The Commentariat -- November 7, 2016
Afternoonish Update:
David Fahrenthold, et al., of the Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton's campaign chief expressed relief Monday that the FBI's email probe had been put to rest, but Donald Trump appeared ready to hammer the issue in his last-ditch bid for critical swing states as the campaign entered its final day." -- CW
*****
Presidential Race
Shane Goldmacher of Politico: "Pressing to lock in her electoral advantage in the final hours of the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton will summon the collective firepower of the last two Democratic presidents on Monday while Donald Trump scrambles furiously across state lines in a last-ditch bid to scale the blue wall of support she has built." -- CW
Forget Silver. Watch the Peso. Daniel Politi of Slate: "Slate's Joshua Keating told us a few days ago that we should stop obsessing over FiveThirtyEight and start looking at the value of the Mexican peso to see whether Donald Trump is going to win. Well, if we use the Mexican currency as a barometer, things are looking mighty good for Hillary Clinton right about now. The peso surged the most in almost a month almost immediately after the FBI confirmed that it didn't think Clinton's use of a private e-mail server was a crime. In early Monday morning trading in Tokyo, the peso jumped 2.2 percent to 18.6009 per dollar, according to Bloomberg. That was quite a turnaround considering the peso had plunged 1.8 percent between Oct. 26 and Nov. 4." -- CW
Jose DelReal, et al., of the Washington Post discuss which 15 states will determine the winner of the Electoral College vote. -- CW
Nate Cohn of the New York Times: "In a first, rather than wait for election results to be tallied at county courthouses and to be announced by The Associated Press or the TV networks, a company called VoteCastr will project the results in real time. The results will be published on Slate and Vice." Cohn explains why you shouldn't count on VoteCastr's "results." CW: Here at Reality Chex, I'll be counting Electoral College votes the old-fashioned way (tho I'm not sure what to do about Washington State, where one Democratic Elector has promised to, & another may, go rogue).
Steven Shepard of Politico: "Early-vote statistics from battleground states with large Hispanic populations show record turnout among a bloc that has voted at a lower rate than whites or blacks in past elections.... In Florida, which tracks turnout by race and ethnicity, Hispanics have so far cast about 14 percent of the 5.7 million early and absentee ballots cast.... That follows Florida Democratic strategist Steve Schale's analysis, which notes that, through Wednesday alone, Hispanic turnout in 2016 had already exceeded -- by 170,000 ballots -- Hispanic early voting in the entire 2012 cycle.... Similar signs suggest Democrats are seeing robust Hispanic turnout in Arizona as well. And even Texas, considered out of reach for Democrats, is seeing a surge across the state's most populous counties." --safari (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Tommy Craggs of Slate: "This election was about the issues.... I'm talking about issues that involve the fundamental arrangements of American life, issues of race and class and gender and sexual violence. These are the things we've argued about in the past year and change, sometimes coarsely, sometimes tediously, but very often illuminatingly. This has been, by all but the most fatuous measures, an issue-rich campaign.... The one favor Trump did us was to be monstrous about the things in America that matter the most, to force a confrontation with all the stuff our politics typically is at pains to suppress. This campaign was about power, and it was about impunity. It was about 'Grab them by the pussy,' and it was about the sentence Donald Trump spoke just before that, the issue at the heart of the election: 'You can do anything.'" -- CW
The New York Times is running a "live briefing" of today's presidential race. Here's a sample: "Speaking in Minnesota just moments after the news [of Jim Comey's "Never Mind" letter] broke, Mr. Trump delivered a speech asserting that Mrs. Clinton will probably see a criminal trial soon. Sticking with facts has never been a deep preoccupation for Mr. Trump when trying to make a point. And a number of his supporters are just as likely to believe that the F.B.I. caved under pressure, as Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally, suggested on Twitter. But the closing hours of the campaign are likely to widen the gap between facts and reality."
Annie Karni of Politico: "... when FBI Director James Comey on Sunday handed [the Clinton campaign] a giant reprieve ... there was no crowing. Instead, the Clinton campaign greeted the news break, at least outwardly, with little more than a 'told ya so' shrug.... Clinton did not mention Comey or her emails at a 'get out the vote' rally in Cleveland with local legend LeBron James." -- CW ...
... Stephen Stromberg of the Washington Post: "... Comey is now asking the voters to disregard the fog of suspicion he created around Clinton. It's too late. Millions of voters cast ballots over the last week. Many others have no doubt spent the time conceptualizing the race as one between a crook and a crazy man. It turns out that the race is in fact between a relatively conventional politician who has been for decades accused of grand crimes, and a dangerous man who has substantiated many of the alarming claims made about him." -- CW ...
... ** Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: "The F.B.I. informed Congress on Sunday that it has not changed its conclusions about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, removing a dark cloud that has been hanging over her campaign two days before Election Day. James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, said in a letter to members of Congress that 'based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.'.... In the immediate term, the letter removes a cloud that has hung over the Clinton campaign since Mr. Comey announced his agents were reviewing new emails that might be related to an investigation into Mrs. Clinton that ended in July. But Mr. Comey's move is sure to raise new questions from Democrats. Most important: Why did Mr. Comey raise the specter of wrongdoing before agents had even read the emails, especially since it took only days to determine they were not significant" -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... The story has been updated. "According to the law enforcement official, many of the emails were personal messages or duplicates of ones that the bureau had previously examined during the original inquiry.... At the end of a rocky week for Mrs. Clinton that included wild false speculation about looming indictments and shocking discoveries in the emails, Mr. Comey's letter swept away her largest and most immediate problem. Republicans immediately accused Mr. Comey of making his announcement prematurely." CW: Right. Because waiting till after the election to clear Clinton would have been so much fairer to voters.
... Comey's letter is here. ...
... Tom Hamburger & Rosalind Heldermann of the Washington Post: "Comey wrote that investigators had worked 'around the clock' to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that 'we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July.'... The three-paragraph letter was sent to the chairman of the Homeland Security, Judiciary, Appropriations and Oversight and Government Reform and was copied to the ranking members of those committees. Comey said the FBI had performed an 'extraordinary amount of high quality work' to conduct the review." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)...
... CW: Meanwhile, as Comey forced his staff to do an "extraordinary amount of high quality work," millions of Americans were voting their choice for president & on down the ballot under the mistaken impression that the Democratic nominee for president was sexting Anthony Weiner. But no harm done, Jim! ...
... AND Patrick obtained exclusive video of Jim Comey's presser announcing the FBI's decision. CW: Oddly, Patrick's video misses the part where Comey profusely apologizes to Clinton and the American people:
... I'll link to a copy of the transcript as soon as one becomes available. ...
... George Zornick of the Nation: "James Comey just gave one of the most consequential 'oh, neverminds' in American history.... In the nine days between Comey' first announcement and Sunday's 'nevermind,' Donald Trump blanketed the airwaves with ads ... claiming Clinton was 'under FBI investigation again' for e-mails found 'on pervert Anthony' Weiner's computer.'... Overall the scandal had a demonstrable effect on Democratic enthusiasm.... This is why there is normally huge deference from law enforcement about public information that could affect elections.... If a Republican Senate keeps the Supreme Court to eight justices (or less) for the next four years, we may think of this extraordinary intervention by Comey." -- CW ...
... Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post: "An agency that, at least in its recent history, has been considered the symbol of square-jawed rectitude has now taken a place in the larger, corrosive narrative of the 2016 election.... The whole saga also will probably reinforce the disillusioned American public's perception that the political system is corrupt, and that the institutions of government are failing. It is likely, as well, to further undermine the legitimacy of whoever wins the election in this deeply polarized country.... 'Comey must be under enormous political pressure to cave like this and announce something he can't possibly know,' tweeted former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a prominent ally of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. At a rally in Minnesota, Trump said: 'You have to understand it's a rigged system, and she's protected.'" ...
... CW: That's funny, because just last week Sunday morning Trump was praising the FBI to the heavens: "'There's little doubt that FBI Director Comey and the great special agents within the FBI will be able to collect more than enough evidence to garner indictments against Hillary Clinton and her inner circle despite her effort to disparage and discredit the FBI,' Trump said [at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa], prompting 'Lock her up' chants in the crowd." ...
... Whether [tis Nobler in the Mind to Suffer the Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Politicians.... David Atkins in the Washington Monthly: "Ultimately, it seems that Comey is less a villain in this case than a tragic Shakespearian anti-hero, more Hamlet than Iago. Comey's actions are consistent with those of a man who tried to take the political middle ground..., but in so doing politicized the FBI far more than had he simply followed the appropriate guidelines.... Given his past missteps [Sunday's announcement] was the right thing to do, but it only demonstrates further his feckless misunderstanding of how to run a professional, non-partisan agency. Future agency heads should learn from Comey's mistakes by simply following protocol. If that means that conservative crusaders insult you and [c]all your credibility into question, that's their problem. All you do by trying to appease them is damage one's own credibility, and that of the institution you serve." -- CW
Sarah Wheaton of Politico: "President Barack Obama wanted to personally set the record straight on Sunday after Donald Trump falsely accused the president of yelling at a protester days earlier. 'The point is, he thought it was OK to just lie,' Obama said at a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Kissimmee, Florida. 'Wasn't even trying to be sneaky about it. That says something about how unacceptable behavior has become normal.' Obama recalled his event two days earlier in North Carolina, when he urged a crowd to go easy on a protester, apparently an elderly veteran, saying the man had earned their respect and had a right to free speech. Later that night, however, Trump told his own crowd that Obama 'spent so much time screaming at a protester.' Media organizations quickly called Trump out for, as one CNN headline put it, the 'wild misrepresentation,' and PolitiFact gave Trump a 'pants on fire.' But Obama clearly wanted to set the record straight himself, saying Trump 'just made it up.'" -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
(... For Charles Pierce, Trump's claim that Obama was "screaming at a protester" was the last straw. -- CW)
Now, if somebody can't handle a Twitter account, they can't handle the nuclear codes. -- President Obama, at a campaign rally in Kissimmee, Fla., Sunday ...
... The Narcissist in November. Maggie Haberman, et al., of the New York Times: "Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet..., [Donald Trump] does not like to ... be alone..., insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law. He requires constant assurance that his candidacy is on track.... In the final days of the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump's candidacy is a jarring split screen: the choreographed show of calm and confidence orchestrated by his staff, and the neediness and vulnerability of a once-boastful candidate now uncertain of victory.... Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to ... savage his rivals. But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all of the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a 'super PAC' with vengeance as its core mission.... Mr. Trump's campaign is no longer making headlines with embarrassing staff shake-ups. But that has left him with a band of squabbling and unfireable advisers, with confusing roles and an inability to sign off on basic tasks. A plan to encourage early voting in Florida went unapproved for weeks. The result is chaotic." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Libby Nelson of Vox: "What [the NYT report] truly demonstrates is just how much effort it takes to get Trump to act anything like a normal presidential candidate, and how damaging he's likely to be when he's no longer under those restraints." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Presidential Cabinet as Rogue's Gallery. Katy Tur & Benji Sarlin of NBC News: "Donald Trump's cabinet-in-waiting is taking shape in the final days of the race, as aides eye a number of Trump loyalists for major posts should he win on Tuesday. Among the names being considered, according to conversations with three campaign advisers who requested anonymity to speak freely: Rudy Giuliani for attorney general, Newt Gingrich for secretary of state, retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn for defense secretary or national security adviser, Trump finance chairman Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary, and Republican National Committee finance chair Lew Eisenberg for commerce secretary.... Reince Priebus, the current RNC chairman, is under consideration as Trump's chief of staff." CW: My guess the other day that Trump would pick the execrable Rudy for AG (following the demise of Gov. Chrisco) was an educated one, not evidence that I am a Trump mole hiding inside a fake anti-Trump disguise.
Ben Terris of the Washington Post on Trump's gaslighting the nation. Terris knows the feeling; it happened to him. -- CW
Joe Romm of ThinkProgress: "In the last week..., Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to zero out all federal spending on clean energy research and development. And the plan he released would also zero out all other spending on anything to do with climate change, including the government's entire climate science effort. You may have missed this bombshell because team Trump did not spell out these cuts overtly. In a campaign where the media has 'utterly failed to convey the policy stakes in the election,' as Vox's Matt Yglesias explained recently, it appears only Bloomberg BNA bothered to follow up with the campaign to get at the truth of Trump's radical proposal." Upon further questioning, the Trump campaign is just making shit up. Surprise! --safari (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Spencer Woodman of The Intercept: "As hurricane Mathew closed in on the Florida coast in early October, Democrats called on Republican Governor Rick Scott to extend the state's voter registration deadline to allow those affected by the storm to access the ballot box. But Scott and his supporters resisted...[A] federal judge overruled Scott, ordering the state to extend its deadline by an entire week, to October 18. The resulting extra seven days saw a flood of more than 100,000 additional voter registrations in Florida -- new voters who otherwise would have been shut out of this year's election. And this doesn't appear to have caused widespread hardship to the state's election officials." --safari
Ryan Koronoski of ThinkProgress: "Voters in heavily-Democratic Philadelphia will be able to enjoy a somewhat normal commute on Election Day after a week of snarled traffic and uncertainty. Last Tuesday, Transport Workers Union Local 234...went on strike. The city's transportation system has been paralyzed, snarled by traffic and long commutes, which has worried people operating several get-out-the-vote operations in the city and surrounding suburbs. But in the pre-dawn hours of Monday morning, the union's leaders and the management of SEPTA reached a tentative five-year agreement, ending the strike one day before Election Day." --safari
Robert Mackey of The Intercept: "Introducing Donald Trump at a rally in Reno on Saturday, the chairman of the Nevada Republican party complained to a largely white crowd that voters in another part of the state, with a large Latino population, were allowed to vote late the night before...What [Michael] McDonald [the GOP chairman] failed to explain is that some polling places were open later than 7 p.m., and polls routinely stay open late to allow anyone waiting in line when they close to cast their ballots. Despite these facts, and the chilling sound of a politician casting doubt on the rights of members of an ethnic minority to exercise their right to vote, Trump then claimed that the votes cast in a Clark County polling place in a Mexican supermarket -- most likely against him -- were evidence of fraud. 'It's being reported that certain key Democratic polling locations in Clark County were kept open for hours and hours beyond closing time to bus and bring Democratic voters in,' Trump said. 'Folks, it's a rigged system.'" --safari (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Jeremy Diamond of CNN: "The chairman of the Nevada Republican Party argued Saturday during a rally [in Reno] for Donald Trump that polling locations stayed open late to accommodate long lines of voters 'so a certain group could vote.'... The chairman, Michael McDonald, was referring to a polling location in Clark County, which is 30% Hispanic and the county in which Las Vegas is located. The polling location stayed open to allow voters who were already in line -- many of whom waited more than two hours, according to local reports -- to cast their ballots." CW: Yeah, Mike, we like to call that "certain group," "registered voters," and we're wondering why the county hasn't provided enough polling places so they could do so timely. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Jon Ralston of Politico: "The next day [after a record-breaking turnout of Nevada's Latino voters], Trump arrived in Reno looking like a dead man walking, railing at the scene in Vegas the night before and blaming 'crazy, broken Harry Reid and his corrupt political machine.'...They raged, raged against the dying of their chances. Yet about one thing Trump was right: Harry Reid built this. After two years of boosting voter registration among key Democratic demographics, the retiring Senate minority leader has brought turnout among Hispanics in the state to record levels. In doing so, he's almost surely delivered the state for Hillary Clinton...Now, in virtually ensuring that Clinton has enough votes banked in early voting to take Nevada, Reid can ride off into the sunset knowing he has created perhaps the most fearsome political machine in history." --safari note: The article includes a fair amount of hyperbole, IMO, but it also explains Reid's strategy in building and strengthening the GOTV coalition, one that should be copied by Democrats nationwide ...
... Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "Within minutes [of a scuffle at Trump's Reno rally]..., Donald Trump Jr., and top social media aide Dan Scavino — passed along later-disproven claims that the GOP nominee had just survived an 'assassination attempt.' And on stage at Trump's next rally in Denver, Father Andre Mahanna said Trump had survived 'an attempt of murder.' Even as late as Sunday morning, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was playing up the idea that this was a "Democratic plant" trying to disrupt Trump's rally.... Trump Jr. also passed along a claim that the person who caused the disturbance had a gun.... And he retweeted a suggestion, shortly after the incident, that Democrats were to blame for violence at Trump rallies.... None of these things appear to be true, based upon the evidence at hand." More on this ridiculous story below. The only person who was under threat was the protester, a Republican. -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Miranda Blue of Right Wing Watch: "Donald Trump is planning to spend the penultimate night of his campaign rallying with Ted Nugent, a musician and NRA board member who has a long record of violent rhetoric, misogyny and anti-Semitism. Nugent will reportedly join Trump at a Michigan rally [Sunday] tonight. It is a fitting way for Trump to close out a campaign that has been driven by racial resentment and elevated some of the most extreme voices of the Right." -- CW ...
... AND of Course All Went Well. Justin Baragona of Mediaite: "... Ted Nugent wanted to let the crowd know what he thought about the state being labeled Democratic. 'I got your blue state right here,' the Nuge shouted while grabbing his crotch." Ken Mayer of Mediaite: "Trump took the stage later on, and he reiterated his recent talking point that Jay Z and Beyonce use much worse language than he's ever used." -- CW ...
... Robert Mackey: "Donald Trump's advertising campaign is ending as it started, with footage of migrants in Europe, lifted from the internet and passed off as video of immigrants streaming across the border from Mexico into the United States. Near the start of the new ad, as the candidate complains of 'massive illegal immigration,' thousands of people are shown walking along a highway.... That video, however, was not shot along the southern border of the U.S. -- where Trump has promised to build a great wall -- but in Hungary, at the height of the migrant crisis last year.... If the footage was used in error, it would be an odd slip, since the Trump campaign was ridiculed for doing the exact same thing in their first ad, at the start of the year...It seems possible, however, that the ad is intentionally misleading, and hopes to conflate the situation in the U.S. with the huge number of migrants seeking refuge in Europe from wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan." --safari (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Brennan Suen of Media Matters: "The New York Post published a front page report alleging that ... Hillary Clinton 'routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents -- including ones containing classified information,' but ignored the fact the emails in question were classified years after the fact. The report cited only two classified emails, both of which were retroactively classified at the lowest level of classification.... Additionally, in both confidential emails Clinton did not request that her maid print the emails. [CW: It was Clinton staffers who suggested the housekeeper print them out.] The author of the report [-- Paul Sperry --] has a history of inaccurate reporting when it comes to Clinton's emails." ...
... BUT in Right Wing World, any made-up story knocking Clinton is a good story. SO, "Appearing on Fox News Sunday..., Mike Pence ... said, 'We just found out this morning that she had her maid print off classified information.'... Kellyanne Conway ... [said on CNN,] 'We have a report this morning that [Clinton] has her maid ... printing out classified information,' and us[ed] the report to call Clinton 'selfish' and 'peevish.'" And "Fox & Friends" dedicated a whole segment to the Post report.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Steve M.: Watch Maureen Dowd "prepare the ground" for Trump's post-election rehabilitation. From her Sunday column: "Before he jumped into the presidential race, Trump ... was not regarded as a bigot or demagogue.... But he created another character for the Republican primaries...." Steve: "Whether or not he was seen as a bigot before the campaign, we know he actually was one. He was sued by the federal government for not renting to black people in the 1970s. One of his casinos was fined for removing black employees from the floor at the request of a particular high roller. An ex-employee has quoted him as saying, 'Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.' As the Central Park Five case convulsed New York City, he bought a full-page newspaper ad that demanded the reinstatement of the death penalty. And, of course, with regard to President Obama, he was America's most famous birther.... And he's always believed in government by strongmen...." -- CW
Pope Makes Last-Minute Anti-Trump Appeal. Daniel Politi: "In what sounded like a thinly veiled dig at Donald Trump, Pope Francis condemned the use of fear for political ends and said people shouldn't be dedicating their energies to building walls. The pontiff didn't, of course, mention Trump by name but there seems to be little doubt about who he was referring to during a speech at the Vatican this weekend." -- CW
Senate Races
Remember the Supremes! New York Times Editors: "Sixteen years [after Al Gore accepted the Supreme Courts' 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore], the Supreme Court sits crippled, unable to resolve the most pressing legal questions facing the country. Two events -- the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the unprecedented refusal of Senate Republicans to even consider President Obama's pick to fill the vacant seat -- have converged to throw the court's future as a functioning institution into doubt. This scenario would have seemed unimaginable a year ago. But Tuesday's vote -- for president and for control of the Senate -- will determine whether the court remains short-handed for months or, as Republicans are now threatening if they hold the Senate, for years." ...
... CW: This is why we must vote for Democratric Senate candidates who are real jerks. I did it myself once, when the situation was less dire than it is today, even tho I knew the Republican candidate was a far, far better person. (The jerk I voted for won, but he ended his Senate career in disgrace.)
Burgess Everett & Rachel Bade of Politico: "As the final, frantic hours of the campaign for control of Congress come to a close, Democrats look like slightly-better-than-even favorites to reclaim the Senate, while Republicans appear certain to hold the House after a Donald Trump-induced October scare. If Democrats manage to flip the Senate, senior party aides and strategists involved in battleground races said they're looking at a majority of 52 seats, best case. That would be a letdown from their earlier hopes of a 54- or 55-seat advantage and put Republicans in the pole position to win back the chamber in 2018."-- CW
Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times: Which party will control the Senate is anybody's guess. -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
The Washington Post names the 12 Senate races that will determine which party controls the Senate. -- CW
Election News & Views
NEW. Paul Krugman: "... this was, in fact, a rigged election. The election was rigged by state governments that did all they could to prevent nonwhite Americans from voting.... The election was rigged by Russian intelligence.... The election was rigged by James Comey.... The election was also rigged by people within the F.B.I. -- people who clearly felt that under Mr. Comey they had a free hand to indulge their political preferences.... The election was rigged by partisan media, especially Fox News, which trumpeted falsehoods, then retracted them, if at all, so quietly that almost nobody heard.... The election was rigged by mainstream news organizations, many of which simply refused to report on policy issues, a refusal that clearly favored the candidate who lies about these issues all the time, and has no coherent proposals to offer.... The election was rigged by the media obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails....
So in the days ahead it will be important to remember two things. First, Mrs. Clinton has actually run a remarkable campaign, demonstrating her tenacity in the face of unfair treatment and remaining cool under pressure that would have broken most of us. Second, and much more important, if she wins it will be thanks to Americans who stood up for our nation's principles -- who waited for hours on voting lines contrived to discourage them, who paid attention to the true stakes in this election rather than letting themselves be distracted by fake scandals and media noise. Those citizens deserve to be honored, not disparaged, for doing their best to save the nation from the effects of badly broken institutions. Many people have behaved shamefully this year -- but tens of millions of voters kept their faith in the values that truly make America great.
... CW: So (Krugman and) I say to most Reality Chex readers: Consider yourself a hero. You've more than earned the name.
Ed Pilkington of the Guardian: "Joe Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has been charged with criminal contempt in a racial discrimination case, is preparing to deploy his deputies at polling stations on election day in a move that voting rights activists warn amounts to intimidation..., given the sheriff's track record of ethnic profiling, harassment and organized raids directed against undocumented Hispanic people. Arpaio is locked in a tense re-election fight on 8 November, as a growing number of Latino citizens and allied progressives seek to oust him as sheriff after 23 years in the post." -- CW (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Chas Danner of New York: "Following the news that one Bernie-Sanders-supporting electoral college voter in Washington State was vowing he would not cast his vote for Hillary Clinton if and when she wins the state's popular vote, another electoral college voter in the state has told the Seattle Times that he isn't sure he'll support her either...Clinton is widely expected to win Washington State on Election Day and thus be pledged its 12 electoral votes toward the 270 she needs to defeat Donald Trump and win the presidency. There is no constitutional requirement for Electoral College voters to support the winner of the popular vote in their state, but some states penalize such 'faithless electors.'..." --safari (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Other News & Views
Carl Hulse of the New York Times: "Janet Reno, who rose from a rustic life on the edge of the Everglades to become attorney general of the United States -- the first woman to hold the job -- and whose eight years in that office placed her in the middle of some of the most divisive episodes of the Clinton presidency, died on Monday at age 78." -- CW
Michael Birnbaum of the Washington Post: "Just ahead of the U.S. presidential elections, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be pushing his conflict with the West to new heights. He has declared an end to a plutonium-disposal agreement with the United States. Two weeks ago, he stationed new cruise missiles in Kaliningrad, further bolstering a territory that already was bristling with weaponry. And Aleppo is bracing for a renewed Russian bombardment that may begin soon. Many Western policymakers say he may be taking advantage of end-of-term distractions in the White House to exert as commanding a position as possible before a new president takes office Jan. 20." And Russian fighter pilots are repeatedly buzzing NATO airspace. ...
... CW: Another thing about Putin that is like Trump: he does stupid stuff for no reason. His entire anti-European/anti-American agenda is without merit. What is there to gain? Nothing. And there is a great deal for Russians to lose. Gorbachev gave Russia a chance to be a great country instead of a harsh, totalitarian superpower; subsequent leaders have blown it. Big time. That is what Trump's erratic, anti-American antics would do to the U.S.
George Packer of the New Yorker has a long read on how the Democratic Party has lost the white working-class voters, and if/how Hillary Clinton can win them back. --safari
Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "The housing collapse of 2008 nearly broke the city of Miami. Now, its leaders have embarked on a novel and aggressive legal strategy to recoup losses from the big banks they say created the crisis.... It is a high-stakes effort that is being encouraged by many cities, and the banks Tuesday will ask the Supreme Court to stop it before it takes root. Miami sued Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which bars discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing.... The city says that it can prove the lending institutions discriminated against Hispanic and African American residents by directing them into high-interest, risky loans. The resulting defaults destabilized Miami's poorest neighborhoods, and the resulting loss of tax revenue sent the city to the brink of bankruptcy, they say." -- CW
P.S. Free access to the New York Times today thru Wednesday.
Way Beyond the Beltway
Jack Ewing of the New York Times: "The investigation into emissions fraud at Volkswagen reached the very top of the company on Sunday after the carmaker said that the chairman of the supervisory board, Hans Dieter Pötsch, is suspected by German prosecutors of violating securities laws. Mr. Pötsch, the former chief financial officer at Volkswagen, is accused of failing to notify shareholders quickly enough of the financial risks of the diesel emissions cheating scandal, which has already led to a $15 billion settlement in the United States and caused the stock price to plunge. The disclosure that Mr. Pötsch is the subject of an investigation is likely to intensify criticism that Volkswagen remains in the hands of many of the longtime insiders who were in charge while the company was producing millions of cars that were deliberately designed to cheat on air-quality tests." -- CW
Share Article
Reader Comments (29)
When the Pope made his "last minute anti-Trump appeal" did he mention Sec. Clinton's stance on taking the life of an unborn child
at any point...even if that point is late term? Of course he did. Why don't you comment on his statements concerning life? You don't because they will not fit into your narrative.
Diane asked a good question at the end of yesterday's thread: "Seriously, I'm also confused by the constant labeling of a group as 'elite.' The term and its attached confusion, isn't confined to this article. Is elite economically defined, does it indicate an anti-intelligence bias, is it race based, birthright based?? There's no similar listing of the anxieties of the 'elite' as there are of the anxieties of the 'working class', which Packer at least recognizes is not a complete monolith. I guess the implication is that the 'elite' is a group of undesirables whose composition and motives are universally understood. The term 'elite' just seems to be a convenient place to park all your various anxieties."
Just as Packer describes the "working class," it seems to me that "elite" is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at "elite" as an adjective instead of a noun, then it means the best at or of something: "She swam on an elite team"; "He goes to an elite boarding school." You immediately know what the speaker means by "elite" in these examples.
When used as a noun, to describe a person or group of people, it implies they are, generally, in a class (or caste) of "the best people." But that in itself implies not just one trait -- talented swimmer; privileged student -- but a menu of attributes. We might all be able to more-or-less agree on a list of attributes, but I don't think we could agree on how to weigh those attributes. Those attributes include things like wealth, job, family status, education, ZIP code, social associates, possessions, "style," intelligence. personal demeanor/social skills, popularity, fame. (I'm sure I've left out some important ones.) Yes, we're all part of one "American" culture, but our value judgments or normative standards differ widely.
An "elite person," I think, is one who is admired and/or envied. Whether we admire or envy the "elite" colors our perception of elitism, a coloring that is predicated on our perception of our own place in a society that is hierarchical in nature, whatever the Declaration of Independence says.
So if you see yourself as "not-elite," and further sense that those you would describe as "elite" look down on you or even mistreat you, then the "elite" are a group of undesirables, as you say. On the other hand, if you see yourself as elite, or if becoming elite is a goal for you, or if you just admire elites, then the attributes you ascribe to elites are, in your view, good things.
Oh, let's use Donald Trump as an example. On paper, Trump is an "elite." Although his father did not have high social status, he did have prominent "connections" and he was very wealthy. Trump, then, is a second-generation wealthy person, he had a good education, by his own reckoning he's been a successful businessman, he's famous, and he has a fabulous, excessive "lifestyle" in which every place he lives (or owns) is "the best." On the other hand, his social associations suck -- mobsters instead of old-money swells -- and he is boorish. He says he doesn't have many friends, and he is constantly pretending he's better at everything than he is. He aspires to be an elite; he envies the elite; and he resents the elites because he knows the only way they'll invite him to their parties is if he's somehow paying them. (This is probably how he justifies stiffing charities.) He wants to be president because he thinks then the elites will have no choice but to treat him with respect. Instead of making underlings call him "Mr. Trump," everyone will have to call him "Mr. President." (That's why Hillary called him "Donald" in the debates.) He's furious that recognition of his elite status isn't happening now; in fact, the opposite is happening: "snobbish" elites are dissing him more than ever.
Elites are a class. Though the means to their elite status differ, an elite knows an elite when she sees one (making elitism a bit like pornography), and many elites literally know each other. "Friends of Bill" was a joke, but it was also a group of connected elites. Their distinguishing characteristic is not just knowing each other (and Bill), but also each knowing that he or she is an elite. There's an "insiderism" to elitism that drives outsiders like Trump (and sometimes me) nuts. There's often a presumption of rectitude -- David Brooks (okay, not a friend of Bill's, but a person who resides in his own circle of elites) never thinks he's wrong. There's also usually a presumption of superiority, though "true elites" are adept at hiding it because one of the qualities of elites is "excellent social skills."
The continuing challenge of democracy (and only some form of democracy can mount the challenge) is to break into that "superior insider" cocoon, and give the elites the benefit of understanding experiences they haven't had, of recognizing problems they haven't known, of entertaining solutions they haven't thought of. The elites aren't so bad, but it is necessary to constantly prod them to think outside their fancy box. That's what Bernie Sanders does. We may get to find out if Clinton got the message.
Marie
@Carol Mazzei: I'm not sure what you think my "narrative" is, but I've commented frequently on my support for abortion rights & other reproductive rights. I don't think I had time to do it the other day when Francis said there would never be females priests, but I thought that was wrong-headed, too.
As Hillary Clinton famously said, "Women's rights are human rights." Francis is remarkably good about the second half of human rights & remarkably bad about the first half. That's the nature of a patriarchy.
That's pretty much my "narrative."
Marie
If, BTW, you oppose what you call "late-term abortion," as your comment implies but doesn't state outright, then you probably know almost nothing about it as it is performed in the U.S. And you certainly know nothing about the bravery of women & families who have had to face it.
Hmmm....
I think at RC we think deeply about issues, including abortion. I can't think of anything that doesn't "fit our narrative" and would be censored, self or otherwise.
IMO, the two sides of abortion are banning and criminalising it entirely and forcing abortions for state sanctioned reasons e.g. population control, disability or economic. The middle ground is largely allowing freedom of choice, and privacy between patient and doctor. I can understand the point of view that abortions kill a foetus, and that some people find that offensive and would never commit to such an act. I also understand that life happens, is not always fair and just, and people are sometimes pushed to make difficult decisions. I think of it also as harm minimisation. I could never sanction watching a woman die in a hospital for want of care, including a termination that would save her life. As happens in first world countries where abortions are illegal, usually because of pressure from the church. Nor would I sanction compulsory terminations for any reasons that I can imagine. I think the compromise, the price we pay for living in the modern world, is the middle ground. I don't force you to terminate because you can't support a severely disabled child, and you and the pope don't force me to die for want of a medical procedure of which you don't approve, due to religious beliefs which I do not share.
I should have provided a link for my assertion about women's deaths. I am angry as this relates to the Catholic Church in particular. Men in frocks rail against homosexuality and (excuse me) fuck little boys, and want to criminalise women's health care in the forms of contraception and abortion. And not just for Catholics, but denying religious liberty, dictate to all others who do not adhere to this dogma. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is prepared to fight against general health care legislation in order to defeat the scourge of contraception. So, to be straight, sentence millions of people to ill health and death to prevent women from accessing health services.
This is not pro life. This is fascism.
Re: Weinermails
Within a week, expect the FBI leaking to be characterized by prominent GOPers and surrogates as "whistleblowing". Senator Grassley ("Judiciary"), in particular, loves him some patriotic whistleblowers. Expect much bullshit over the near future.
And - WaPo paper banner headline today says "FBI Won't Pursue Charges Against Clinton" -- perhaps implying that there ARE charges but the FBI is not going there. WTF, Bezos?
Finally, many writers refer to the Weinermail as a "trove" of e-mails. Again, implying that they are of great value, and previously hidden.
Where are the editors of yesteryear?
OK, thanks for bringing up the abortion issue again. Gives a chance to tell that annoying concept- facts. The vast majority of abortions are not decided by women or performed by physicians. We sweetly call them miscarriages but the correct medical term is spontaneous abortion. And the most common cause? Genetic defects. Yes the great majority of miscarriages are caused by things like down syndrome and lots of other genetic problems. So the greatest provider of abortions, depending on your beliefs, is nature or God.
I apologize for obtaining information that was not available 5000 years ago.
@Marvin Schwalb: Well said. But you do have a nerve interjecting facts, especially on a day prior to an election where voters must choose between facts and fantasy. You're such a partisan.
Marie
Two elites: Marie and Gloria whose comments this morning are stellar examples of excellent rebuttals or if you wish, personal views; something this site does a damn good job of accomplishing.
@Patrick: your question reminded me of something I was thinking about yesterday re: negative information about Trump that seems not to reach the kinds of people that don't read, and just watch Fox. Yet these people might just glance at the headlines in their local paper and I'm wondering whether those locals spell out the lies in big headlines so they can't be missed. Of course we have pretty much established that many Trumpsters don't care that he lies but perhaps a few would take note and not vote––for him.
@safari has put a link on the New Yorker piece by Packer. It is one of the best pieces I've read during this political season. Yes, it is very long but well worth the read.
From the NYT: "A potential victory for Donald J. Trump may hinge on one large group of Americans: whites who did not attend college."
Again, let's deal with reality. It should have said "cannot attend college".
@Carol Mazzei also note that if you want to deal with reality, note that Trump is not aware that 'life' doesn't end at birth.
@PDPepe: Often thought myself that big headlines, highway billboards with 'can't miss messages" might be a way to reach those people who don't seem to get it.
But, today's NYTimes headline story by Ford Fessenden with its stunning graphic: Donald Trump’s Big Bet (on) "Less Educated Whites" tells me probably wouldn't penetrate. The unreachable deplorables!
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words—and this likely shows those 40% voters who are mostly uninformed, don't want to be informed—those who buy into Trump's view.
Scary!
Great huzzahs for Gloria and Marie: articulate and smart women who aren't going to be rolled (or roiled!) by so-called pro-life BS. Carol, proceed to the next blog, or wherever you usually get your information. So pesky, facts...
Wow, talk about a surfeit of back and forth this a.m.. During my first cup of coffee I was going to comment about Marie's thoughts on "Elites". I really like your comments. To paraphrase my genetics teacher, '(elites) almost have a chemical recognition to one another'. They know it when they see it. With respect to Marvin, the central nervous system doesn't respond well to mutations - maybe that's why we see fewer Down children now than 40 years ago. Women have more access to a better class of information on fetal status and their doctor is obliged to share that information with them.
Usually at the heart of elite and facts is the amount of time and effort necessary to wear either mantle. Maybe that is why most inherited wealth is gone in two generations and the truly knowledgable don't self select socially in lock-step order. Learning and assembling facts for most folks take huge amounts of time. Trump-bots are unwilling to devote the effort and resources to assimilate new and developing information in a constantly changing world. One reason the Trumpets are pissed is because they know in their heart of hearts that they could do better and they're not. And they do the first thing every child does which is point outside themselves at the cause. One thing this election has shown me is that I don't have tolerance for people with an unfailingly high self regard in light of all facts to contrary. It's the danger sign that that person may well have the attention span of the average tv commercial and that they not have the fortitude to learn material outside their current orbit of information. Here's to hoping that Wednesday morning is indeed "Good".
Let us not forget, today, on the death of Janet Reno, the first woman to serve as United States Attorney General, the way she carried out her duties and the importance she gave to personal integrity and honor, qualities non-existent in the current head of the FBI and appallingly lacking in the current Confederate candidate for the presidency.
Unlike Trump, who never met an accusation he could deflect toward someone else, assigning blame to anyone but himself, never ever taking responsibility for anything that couldn't be spun as "amazing, the best ever".
After Waco, Reno stood up and took full responsibility. She didn't qualify it, she didn't try to weasel out, even though the plan for the attack was not hers and most certainly, the way the attack was carried out was not her doing either. She was pressured by federal agents and the FBI who assured her that it would be okay and that they had to go in because children were being abused, a hot button for Reno.
She withstood all the attacks and hatred fired at her by Confederates and served longer than any other US AG. She was roundly vilified by detractors who gave her little credit for the quick apprehension and conviction of right-wing terrorist Timothy McVeigh after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Shortly after that cowardly attack Reno said something that Americans off to vote tomorrow should consider carefully, as it still has great meaning:
"Speak out against the hatred, the bigotry and the violence in this land. Most haters are cowards. When confronted, they back down. When we remain silent, they flourish."
In other words, stay home, don't vote, or vote for impotent third party nimrods and let Trump and Trumpism flourish.
@PD Pepe & Diane: I just got around to reading Packer's piece in full, & like PD, I thought it was pretty good. I think Diane's objection -- and it's a valid one -- is that Packer doesn't attempt to answer the question the subhead poses: can Clinton win back white Americans?
The answer in the short term, obviously, is no. In the long run, she -- and other Democrats -- will have to convince WWCs that they've picked the wrong scapegoats. The real villains lie in a tax code that isn't progressive enough (or in the case of the super-wealthy like Trump, is regressive) and in other policies -- a ridiculously low federal minimum wage, for instance -- that reward the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.
Moderate Democrats like Hillary have long gone along with Republican economic policies, as Packer takes pains to lay out. Even this year, Hillary was very squishy on something as obvious as a fair minimum wage -- until Bernie pushed her.
What Clinton does acknowledge in her interview with Packer is that the country must recognize its need for all kinds of work, not just the kinds of "elite" jobs her husband and his band of merry economists pushed. But that "recognition" has to come in the form of something more substantial than a note of appreciation. It has to show up in real wages.
I've always said that people who do hard labor should be paid as well as people who work from a desk. Some laborers are well-paid, and those of us who employ them have a tendency to resent it. When's the last time you were happy to pay your plumber's "outrageous" bill? Today, I'm running out to pay a roughly $2,000 bill to a guy who did some work on my house that I have the skillset to do myself. I actually am happy to pay him, because I know how much of a pain-in-the-ass the work he did was and I know how much longer it would have taken me to do than it did him.
The argument is often that the garbageman doesn't have to know all I know about accounting or regression analysis or whatever (and didn't have to pay for the schooling & certifications to get the job). But, c'mon. Wouldn't you rather have your job than his, even if your pay were equal? Of course you would. You went through the grueling prerequisites so you would have to work in a job like his. The nature of your job is the perk.
... Unskilled and less-skilled workers' labor needs better compensation. One way to get closer to that is through a full-employment economy, but that isn't always possible, often because of forces outside our own government's control. So a way to ensure it is through public policy that guarantees fair wages. That is not impossible in theory; it is impossible in fact because Republicans control two levers of government -- the Congress & the courts (tho less so the lower courts after 6 years of Obama appointees).
Democrats must not only embrace & develop robust policies for more equal pay; they must also sell those policies to workers. (One reason they don't want to do that is it's their base who are paying the plumbers.) To sell those policies, they have to get specific, as in, "I'm talking to you, white people." Bernie Sanders was definitely on the right track.
I think if Packer had written something like that -- in more eloquent form -- Diane would have liked his piece better.
Marie
The Ink in the Milk.
Years ago, the Annenberg Foundation produced an absolutely fascinating series called "The Constitution: That Delicate Balance". The series was shot at Independence Hall in Philadelphia and addressed major constitutional questions in the form of hypothetical narratives. The participants make up a who's who of that era, figures from the worlds of politics, law enforcement, the media, the military, and civil rights advocates.
One of these hypotheticals involved the complications of a fair trial in the midst of a media circus, especially the competing claims of the first and sixth amendments. During the exposition of this problem, a story line involving the vicious rape of a nun, the moderator, Charles Nesson, then a Harvard Law professor, asks famed Philadelphia defense attorney Chuck Peruto, Sr. about certain aspects of the trial, especially tricks like having specific information dropped in front of the jury, perhaps information they wouldn't ordinarily be privy to but which could be highly prejudicial. Nesson tells Peruto that this could be challenged and the judge could instruct the jury to simply disregard everything they had just heard. "Wouldn't that be okay?" Peruto laughs and says something along the lines of "What you've done is taken a glass of milk and added a single drop of black ink. And now you're asking for that drop to be removed. It can't be done."
He's right. This is a standard courtroom trick. And it's one Confederates use all the time in the court of public opinion to unfairly get information, usually fictional and bogus information, into the mainline for public consumption. And it's a trick James Comey just pulled. It doesn't matter that he's now come out and said "Never mind" as in the video Marie posted yesterday. His latest "instruction", to pay no mind to the incendiary charges he himself had leveled in order to fuck with a presidential election at the last minute, will have little effect.
Tomorrow, many voters (those whose minds are not already made up) will be asked to perform that same trick, removing that drop of ink. There are many other arguments in play, but, barring some additional skullduggery and Confederate ratfucking some time today (lookin' at you Julian and Vlad!), the e-mail canard will be the last thing many of them think of.
The ink is still in the milk. We'll see how that plays out.
By the way, if you've never seen this series, take a break today from all the chaos and watch one. They are absolutely riveting. Opinions from both sides (you'll even see a younger Rudy Giuliani at one point, Barbara Mikulski, Barney Frank, Robert Bork (yeah, that Robert Bork), Charlie Rangel, Tom Wicker, Dan Rather, Archie Cox, Ann Lewis, Diane Ravitch, Ellen Goodman, Ed Koch) are handled with seriousness but with humor as well. Pick one and watch it. They're better than hours of thrillers on Netflix. Each episode is introduced and discussed at the end by legendary CBS producer Fred Friendly (who began his career alongside Ed Murrow) and Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (he of "I know it when I see it" fame).
You won't be disappointed.
This morning's thoughtful posts remind me why I read RC, even when I don't have the time (or more often lately, in the face of the election-induced despondency that has affected me, the will) to comment.
But I have been thinking, too, of the various faces and meanings of "elite" and what the sea of resentment elites invite mean for democracy, enough to rouse me at some length.
The existence of any elite runs counter to any democratic, we're-all-equal, mythology, because in so many ways, some obvious, some more subtle, we're definitely not. Marie mentions distinctions of wealth and intelligence, both real and significant enough to create and support very distinct classes of people. Most often we know who is wealthy and who is educated. The way we arrange ourselves geographically and socially, it's hard to miss.
So at the start, we all know we're not all equal in all respects, and we know some, because of their money, their intelligence, their social connections or their sheer talent possess more influence, more influence, more efficacy, more power, than we do. We may all put our pants on one leg at a time, but that's small solace for our relative weaknesses that most of us are very aware of.
The political effect of all this is that upwelling of resentment I mentioned. If we're so inclined, we all have good reason to feel some resentment. There is always more wealth, intelligence, knowledge, talent, success however measured, out there somewhere. In those who lead us but are really no better than we; if we live in the country, it's those snooty city folks (Trump will get a high proportion of the rural vote); those professors and journalists who think they know so much just because they went to college. Take your pick, or pick all as the Trump campaign has done so well.
In each case it is the distinction between those who feel their very worth is diminished by the existence of the elite they are pointing to at the time is marked by a feeling of inconsequence, of inequality, of powerlessness that generates the resentment they feel. And as this election in particular tells us, there's a lot of that resentment around.
But politics is all about the distribution of power. Government can't make everyone equal in all respect, but it can, through the laws it makes and the ways it enforces them, make some less unequal than they would be without it. (For very good reason, a lot of talk about empowerment of women at the recent domestic violence fundraiser I attended, and a lot of talk of empowerment in general these days, equally understandable.)
Of course, government can and often does make people far more unequal than they might be otherwise.
It's that choice between the two kinds of government we might have that is always before us. Will we have one that eases the distinctions between us that our policies and practices create and hence limits the reasons we might have to resent our brothers and sisters? Nature, it seems, provides sufficient differences between us to cause us trouble enough.
If we don't to govern ourselves in a way that levels the distinctions we impose on ourselves, I'm not sure I understand democracy's point.
@Akhilleus on "The Ink Is in the Milk": I tend to agree with that theory, and I think it was Stephen Stromberg who mentioned the same concept in a piece I linked above.
But I'm also aware that at least some juries are able to siphon off the ink. I think we saw something like it in the Bridgegate jury. It looks to me as if at least some of them bought Bridget Kelly's argument that she had no idea the "traffic study" was a political dirty trick, & that's what caused them to ask the judge to clarify whether motives mattered. When the judge said no -- causing defense lawyers to ask for a mistrial -- the jury found Kelly & Baroni guilty. That is, Kelly gave jurors information (ink) that at least some jurors found credible, but ultimately, the jury excised it and delivered a clean glass of milk. (Whether or not an instruction to ignore motive is cause for a mistrial, I have no idea.)
Marie
Marie,
I don't doubt that it is possible for twelve jurors to set aside certain information, especially when given specific instructions, but my point was more in the line of inflammatory information (false, in this case) broadly disseminated to the public without benefit of instruction or context. Indeed, the whole point of a pro-Trump (pro-Confederate) approach is to deny context and instructions for a judicious assessment of information.
But I'm certainly happy, in the case of the Bridgegate trial, that the milk was effectively de-inked. It's a tough trick to pull off, but in the event, with a direct answer to a specific question, a reasonable, and I believe just, outcome was obtained.
Can we hope for the same in the upcoming Trial of Trump the University President/con man?
I watch Bill Maher, even though he is misogynistic and quite offensive on certain topics, because I like that he tries to include opposing viewpoints on his show. I like RC for the same reason, and maybe that's why Ms. Mazzei visits here also. However she (I'm assuming Carol is feminine) makes the same mistake that too many conservatives make, which is too criticize an opposing viewpoint without offering any reasoned argument for her own. In this case, she is actually criticizing the lack of a stated viewpoint.
Hillary's "stance" on abortion @Carol is that it is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor, not the government or the Pope. It is a constitutional right, like owning a gun. Why is the 2nd Amendment more sacred than others?
@Cakers: "In this case, she is actually criticizing the lack of a stated viewpoint." Good point. Another mistake conservatives make it to insist that an individual have a "pure" record -- that is, s/he must agree with every aspect of the conservative agenda or s/he's a RINO or worse. That's one reason so many GOP hacks are incapable of compromise & thus unable to govern -- one vote that displeases the dimwit base, and they'll get a primary challenge. Lack of any sort of nuance or flexibility is a confederate trait.
I have no trouble congratulating Francis -- and the RC church in general -- on their support of the poor, or applauding Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, for instance, for his ardent backing of the Voting Rights Act, while condemning many other policies these men advocate (or in Francis's case, impose). Last week or so I ran a pro-VRA op-ed Sensenbrenner wrote for the WashPo without finding it necessary to add, "But, remember, folks, this guy is a royal-class jerk who complained about the size of Michelle Obama's butt!"
Marie
Food production and manufacturing jobs are disappearing world wide. More slowly in some places than others. The culprits are automation and changing technology, not foreigners or trade. Every stratum of society is affected by this, not only blue collar factory workers, but accountants, doctors, machinists, builders, teachers, and so on, who will find the nature of their work changed, and a reduction in the numbers of providers required.
In this "technological revolution" the move is toward service jobs, which have been traditionally an undervalued part of the economy. These jobs were and are disproportionately held by women, depressing wages further. We do have to ensure that people employed in the service sectors receive proper compensation for their work. We also have to think hard about what kind of employments we should provide for so many less educated and possibly less capable people in our communities. People who find it increasingly difficult to function in such technologically advanced and rapidly changing societies. We also have to provide education systems that are up to the task of ensuring as few people as possible are left out of this era.
I believe also that we need globalised laws in areas such as tax, environment, labour and safety that ensure we all participate fairly and that any product you buy is safe and is what you think it is.
In the "annals of journalism" department, I find it hilarious (ly depressing) that the media is nonchalantly mentioning that Trump has seemingly avoided insulting and degrading other people over the last couple days because his campaign managers took his Twitter account away from him. This, coming from the man who we're all still waiting in anticipation as a nation for him to transform "presidential". He still hasn't proven to attain "presidential" status a single day in his life, after seemingly the longest campaign in history, yet tomorrow he's on the ballot for the presidency of our exceptionally great country.
Hardly any second thoughts are given while they announce this development...just a slight chuckle while moving on to other banalities, descending further into the abyss.
GOTV
Trump picked up a semi-major market newspaper endorsement this weekend from the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville. My son worked there as a photographer and still has many contacts at the paper who told him folks were PO'ed. The endorsement wasn't local but corporate, from the HQ in Augusta. Georgia.
With the day winding down and the day of decision soon to damn I can think of no better way to wish all you good people well than tho echo the slogan: "TRVMPVS DELENDA EST"
There's a lot of individual opinions about Comey's motivations. However, the results are clear that his actions influenced the election, that influence will probably grow more negative post election (as Patrick points out) and he can't run his agency and maintain any semblance of integrity. Them are termination offenses. I suspect Obama is waiting to see what the post election brings because he's careful and always has the long game in mind. I hope he asks for Comey's resignation before Clinton takes office, followed by a bunch of lower level firings.
This
@Diane: My hope is that Comey will do the firing, then resign. That would be a step towards redemption.
@Gloria, re: abortion, the catholic church, and the republicans
65 years ago my mother had an ectopic pregnancy which resulted in her laying in agony "the pain was so bad I prayed to die" while the nun in charge of the Catholic hospital debated with mum's physician whether or not the 'baby' could be saved before permitting him to operate.
25 years later it was my Sister's turn. My brother-in-law went to work one morning while my 8 month pregnant sister stayed home feeling ill and with a high fever. Mike came home at night to find her unconscious. The foetus was dead and septic. The same Catholic hospital as mum went to. Another nun (I presume) but the same scene as the physician tried to persuade the nun that no, the 'baby' could not be revived. It dragged on until the doctor said that my sister would die in the next few minutes without an operation. As a result neither my mother or sister were able to have another child.
When it was the turn of my wife and I to have a family we made sure our obstetrician was the best Jewish obstetrician we could find who was, of course accredited to a public hospital.
To interpose a third party between anyone and their physician is beyond appalling!
No choice people think if they confront us with extremist language, we will just stutter and withdraw. We aren't obsessed about it, as many of them are, but protecting women's freedom, health and lives is too important to leave these criticisms unanswered. To allow the tragedies, and worse, as described by Cowichan to continue is an abrogation of our responsibilities to our fellows. Criminalising abortion disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable, the wealthy will procure safe if not legal abortions as they always have. We have deeply thought, coherent, reasons why we have come to our opinions, and will not be cowed by emotive attacks.