thing when I win."
While I admire passion (I have no choice. I'm told I live in a passionate age. Everyone is "passionate" about everything. I hear it every day), I am also mindful of its dangers, because passion in politics often engenders not just the intellectual inconsistency, the "fickle" I referred to, but even boorish personal behavior, which are equal enemies of a democracy which requires mutual respect and the capacity to disagree without being disagreeable.
In that regard, the reported (both by friends who are Sanders supporters active in local and state politics and by the media more generally) negative, rude, at times near-riotous behavior exhibited by Sanders supporters at some caucuses makes this old man uncomfortable precisely because that necessary mutual respect is absent, and its absence worries me.
We rightly criticize similar behavior when it erupts at Republican events. I would expect we would apply the same standards to ourselves.
My intended target was the inconsistent standards we apply to others and ourselves when we are in the throes of passion, when our behavior is animated by unthinking, religious fervor from which reasoned judgment and hence all hope of democracy flees.
As I said, I apparently missed the mark. I could say more, but enough.
Marie, sorry, but I found your rebuke of Ken to be a little harsh. Unless you are one of the Bernie supporters railing about how unfair the process is, this was not targeted at you. And while you have not directly slammed Hillary supporters themselves, you've taken some pretty good swipes at the candidate. Are we HRC supporters supposed to take that as a compliment to our good judgment?
Although I don't comment frequently, I've deliberately refrained from any direct critique of Bernie because of the number of Bernie supporters here. That has not gone both ways.
Drumpf, Perfidy, and Commentary
Joan Walsh, in her piece on Trump and the media (linked above) is a two-fer. First, she runs down what appears will be the general tone of the Trump general election campaign, and that is, lies and dirty tricks all the time. No surprise there. She takes the media to task for allowing Trump to get away, for the most part, with his slurs, insults, and often baseless accusations, or for making accusations of someone (Bill Clinton), doing something (rape) he himself has been accused of.
Certainly the media has a long way to go. Trump seems to be given special treatment, especially by television "news" people. There are few tough questions and even fewer followups. His bullying and barking and biting have been very effective tools for staving off uncomfortable questions.
But almost more interesting than the body of this piece were the comments. I read every day about the enmity between the Sanders and Clinton people but here it spills out in a somewhat unexpected way (unexpected by me because I'm not a staunch supporter of either, which doesn't mean I don't have a dog in this fight, it just means I haven't been in the middle of the down and dirty back and forth on a regular basis).
Commenters almost completely overlook the thrust of the piece, which is Trump's attacks and the media responses or non-responses. But the comments veer off into acerbic attacks against Walsh for apparently not supporting Bernie Sanders, or for, in some comments, being too supportive of Hillary Clinton. There are calls for her to be fired, and attacks against her generally. I knew there was bad blood but I didn't realize it had become as widespread as this. Has Bernie gotten short shrift from the press? Most definitely. But it hasn't been a cakewalk for Clinton either. And I know Sanders has come in for his share of attacks by Clinton's people as well.
The thing that bothers me most about the display of outright hatred here is the very real sense that not a one of the people attacking Walsh will ever consider voting for Clinton in the general. I can't say with absolute certainty, but I don't think you'd find many (any?) Hillary supporters who would refuse to vote for Sanders were he to represent the party in the general. Of course, it's never a great idea to form a considered opinion on the basis of a few comments to one article, but it seems reasonable to assume that there is a more than a groundswell of antipathy under the Democratic roof that could serve to deposit The Guy Who Isn't Hitler into the Oval Office.
Just an observation.
Meanwhile, in "history" : last night I read in H.W. Brands' biography of Ulysses Grant ("The Man Who Saved the Union") that the U.S. Department of Justice was established in 1870 to provide the federal government with the horsepower to enforce the civil and voting rights provided by the (1870) 15th Amendment. Grant considered that using the military as a police power in the ex-confederate states was a "wasting asset" and that suspension of habeas corpus for those in rebellion (Ku Kluxers, who were terrorizing blacks and "radicals" primarily in SC, MS and GA) was insufficient to gain convictions or deter the KKK. So the main work of the DOJ on start-up was to go down South and indict and try KKKers who were burning, lynching, etc., for "violating civil rights", with convictions that usually ended up being for a few months or years (federal courts with local juries).
I had never seen such a direct link (founding DOJ to enforce 15th amendment) and did some Googles today. No in depth search, just the front pages, basically the story that shows up is that there was a lot of extra federal legal work after the Civil War and the Attorney General needed more processing capacity, so the DOJ (with associated federal attorneys distributed among the states) was established to help with that work. Nothing on the top line about the need to enforce the 15th Amendment against the terrorism of the KKK, although Grant's correspondence clearly refers to that as the primary mission of the DOJ.
Like Akhilleus quoted Wallace yesterday, you gotta learn new stuff all your life --- even when it's old stuff.
You mean Ken Starr is NOT being fired?
Whatever happened to responsibility and ethics and moral behavior and all that happy horseshit that Confederates always demand from everyone else?
So the Baylor muckymucks are "thinking about it". Well, goody for them. What's to think about? Well, a lot apparently, and it goes beyond the former All World Penis Chaser, Ken Starr (he maybe does that in his spare time, sort of an amateur penis chaser, just to keep up his chops, so to speak).
First, Baylor is a very right-wing Baptist college, so there's Jesus and the Bible to think about. BUT they also have a big-time winning college football program. SO...."On Starr’s watch, the school is accused of failing to respond to rapes or sexual assaults reported by at least six women students from 2009-2016 [and]...at least eight former Baylor football players have been accused of violence against women over the last eight years..."
Eeek...sounds a little like a pattern, don't it? Is there more? But of course!
"In 2003, Baylor basketball player Carlton Dotson murdered teammate Patrick Dennehy. Ensuing investigations found 'widespread rules violations,' including drug use among players and the illegal funneling of money to student athletes and prospects by coaches. Several basketball coaches and staff also blocked investigations by providing 'inaccurate information' and 'falsifying documents.'"
Don't "inaccurate" and "falsifying" come under the rubric of the Ninth Commandment?
And interestingly, Baylor bigwigs have decided to look the other way on the football coach, Art Briles. Wonder why? "Art Briles...led the football program to four winning seasons, two Big 12 titles, a Heisman trophy for Robert Griffin III..." AND a $266M brand spanking new stadium, that's why. Ah-ha! A winning coach in a big-time football conference. Well, we certainly can't boot that guy. I mean, c'mon, what's a little groping and fooling around? Boys will be boys, ya know.
So, hypocrisy, misogyny, rape, immorality, violent assaults, drugs, murder, cheating, and cover ups. Sounds like a weekend at Trump Tower.
Does Baylor have a plan to deal with all these rapes? Natch:
"The school said it would increase the space for counseling and the number of counselors."
Got it? Don't worry about the potential for more rapes because of our torpidity and moral turpitude. We're gonna hire more counselors, see? It'll be fine.
And that's the way it's done at a Christian school of the New Confederacy. They'd rather go after the Confederate hee-roe who attacked the hated Bill Clinton and his wandering organ (not that he doesn't deserve to be canned) than deep six a winning football program and help keep women from being sexually molested. You know how Christianists are always attacking secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists for having no moral core? Is this their way of showing the rest of us what it means to have one?
So, let's see: Jesus, football, Jesus, football, Jesus, football....and football wins, going away!
Thanks, guys! We're on it now.
Empathy, understanding, and love, Christianist style.
So there's this Christian high school in Wichita, KS, (aka Koch City), and you can go to this school, if you're so inclined, but if you or a member of your family are gay, fuggedaboutit:
"...if you have a gay sibling at home who doesn’t even attend Trinity, the school could theoretically kick you out for being part of a family that isn’t appalled by [LGBT lifestyles]."
Such lovely people!
But it actually goes further than a sibling. Here's what the school actually says:
"...when the atmosphere or conduct within a particular home is counter to the school’s understanding of a biblical lifestyle, including the practice or promotion of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) lifestyle or alternative gender identity, the school should have the right, in its sole discretion, to deny the admission of an applicant or discontinue enrollment of a current student."
This means, if my reading comprehension is up to snuff, that a family having a conversation about gays, lesbians, and alternative lifestyles that does not end with every family member on their knees begging Jesus to disembowel every last one of those sinning bastards and cast them into the fires of hell (aka Wichita), then the student can be peremptorily booted.
So you can't even discuss it in a sane and civil manner. If the school finds out, you're gone.
This is one reason why Confederates are so against public schools. You can't get away with crazy shit like this.
Well bust my synapses!
Taking a moment to scan through some headlines, I came across a neat story about a WWII era bomber discovered near Palau. Then I scanned up to see where the story came from. For a moment I had one of those brain freezes where things just don't compute.
It was "Fox News: Science"
I didn't even know Fox believed science existed!
Patrick,
Great bit of historical information about the origin of the DOJ. It's funny when you recall that under certain administrations, the DOJ was tasked with going after, not the KKK, but groups and individuals who didn't side with the KKK.
Grant would have been back hitting the bottle, no doubt.
New rules directing financial advisers to consider their clients' interest ahead of their own pocket books (who could argue with that?) was killed today by....guess who?
REPUBLICANS! That's who!
In an outrageous exercise of the sort of Confederate enmity toward average Americans whenever profits of the rich are concerned, similar to Paul (Lyin') Ryan's recent declaration that overtime pay would "hurt" workers, a party line vote (with three traitorous Democrats agreeing, including Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Jon Tester of Montana) killed the rule in order to fuck American retirees and other investors who have always believed that their investment advisors were working in their best interest, in order to further enrich those advisors who are now free to give bad advice as long as they can make money off the backs of Americans not lucky enough to already be rich like Mitch McConnell who sniffed that this was not a good idea. Fuckers.
"Republicans controlling the Senate passed legislation Tuesday to block new Obama administration rules that require financial professionals to put their client's best interest first when giving advice on retirement investments like individual retirement accounts. The regulations are aimed at blocking financial advisers from steering clients toward investments with higher commissions and fees that can eat away at retirement savings."
The rule attempted to force advisers to put their clients' best interests first.
Republicans said "Fuck that".
The president will veto this mendacious exercise in unbridled greed and the screaming will be epic, as it always is when the interest of the 99% are placed on a par with the 1%.
Assholes.
I also read the comments on the Joan Walsh article and was similarly struck as Akhilleus. I think both Dem candidates are problematic, and are riskier general election candidates than I would like. HRC is too hawkish for me, and I want to see more financial re-regulation than she might enact, but she has many excellent fleshed out policies that will help people. Bernie has some good, and some naive ideas, but he seems to me to be a most un-vetted candidate who would be dismembered in a sordid and ruthless campaign. I think of what shrub did to Kerry - take your biggest weaknesses and twist and use them against your opponent. I couldn't believe that worked then, but I must believe it will work again. With trump using treatment of women against HRC, and on business, taxes, finances, basically saying "I'm great at being a lying crook, so let me be your lying crook".
Politics has become such a WWE spectacle that no one who should be elected would want to be. And the "audience" wants to be entertained with fantastical battles. I worry that people can no longer tell reality from fantasy, I was shocked in 2007 when John McCain kept quoting "Jack Bauer" as if this was sage war room advice. Now that we have a reality tv show host running for president, we have lost all boundaries, and people have been inured to live in a tv show world, without realising we can't change channels.
There has always been passion in politics. It does seem to have gone to a new level, and coupled with personal hatred. Perhaps we should have had more passion in 2000 when Gore stepped away from litigation and what could have been an ugly fight for the Presidency.
I realise while reading today's comments that I am also guilty of "dissing " the opposition, although I think it started here as a light hearted way of discriminating between what some of us saw as the "old" Republican party and the new tea party/religionist/no compromise group we see today. I refer to people as Confederates, and Con-men, after we had a discussion about which term to use some time ago. I refer to trump followers as trumpoids, and use lower case for his name. Do I wrongly assume trump supporters don't read these pages, I am sure they're not all mesmerised, irrational furies? I used to refer to the Bush administration as the "regime", while living among staunch Republican voters, and imitating one of his favourite regime change mantras. This is all meant to show my disrespect, but am I wrong to do this? I do it in other areas too, I refer to popes only by their real first names (Joe and Jorge) which upsets my catholic friends. I am attempting to make a point, but perhaps I am wrong. Am I, too, contributing to the debasement of the body politic?
I believe that voting should be easy - as easy as taking three minutes to fill out a ballot and post it off. I think one shouldn't even have to supply the stamp. I applaud the committed caucus voters for their time and energy, but their vote isn't worth more than any other.