The Commentariat -- February 9, 2020
Afternoon Update:
Here's Politico's summary of today's events in New Hampshire's Democratic primaries. New York Times live updates are here. The whole sprint reminds me of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign speech when he asked New Hampshire voters to give him a second chance, in exchange for which he promised to be with them "till the last dog dies."
David Masciotra in Salon: "The recent events of Trump's acquittal in the Senate, his State of the Union address and his spiteful, rambling monologue at the White House on Thursday have collectively acted as the flatline on the heart monitor of decency. As decency dies, American life becomes ever more precarious." Thanks to NJC for the link. Mrs. McC: What Masciotra is talking about here is what conventional pundits were calling "institutional norms" after Trump's inauguration. But, at bottom, Trump violates those norms because, as Masciotra writes, he has "no sense of decency."
~~~~~~~~~~~
David Siders & Trent Spiner of Politico: "Three days before the still-unsettled New Hampshire primary, 10 candidates shared a stage in the state for the final time at the annual McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner in Manchester. Here are our six takeaways from the shindig."
The New York Times is live-updating Saturday events in New Hampshire. "Tensions in the Democratic presidential primary reached new heights on Saturday as the candidates launched new and sometimes personal attacks on their rivals on the last weekend before the New Hampshire primary. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Pete Buttigieg clashed over experience in their most pointed confrontation to date, with Mr. Biden calling Mr. Buttigieg 'not a Barack Obama' and releasing a video belittling his mayoral experience.... [Bernie] Sanders slammed both Mr. Buttigieg and Michael R. Bloomberg over the influence of money in politics. Amy Klobuchar drew a big crowd in Durham, and her campaign announced she had raised $2 million since Friday night's debate. Elizabeth Warren, who admitted that she 'didn't fight hard enough' in the debate, told her supporters she was betting big on them." ~~~
~~~ Politico's liveblog of Saturday's events is here.
Jon Keller of CBS Boston: "Pete Buttigieg continued his rise in Friday night' exclusive WBZ/Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll, for the first time taking a narrow lead that falls within the survey's 4.4% margin of error. Buttigieg pulled in 25 percent, up two points from Thursday night, while Bernie Sanders held steady at 24 percent. Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden also rose by two percentage points, placing Warren third with 14 percent and Biden fourth with 11. These slight changes seem to be driven by a four-point drop in the number of undecided voters climbing off the fence, a process likely to be enhanced by Friday night's televised debate."
New York Times opinion writers rate & comment on the Democratic presidential candidates' debate performances.
Reid Wilson of the Hill: "Former New York City Mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg paid a quiet visit to a gathering of Democratic governors Saturday morning in what some guests took as an early outreach effort to party leaders who are growing increasingly nervous about the presidential nominating contest. Eight governors sat down with Bloomberg at a breakfast hosted by the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), two sources with knowledge of the meeting told The Hill. The sources said he did not make a hard pitch seeking support, but he sketched an overview of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination."
Jordan Freiman of CBS News: "The Iowa Democratic party on Saturday announced they are reviewing reported inconsistencies in 95 precincts from Monday's caucuses. Any corrections will be made by 12 p.m. CT Monday, the party announced.... The stated timing ensures the Iowa results will be officially announced prior to the New Hampshire Democratic primary, which will take place February 11." The IDP will announce allocation of delegates Monday.
Peter Baker, et al., of the New York Times: "A handful of Republican senators tried to stop President Trump from firing Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who testified in the House impeachment hearings, but the president relieved the diplomat of his post anyway, according to people briefed on the discussions. The senators were concerned that it would look bad for Mr. Trump to dismiss Mr. Sondland and argued that it was unnecessary, since the ambassador was already talking with senior officials about leaving after the Senate trial.... But Mr. Trump [chose] ... to make a point by forcing Mr. Sondland out before the ambassador was ready to go. When State Department officials called Mr. Sondland on Friday to tell him that he had to resign that day, he resisted, saying that he did not want to be included in what seemed like a larger purge of impeachment witnesses.... Mr. Sondland conveyed to the State Department officials that if they wanted him gone that day, they would have to fire him. And so the president did, ordering the ambassador recalled from his post effective immediately.... Among the Republicans who warned the White House was Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who after voting to acquit Mr. Trump said she thought he had learned a lesson." ~~~
~~~ A CNN summary of the NYT report is here. ~~~
~~~ Sarah Westwood & Jason Hoffman of CNN: "... Donald Trump on Saturday defended the firing of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council. The President complained about news coverage of the firing in a tweet, saying reporting was done 'as though I should think only how wonderful he was. Actually, I don't know him, never spoke to him, or met him (I don't believe!).'... Trump on Saturday claimed that Vindman 'reported contents of my "perfect" calls incorrectly,' which those close to Vindman have disputed. Vindman reported concerns about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to other officials with the National Security Council. The President also attacked Vindman's work performance, claiming he was given a 'horrendous' report by his superior that he had problems with judgment and leaking information." ~~~
~~~ David Badash of the New Civil Rights Movement, republished in the Raw Story: "... Donald Trump late Friday afternoon and evening ended the week by firing three administration and White House officials, he blames for his impeachment in a campaign of retribution that some experts are calling illegal.... The hashtag #FridayNightMasacre is trending on Twitter right now. CNN Legal Analyst and former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig says Trump's actions today are 'criminal.'"
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: "What could be more flamboyantly offensive than the anti-bullying advocate, Melania, hanging a Presidential Medal of Freedom around the neck of one of the biggest bullies and hate preachers of all time, Rush Limbaugh? Talk about the bully pulpit."
Evan Semones of Politico: "... Donald Trump on Saturday launched a vitriolic attack on his perceived enemies.... Trump took to Twitter on Saturday afternoon to heap scorn on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), the widow of the late Rep. John Dingell, among others.... He also attacked Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the NSC official who testified about the president's actions on Ukraine, drawing a furious response from Vindman's lawyers, who called Trump's attacks a 'campaign of intimidation.' Later Saturday, Trump also assailed Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) for their votes to convict him, in an echo of attacks he'd leveled against the senators on Friday." Then there was this: ~~~
~~~ Orange Man. Daniel Politi of Slate: "... Donald Trump took time out of his day Saturday to comment on a photo that had gone viral. The photo showed Trump walking across the south lawn of the White House with his hair swept back by the wind and appeared to show a very distinct tan line around the president's face.... Some argued that maybe the stark contrast between the president's orange hue and his very white skin bordering his hair may have been the result of poor makeup blending. The president, however, insisted it was none of those. 'More Fake News,' Trump wrote as he shared the black-and-white version of the photo. 'This was photoshopped, obviously, but the wind was strong and the hair looks good? Anything to demean!'" ~~~
~~~ James West of Mother Jones: "... there's been some debate about whether or not the Twitter poster enhanced the coloring on this photo.... The version I've used as the main photo for this article was taken by Associated Press photographer, Manuel Balce Ceneta, as the president returned to the White House, from a trip to Charlotte, N.C. on Friday; I haven't adjusted it at all, aside from cropping it to size." West also embeds a tweet by Chris Sorenson who writes, "Here's an official Reuters pic and they don't allow photoshop or retouching." The Reuters photo shows the same make-up/"tan" line. Mrs. McC: I don't know why Trump bothers to lie. It's obvious he tints his pasty-white face. ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait: "It is of course hilarious that Trump would complain that he is being demeaned on the basis of his appearance. He has spent his entire career as a celebrity put-down artist, sexual harasser, and politician who relentlessly demeans his targets based on their bodies.... Trump himself places more importance on appearance than any president in history, and perhaps any powerful person who does not work in modeling, television, or film. He staffs his administration in large part based on their appearance.... That a president would bully others based on their appearance, and select his aides on their looks, is one of his many utterly disqualifying character traits. But ... what tips it from the infuriating to the absurd is the fact that the body-shamer-in-chief is also quite possibly the most ridiculous-looking president in American history."
AND Ben Carson says, in prepared remarks at a North Carolina event, that Trump "is not a racist" because the people (of color, we presume) who park cars & wash dishes at Mar-a-Lago "love him ... because he's kind and compassionate." Mrs. McC: Okay, I'm convinced.
Lisa Rein of the Washington Post: "The Veterans Affairs Department's inspector general is reviewing a request from a top House leader to investigate allegations that VA Secretary Robert Wilkie sought to dig up dirt on one of the congressman's aides after she said she was sexually assaulted at VA's Washington hospital. The appeal late Friday from House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Mark Takano (D-Calif.) came after he received information from a senior VA official, confirmed by The Washington Post, that Wilkie worked to discredit the credibility of the aide, senior policy adviser Andrea Goldstein. Wilkie, who led the Pentagon's vast personnel and readiness operation before his VA appointment, quietly began inquiring with military officials last fall about Goldstein's past, according to three people with knowledge of his efforts. That is when Goldstein said a man groped and propositioned her in the main lobby of VA Medical Center in Washington. Over several months, Wilkie shared his findings with his senior staff at morning meetings on at least six occasions, three current or former senior VA officials confirmed." Mrs. McC: If this is true, what a creep Wilkie is.
Barbara Starr of CNN: "Initial reports indicate there are multiple US casualties after an attack on a joint US-Afghanistan operation in the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, one defense official told CNN. The official cannot say how many US service members may be dead or wounded. And as is often the case early in these incidents, information could change as more details are learned. The US military is saying very little officially." ~~~
~~~ Update. Susannah George & Sharif Hassan of the Washington Post: "Two U.S. service members were killed and six were wounded in the attack according to a statement from the U.S. military command. The incident is under investigation, but some Afghan officials say the attacker was a member of the Afghan security forces." Reuters has a story here.
No Accounting for Taste. Amanda Hurley in the Atlantic: "As first reported by Architectural Record and confirmed by The New York Times, the Trump administration is considering an executive order that will direct that U.S. government buildings with budgets greater than $50 million be designed in classical and other traditional styles. A draft document retains [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan's ringing phrase about 'dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability,' but stipulates that 'the classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style.' All federal courthouses and federal buildings in and around Washington, D.C., would have to follow the work of Greek and Roman architects and their emulators in subsequent centuries." Hurley argues why this is a bad idea in practically, esthetically and politically. ~~~
~~~ New York Times Editors: "The proposed executive order reflects a broader inclination in some parts of American society to substitute an imagined past for the complexities and possibilities of the present. It embodies a belief that diversity is a problem and uniformity is a virtue. It is advocating for an un-American approach to architecture." As the editors demonstrate, the new "traditional" guidelines are already having their effects on federal building designs throughout the country.
** Jeffrey Ostler in the Atlantic: "The opening words of the Declaration of Independence -- and easily its most remembered part -- are widely celebrated as signifying the beginning of an exceptional American history, one characterized, despite setbacks, by a progressive expansion of rights. The closing words of the Declaration are far less known. The last of a list of 27 grievances against King George III, they read as follows: 'He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.'... The 27th grievance reveals that the original sin at America's founding was twofold. America was built by the labor of enslaved people. It was also built on stolen lands and the genocide of indigenous peoples.... The revolution wasn't only an effort to establish independence from the British -- it was also a push to preserve slavery and suppress Native American resistance." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Of course, not being a man, I have always been leery of a document that declares as its cardinal principle that "all men are created equal," but now I understand that this founding document also specifically targets people of color. I don't know what's going on in elementary public education these days, but it would be a good idea if their little textbooks quit falsely aggrandizing and idealizing the rapacious colonists and "Founding Fathers." Four hundred years to the year after English Pilgrims first set foot on Cape Cod, we are still a "Christian nation" of, by and for white men.
Share Article
Reader Comments (6)
Boy, were they wrong!
https://www.salon.com/2020/02/08/americas-fatal-flaw-the-founders-assumed-our-leaders-would-have-some-basic-decency/
A few nights ago on MSNBC in a conversation with Chris Mathews, Nina Turner ( national campaign co-chair for Sanders) described Bloomberg as an "Oligarch" which drew a heated response from Jason Johnson who insisted her word of choice was "unfair and inaccurate."
Here's Richard Eckow from "Common Dreams" to give us a pretty thorough run-down of everything Bloomberg whose bloom may fade fast once we face facts.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/of-course-michael-bloomberg-is-an-oligarch/
But given all that we still face the other biggie: Who best to beat the "Be Best" Baby? Are we prepared to say it doesn't matter who or what these candidates may stand for or what their issues are, we'll vote for anyone we feel confident will win over this fool. A sad state of affairs, I'd say but as I did say, I'm willing to go that route if necessary.
Enjoyed so much reading the NYT's opinion piece by many who rated and commented on each candidate. One of my favorites: Dan McCarthy describing Pete: "always polished even when struggling."
" Four hundred years to the year after English Pilgrims first set foot on Cape Cod, we are still a "Christian nation" of, by and for white men." You betcha! And yes, Marie, one wonders if in many history classes this fact goes by the wayside––in those waving fields of grain that will soon be diminished ––as all the children recite the Pledge every bloody morning––under God.
@PD Pepe: First, most of the first graf of your comment should be in quotes; it's lifted word-for-word from Eskow's piece. Please watch that.
Second, the question definitely hinges on what the meaning of "oligarch" is. If it depends on the ultra-rich person's influence in government, as most dictionary definitions would have it, then Bloomberg probably isn't an oligarch. Clearly, he hasn't much influence in our current "administration." But I see writers still referring to really, really rich people who may have fallen out of favor with their country's government as "oligarchs." They're not usually called "former oligarchs" or "ex-oligarchs." But should he become president, or even a member of a new president's cabinet, it would certainly be fair to call Bloomberg an oligarch. Maybe under the common definition, he's an oligarch-in-waiting. But whatever, there's no question he uses his great wealth to try to influence our politics; he doesn't pretend otherwise. And as Eskow points out, at least until recently, Bloomberg's platform has been very much skewed toward policies that benefit the rich.
In addition, I have always been troubled by Bloomberg's successful move to become a third-term mayor when that was against the law. It's what we fear in Trump: that he will, as he has boasted, run for a third term, or that should he lose in November, he will refuse to concede. That Bloomberg actually managed to subvert the law because he believed he was so indispensable is a dangerous sign. He certainly was the oligarch-in-chief of New York City.
Third, thanks for the link.
Marie: Since I witnessed the Tina/ Jason controversy first hand I felt comfortable writing as I did about it in that first sentence–-but hey––I'll heed your advice.
@PD Pepe: Obviously, there's nothing wrong with writing about something you observed, but you have to use your own words to describe that thing. You quoted Eskow directly, without attribution or quotation marks.
You wrote, "... Nina Turner ( national campaign co-chair for Sanders) described Bloomberg as an 'Oligarch' which drew a heated response from Jason Johnson who insisted her word of choice was 'unfair and inaccurate.'"
Eskow wrote, "... Nina Turner, a national campaign co-chair for Bernie Sanders, described billionaire Michael Bloomberg as an “oligarch.” That drew a heated response from MSNBC contributor and political science professor Jason Johnson, who insisted that Turner’s word choice was unfair and inaccurate."
Yes, you changed the punctuation a little & left out some descriptors, but you still lifted Escow's phraseology to an extent that would be considered plagiarism. If you read something about, say, Sherrod Brown that describes him as "Democrat of Ohio," and you call him "Democrat of Ohio" that's not plagiarism; it's a brief, accurate description. But when you write, "... which drew a heated response from Jason Johnson who insisted her word of choice was 'unfair and inaccurate,'" -- which is exactly how Eskow characterized Johnson's reaction -- you have to credit the originator of the language. And Eskow was the originator.
Bloomberg himself is a plagiarist, according to a post I linked yesterday, but that doesn't make it okay for us to steal from CommonDreams writers who write about him.
Mrs. Bea McC. -
<< I have always been troubled by Bloomberg's successful move to become a third-term mayor when that was against the law. It's what we fear in Trump: that he will, as he has boasted, run for a third term, or that should he lose in November, he will refuse to concede. That Bloomberg actually managed to subvert the law because he believed he was so indispensable is a dangerous sign. He certainly was the oligarch-in-chief of New York City. >>
Agree 100%! As did / do many of my fellow New Yorkers.
RE: “Orange Man. Daniel Politi of Slate”:
*If* I’ve understood despotus’ logic (and I very well may not have) in reproducing the photo in B&W to substantiate its “fake”-ness, he may have done the very opposite:
In learning Color Value (the intensity of a hue) when studying water color painting, instructors sometimes demonstrate with B&W copies of different hues using blobs of colors on paper or finished paintings. Where the Color Value (using Orange, let’s just say) is heaviest, the repro will present darkest. Wherever the colors are lightest, those areas will be lighter, even disappear altogether. I’ve seen the B&W version. Ipso Facto?
(Just a superficial observation on a lazy Sunday about the supercilious leader* of our not-so home of the brave.)