Showing posts with label Liz Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liz Cheney. Show all posts

Sunday, December 8, 2024

Trump on Any Day Ending in "Y"

 

Trump "Met the Press" and in his interview with Kristen Welker, he said all kinds of incredibly fascinating things. He still only had "concepts of a plan" with respects to health care. He's going to deport the "Dreamers" and is looking into ending birthright citizenship (which is actually in the Constitution). He lied about how many murders have been committed by undocumented migrants. He admitted he "can't guarantee" his tariffs won't raise prices (because they will).  He's going to get rid of Christopher Wray as head of the FBI for no other reason than wanting his own attack-dog there. 

Oh yes, and he wants the 1/6 Committee in prison for noticing he defrauded people by lying about the 2020 election and directed a crowd of rioters at the Capitol to "Stop the Steal (AKA the lawful certification of the election)" and then the Committee really went wild and pointed it out

TrumpWorld is always a bit more mad that people point out wrongdoing then that they are guilty of it. Trump is allergic to accountability. It makes him break out in vendetta.

Friday, November 1, 2024

Disqualified and Murder-Minded

 

This is not a decent human being; this is a murder-minded felon. He's out on bail and in a decent world, these threats against a person who was a public servant doing her Constitutional duty as she saw fit would get him scooped up at once for violating his conditions. 

There is not one public servant who has gone up against Trump, I will bet, who hasn't had some kind of death threat--because that violence is the point of Trumpism--not just "cruelty" but actual threats of violence.  She understood the assignment. I don't love her politics, but she served justice as she saw fit.  And Trump isn't mad about the call out being wrong--it's because he was caught dead to rights. He is an insurrectionist with no business in the highest office in the land. 

This scoundrel cannot prevail.  

Saturday, September 7, 2024

TWGB: The Failing Man

 


Trump's having a weird week--yesterday, he gave an answer to the question of how to make childcare more affordable that made JD Vance sound like Mr. Policy King by giving us nothing and landing on we're a "failing country". He was applauded when he finished his rambling response which did not go into policy details (sorry to Chris Sununu) and didn't even contain a complete sentence (sorry to Bobo Kennedy) but because he finished talking, which was all anyone wanted him to do at that point. 

Then, earlier today, he decided that the best way to handle his appeal of the first civil case judgment of defamation for his sexual assault victim would be to give a press conference where he defamed her(again!) and mentioned other (alleged) sexual assault victims of his. And he referred one of the women as not "the chosen one" as if to indicate sometimes he does pick out potential assault victims, but in his long career of doing this, she does not meet his exacting standards. 

He followed this up with another rally thing where he forgot he wasn't running against Joe Biden and also made a weird non-joke about Nancy Pelosi's house having walls that did not stop the man who attacked her husband and gravely injured him. (Which says something about walls not working. An odd thing to note about a crucial gimmick of his political career.) 

This is why Joe Biden nailed Trump today, calling him "a failing man." 



And that sums it up--Trump projects: nothing is his fault, his blame, his fuckup.  But the more he casts his insulting, perverse, negative view of the world, the more you can understand the sickness in him. 

Thursday, September 14, 2023

When It Isn't Worth It

 


I'm not going to be misty-eyed over what the Republican party has lost or make over-effusive praise of Mitt Romney because both things would be both highly disingenuous and out of character for me. I don't think it can escape one that in the course of his 2012 presidential campaign and in trying to maintain ties with the GOP's newly-crowned leader in 2016, Romney wasn't above the kinds of comments and sacrifices of his dignity that we associate with the Trump era of politics. If anything, his realization that Trump was a disaster that his party was all too willing to follow seems too late because Trump isn't that new--his is just the most-recent incarnation of where the party has been headed for the entirety of Romney's career

Of course, it's easy to view Romney as one of the "good ones" and appreciate his intelligent and dishy commentary on the perfidy, fakeness and fears of his Senate colleagues, but the reason he seems like such a stand-out is precisely because the GOP has become so bad that criticism of his own party and its members and taking a stand in favor of facts as if it were his job have become acts of courage and never should have been. Such behavior should have been commonplace. More members of his party could have tried it over the years and simply...never did.

What we've experienced instead over the years from right-wing media and Republican politicians alike is an extremism, ideation of violence and oppositionalism for its own sake from the conservative wing because a kind of positive feedback loop has existed that exacerbated the inherent paranoid tendencies extant on the right for ages. 

So, when Romney (or John McCain or Liz Cheney) buck that trend, even marginally, they earn some liberal admiration--and the enmity of their party. I can't like Mitt Romney more than a true MAGA might hate him for being insufficiently loyal. 

Being physically afraid of one's base is a horrific thought. There's something to be said too, for what one might have to lose of oneself to be the person who doesn't have to be afraid of or in opposition to that mass of armed maniacs. It seems that it requires a kind of moral lobotomy. When a Mitt Romney looks with disdain on the younger characters of this scene, the J. D. Vance's and Josh Hawley's, maybe it's with some recognition and rue:

It isn't worth it.

Sunday, March 19, 2023

Twenty Years Ago, the US Invaded Iraq

 

Saddam Hussein was no hero and his statue rightfully was toppled ending an anti-democratic regime so many years ago, but the invasion 20 years ago was a war of choice and the US often blows off our dumbest choices, refusing to understand the how and why of our clearest fuckups. But our basis for war then was thin.  The US made choices during that war that impacted the country very negatively, and the US failed to understand why or how until it was too late. The cost was high

To me, the worst thing about it was the war of choice also lead to horrible choices at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere--the dehumanization of populations, the broken faith that we were supposed to be the good guys. That even now, we have a potential US Presidential candidate who sanctioned rectal feedings at Gitmo should appall us. He rose up in the GOP bestride a very horrific steed--the willingness to not just follow a multitude to do evil, but to lead a pack. Iraq was a proving ground of what was the worst in us. Our attempts to manage the government of Iraq by crisis, to use their tragedy to make bank should be taught in every classroom. It won't be, but it should. 

Monday, November 14, 2022

Flies in the Vaseline (UPDATED)

 


It really does look like GOP AZ gubernatorial candidate and election denier Kari Lake is not going to pick up enough votes to win the contest. This shouldn't be an actual surprise since election-denying gubernatorial and secretary of state candidates have gone down this cycle all over. But this was the closest contest, in a state where there were actual Cyber Ninjas looking for bamboo ballots not that long ago, so this is the race where I do believe there will be some fuckery. 

Because I do not think Kari Lake will be ignored. Because even though rumor had it that the Trump election-deniers really wanted to start shit over a "close" PA race that never was close, the best shot they have for keeping the election fraud myth alive lies in AZ's supposed "slow" count. (Even though slow is careful. Dotting i's and crossing t's, as it were.) And because the "agents of intolerance" once decried by John McCain are very active in the election-denial movement. 

Kari Lake quite famously said she didn't want the votes of "John McCain Republicans" in more harsh terms. She might have wished she had been a bit more conciliatory, but hindsight is probably not more the strength of her faction of politics than foresight is. 

The people she does align with are the Jericho marchers. These are the sort of folks who, although white-bread Christians, see fit to blow a shofar horn as if they are genuinely acting out of a sense of having been chosen by God, even if this an appropriation of a tradition that is not their own. Their circumambulation suggests a threat, the reverse of people with faith in elections or democracy--to pull down the institution they surround. 

To get even weirder, Ali Alexander thinks he can "will" the election the way he wants via prayer, which, ok, but, you know. Trump lost. Among tons of others. So. His record is bad. 



For my part, I've tried to not talk about Kari Lake, despite her two-facedness regarding drag shows, and her obvious last-minute bid for sympathy by a "white powder incident" at her campaign headquarters which looks like a stunt--buy hey! not more complicated than Little Marco's!  And I almost felt a pang of sympathy for her eagerness to please when she vacuumed a rug for Donald Trump. It reminded me of Annette Bening's character in American Beauty.  She was going to sell this house today. 

I tried not to dismiss her and her odd robotic weird uncanny-valley nonsense as "Scary Flake"--it felt misogynistic. But if she wants to pretend that the election got stolen from her, if she loses by a margin not too dissimilar from the one Trump lost by two years ago, and in the company of Mark Finchem (a kook) and Blake Masters (who looks like he skins puppies because Yankee Candle doesn't come in that scent), well, it's just possible she's trying to be Trump's little darling today, but that won't do shit for her long-term chances at political relevance.

It would be better to go out with her dignity intact (such as it is) and take a run at the useless and badly implicated in 1/6 GOP AZ chair Kelli Ward, amirite? 

But that just like, my opinion. 

And I think it's pretty amusing the way Meghan McCain and Liz Cheney have already dunked on her via Twitter. For some Republican women, her act has already been a bridge too far. 
 
UPDATE: She's been to Mar-A-Lago, she's vowing to fight, she's got people wildly exaggerating about their "voter suppression" (when they still were able to vote!) and maybe her campaign has indicated that they just can't hold back those hardcore fans of hers to Maricopa Co.--fair warning! 

She is absolutely turning out how I thought she would. 


Sunday, August 21, 2022

I Would Do Anything for Love, But Absolutely Not

 

I am not here to tell Amanda Marcotte what to do with herself, because she is a whole grown person with an entire outlook of her own about what kind of world she wants to live in and so on, but as for me, if it comes down to would I ever vote for Liz Cheney, the answer is no, absolutely not, are you fucking kidding me, and what kind of fucked up monster do you think I became overnight when I started to hate Donald Trump more than I loved my own skin? 

I appreciate what Liz Cheney has done with the 1/6 committee just as I appreciate what Adam Kinzinger has done. And they are both dyed in the wool conservatives who, for any other reason, I would not fuck with. Let me talk about Liz Cheney, who I once characterized as being the parrot for her pirate father, a character entirely driven and drawn by her association with his political engineering. 

She defended torture. I am not over that. She never recanted that that I know of. But more monstrous to me, and unforgiveable, is the sort of culture war Hail Mary she launched as if to signify how much she still hated libs--she called us infanticides and talked about extremely late-term abortion.  She decided to talk over the necessary terminations of pregnancies that would not result in healthy children, she gloated in the face of tragic stillbirth and miscarriage, and pregnancies incompatible with life, to demonize liberals though (who lean towards uplifting the mother, a person in her own right, who deserves love for her experience of genetic tragedy, etc.)

I can't with that. What she is doing regarding 1/6 is entirely necessary and appropriate and has everything to do with national security and still having a democracy. But she is not a Democrat, and that matters to me. 

Her heroism in the face of becoming politically irrelevant is important. But not to the extent that I would give her political importance back. I would simply rather support Democrats. Full stop. The end.



Thursday, June 9, 2022

Are They Still Proud?

 


The House 1/6 Committee has shown us the path that Donald Trump--who unquestionably lost the 2020 election--took that led to the events of January 6. They started by demolishing the Big Lie--Donald Trump was told that his weird theories about how the election was rigged against him were bullshit--and by his own Attorney General no less!  They went on to demonstrate how that lie was used to radicalize people to move against the government--even while they called themselves patriots. They demonstrated that the violence that day was not some mild set-to amongst angry tourists, but an actual insurrection attempt, involving known violent shit-stirrers who had stock-piled weapons in the hopes of making whatever horrific display we saw (and it was--if you have the wit to only pay attention) even worse.

We saw a riot. We may have narrowly missed a massacre. 

As it was, Capitol Police recount slipping in the blood of their injured comrades. It was a battlefield more than a regular police effort at crowd control. 

This was Trump's fault (the failure to call in the National Guard was his--was he not President, even if only for the next couple weeks?), but he certainly had every bit of help from the usual suspects, didn't he? Like the GOP congress-creatures who asked for pardons--consciousness of wrong-doing? Like Fox News, who aired their prime-time opinion "talent" without commercials in fear that some enterprising souls might change the channel to discover that the Big Lie was a lie and that the insurrection was an insurrection. 

The US Senators who didn't convict Trump in his second impeachment, because they were complicit?

Trump knew that he lost and he violated the trust that was put in him to uphold the Constitution. Maybe his rabid fan-club didn't understand what that trust meant. Much as I have disagreed with him many times, Vice-President Pence understood it. Rep. Liz Cheney understands it. The failure to have a peaceful hand-over of power in response to the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box was a breach of trust in our institutions; the resulting and engineered national security threat was domestic terror. I would consider it treason--it weakened the United States and revealed a soft underbelly to the watching world. 

Donald Trump planned an assault against the homeland, on US ground we consider nearly holy. 

He belongs the fuck in prison, but I would settle for exile. And the same for his accomplices. Maybe not after the manner of the fictional Lt. Philip Nolan (although Trump himself should live out his life and be interred on a garbage scow), but the kind where they can not touch politics, not to run, to fundraise, to so much as paste up a poster for dog catcher, so long as they live. The kind where they never grace or disgrace the public airwaves again with any lie, big or small. 

I have remained sick at heart for what they tried to do to this country I love--and this hearing touched that part of me again. The scoundrels knew it would be moving and feared it would be persuasive, and so belittled it and warned people away from it as "boring".  The shame is theirs. The disgrace is theirs. They have nothing to be proud of. 


Friday, April 22, 2022

Kevin McCarthy Was *This* Close

What a funny, revelatory day yesterday was! We progressed from "McCarthy and McConnell wanted Trump to resign/be impeached" to "McCarthy denies he ever said this" to "Lordy, there's tapes." It's almost as if House Minority Leader McCarthy was a gutless man with very little credibility. (I don't think this is really a surprise, is it?)

My question is--did he really think he'd follow through on asking Trump to resign, or what that just a thing he said to mollify GOP members who weren't....in on it? (I mean, Gaetz, Greene, Gosar, Gohmert...) Did he try to say this actually to Trump? (Trump seems to acknowledge in his recent speech to Heritage that he would have great ideas, only to have people suggest the 25th Amendment. That was something his constant Renfield, Lindsey Graham was in favor of, until he was against it.) 

I think this audio release is hilarious because McCarthy had to have known that Rep. Cheney was well aware of what he said and had likely shared it with the 1/6th Committee. This. Whole. Time. Other people also knew. It's also hilarious to me that he denied it, like, sure. If he denies it, everyone will believe him and love him and of course he'll be Speaker of the House when the majority flips. Of course. 

And if the latter thing doesn't happen, he'll wonder how he got "this close". I, however, wonder how he got "this close" to doing the right thing, and then--poof! His temporary spine melted right into his seat.  But I don't wonder about it a lot. 



Saturday, February 5, 2022

TWGB: Legitimate Political Discourse

 


The phrase "legitimate political discourse" sounds, in the phrasing of the Republican party, like a new and not-improved version of "the Aristocrats": there are a lot of ways to tell that joke, but the point of it is its filthiness. Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have been censured by the gutless old party for bothering to look into a national security incident affecting the seat of our democracy, but the party chooses to see them as persecuting "ordinary citizens". 

Upon hearing that the party's words were being mentioned in the press, Ronna McDaniel is incensed that this turn of phrase was meant to be the RNC's own sort of "blanket pardon" for the violent offenders on that day.  She Tweeted:

to the effect that if the NYT didn't change their interpretation of the actual words used and repeated by McDaniel in her Tweets right there, they would be guilty of hackery most foul. Her specific language seems to exempt the violent people (the ones that certain members of the GOP caucus have been lying about, pretending that they have been, for example, detained without charge--a lie, or singled out for especial mistreatment) and indicates that there is a different group of ordinary citizens that she is referring to. 

Ah! The penny drops! She means the donor/activist class of people who are the lifeblood of the party, perhaps? The people who arranged the ellipse rally and were wild with enthusiasm at the Willard? And the handful of R. Congressmen who were supposed to be the friends who were going to help former President Trump with his alternate elector scheme? 

The investigation is uncovering whether these groups of people are really so segregated, and McDaniel, and anyone else with eyes, can tell they are not, but are actually inseparable. Without nonsense-spinners like the Kraken, who may have even been considered as a Special Counsel to investigate voter fraud claims, and other regular but highly wrong and legally dubious people--how are the mobs even so angry at the stolen election that was not actually stolen at all? 

Who stuffed their brains with the nonsense of German servers, Venezuelan voting machines, Chinese thermostats, and Italian satellites? And how are the people who perpetuated that level of absurd fraud, and a White House that not only tolerated but encouraged it, not anything but illegitimate? This isn't legitimate discourse, but weaponized bullshit. It was dangerous agitprop designed to produce a chaotic and violent result on the ground, and a disruption to the country's leadership at the top, and Ms. McDaniel wants to argue semantics? 

The interest of justice lies in the pursuit of truth with neither fear nor favor, and the oath to the Constitution deserves no less fervor. 

The truth, in the atmosphere of the current conservative movement, is so toxic that former Vice-President Mike Pence looks like a goddamn hero for bothering to say it, even if it is literally so little and so late. Of course, Trump was wrong to place the responsibility for overturning the election on the shoulders of his vice-president (and a shit-ton of the potential legal liability, also too). And yet Pence looks like he is juggling torches for the effort to say what everyone knows--Trump asked him to steal an election and he declined. His one great act was merely refusing to be Trump's patsy. And that so-called president really could have watched that man be hanged dead because it was a treason against the personality cult. 

It is easy to lionize Cheney, Kinzinger and Pence for bucking their party's expectations, but how did these expectations become so low that these people seem heroes for doing basic gut-checks and referencing shared realities? It becomes clear now that the GOP supports no platform because they literally cannot distinguish what it means to have a floor, a set of operating principles other than obstructing Democrats (even for necessary things relating to basic government) and protecting their investors. They wave a Trump flag because they have lost all other standards

This is shameful, and they for the most part seem to have even forgotten how to be ashamed. But the Republicans who have been kicked around understand (and I don't agree with them on everything) that we have no country worth speaking of without truth and the rule of law, and this is some kind of common ground. 

And the RNC considered it completely acceptable, "legitimate political discourse" to suggest such things were not necessary. No common ground.  Democrats need to take that lesson. There are few in that tribe with whom it is possible to speak. 



Monday, October 25, 2021

TWGB: Wild at the Willard

 


The fantastic Washington Post story regarding the "war room" at the Willard Hotel is a great start for the public recognizing that several organizations, and members of congress and close Trump associates, clearly were together before the 1/6 riot planning an insurrection. The Willard was a who's who of who's insurrectionist. It was a Trumplandian Woodstock. Flynn, Stone, Bannon, Giuliani, Eastman. Bernie Kerik was there. OAN's Christina Bobb was there, like a whole pretend journalist wearing her campaign lawyer hat. There was activity working on state legislators to see what they could do to overturn the results in their states. They were working on US Members of congress to see that they would reject certain states' electors.

(I think there have been folks who also need to be pointed out for having seen the connection to the Willard Hotel, like Sandi Bachom, and Seth Abramson. Follow them on Twitter, you guys, I do.)

Anyway, activists who were in the loop have been talking, and it sure seems like GOP members of congress and folks from the White House were all over the events of 1/6, according to Rolling Stone's reporting

Now, this doesn't really strike me as much more than Ali Alexander has been saying all this time: there was coordination all over the GOP. The more interesting details to me are things like Rep. Gosar actually holding out the idea of a blanket pardon to potential malefactors (which never materialized) as if to magnify on Trump's one-time promise to pay the legal fees of people who "knock the crap out of" protesters. The assurances that Mark Meadows was 100% in the loop, demonstrating that the White House would have been aware of the rough edges of what could happen (or were they even more aware than roughly? Which makes the delay of the DC National Guard being called in really suspect, no?) 

Monday, July 26, 2021

It's Bipartisan, If You're Into That Scene

 

Not that I want to give any energy to the narrative that the Select Committee is/isn't bipartisan or whatever, but Kinzinger is a good choice because he seems to really get that what happened on January 6th was a national security crisis; and the duty of the House is not something to do with Republicans vs. Democrats, but something to do with actually investigating an attack on the Capitol. Where members of Congress actually work. It still floors me that this can even be spun as being a "partisan thing". Domestic terrorists breaking windows and invading the building while duking it out with law enforcement and while Congress was in session for an important constitutional function is a big fucking deal--end of story.

Rep. Kinzinger uses the word "non-partisan"--and that may be the better way to look at it. Facts don't have to be spun, aren't biased--they just are. Addressing the findings in an unspun and unbiased way is helpful: but make no mistake--this was a Republican party problem. Which actually should mean that, instead of sweeping it under the rug, they should want to forensically understand what the hell went wrong. Why and how did people get the idea this was what was warranted? Charging in, fighting with Capitol police? Investigating it is responsible, and reviewing what inflammatory language and damaging lies encouraged this and even holding some people accountable in necessary. Republicans have an interest in being a part of this process; but many have simply abandoned the idea that there's something going on here, besides politics. 

Kevin McCarthy is chief among those who have headed for the exits. His "we'll do our own investigation" nonsense is absurd when some of his number think investigating means concocting new and imaginative conspiracy theories regarding antifa and the FBI (oh, natural allies in overturning elections and planning coups, them) . McCarthy can even try and tell you that somehow, chip off of the old block Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger just aren't conservative enough for him. 

McCarthy says that Kinzinger buys into Pelosi's "pre-conceived narrative".  That violating our tradition of a peaceful transfer of power is bad and that understanding that power flows from consent of the governed which we determine via elections, not just an unruly mob that are still being cossetted by cowards like McCarthy is vital? 

(Um, that "pre-conceived narrative" is called the Constitution, Kevin. You swore an oath to it. Try to keep up, especially since you are so desperately hungry to be Speaker of the House that you posted this cringe to GETTR. 


Before calling Pelosi a "lame duck", try being any kind of capable Minority Leader first--because at this rate, the Freedom Caucus will still consider anyone else if they attained the majority because you empowered them, fed them, and never led . The people who get new seats in that reality are not going to be for you. Bet.)

It doesn't matter to me that Kinzinger is a Republican so long as he cares about finding the truth. That's what matters. But that he, like Cheney, is a Republican and participating at all given the weird Omerta thing they've got going is brave for them and demolishes the idea that this can't be a bipartisan (or non-partisan) endeavor.

Friday, July 2, 2021

The Coward Kevin McCarthy

 

When the Capitol was overrun by Trump supporters on January 6th, Kevin McCarthy got a call from Trump and they had a bit of an argument about whether Trump should call off his faithful dogs. McCarthy is supposed to have said to Trump: "Who the fuck do you think you are talking to?"

Trump knew very well who he was talking to. Sure, immediately after that event, McCarthy recognized Trump was responsible for the riot--but he wasn't about to hold him accountable. McCarthy was against a bipartisan commission to investigate the events of that day. Of course he did not support the Select Committee, and actually did not show up for the vote, which only two Republicans supported. And he can say he didn't, but word is he told his Republican colleagues they better not accept an appointment from Nancy Pelosi, or he'll strip their committee assignments.

Liz Cheney, whose leadership position he had already stripped, was honored to be appointed, and said so.

And she's right about this being above partisan politics. Leadership is the thing where sometimes you take unpopular positions with your particular group because it just happens to be the right thing to do. This was a national security issue. The rhetoric on that day, followed by such violence and disarray, undermined our government, nearly interrupted its process, and made us look divided and weak. Pretending it didn't happen, downplaying it, and failing to address the real concerns should not be an option--

And the man who wants to be Speaker of the House can't be that leader, because his party will be so mad. He can't do the right thing at all. Because he's just as guilty.  He perpetuated the Big Lie, too, and he didn't reprimand the members who wanted to decertify or delegitimize the process. He can threaten people who want to get to the bottom of the failures of intelligence and the instigators and possible conspiracy to interrupt the peaceful turnover of power, but he can't seem to figure out how to censure MTG, or what to do with open white supremacist Paul Gosar. He knuckles under to his crazies because he has no windbreak against them. They blow him down.

So here we are: Kevin McCarthy, a man entirely fashioned from what is swept from the bottom of a henhouse: white feathers, runny yellow yolks and chickenshit.  Ecce ovo putido. The top Republican in the House, doing less than nothing on purpose. 


It's like watching a party de-evolve.

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

This is Who They Are


They ousted Rep. Cheney from her leadership position by voice vote for admitting reality. She told them that defending democracy requires being truthful, and they said "We'll pass on that." She knows this is an indication of where the party is--

You can't even feel betrayed when this is all you can expect. Also all you can expect:

Shameful and cult-like behavior.  

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

The Grubby Little Man Still Lost

 

The Phantom of Mar-a-Lago urgently wants to flip the term "The Big Lie" from meaning the relentless propaganda of his followers that he somehow actually won his election to meaning the actual reality in which we live--the one where he lost, isn't in office anymore, and is actually just a sad, broken human being who doesn't happen to occupy the highest office in this country. The one where people breathe a sigh of relief some mornings because they don't turn on the tv or log onto social media wondering what atrocity of poor judgment the gilded-toileted orange fucknut has managed while his handlers were passed out from exhaustion. The reality where our allies think maybe we aren't on a slalom down the rugged chute to hell in a leased golf cart. 

The one where he doesn't have executive privilege or immunity.

This looks like something simply sad, but it's really malicious. (Sad is actually Lin Wood, who is pretending that he has seen Trump still in the White House and purports that Biden is dead and/or lost in a landslide. I don't understand what this sort of thing is for, and suspect there is an organic issue going on. Or one hell of an play at an insanity defense for an as yet committed or disclosed crime. Sheesh.)

Right now more than half of Republicans think that Trump probably did win, but there was significant voter fraud. 

There's no proof of that. There never has been proof of serious voter fraud. PACs and what not were preparing the field for claims of voter fraud before the election even took place. The claims of voter fraud seem to be what Republicans want to talk about because they can't address why their policies of, basically, "tax cuts for the rich and fuck everyone else" aren't more wildly popular. But instead of litigating how a party hopes to manage their future with increasingly hopeless lying fuckwits who will do actively nothing except chum the discourse with treats for their Pavlovian-trained audience, I'd like to focus on Trump, because I have been Ahabed and now I can't do anything but hunt the white supremacist whale now. 

He never should have won in the first place, and in the second place, he wanted to offer Puerto Rico and cash value for Greenland, and lied about ever trying to get aid to the island after two hurricanes, and even blocked investigation into why aid was being delayed. For another thing, whatever shakes out from plumbing his campaign (in 2016 or 2020) and its relationship with Russia, he was badly compromised. He was a corrupt real estate developer and reality tv personality. How in the hell was this supposed to make him enough to lead a country? And after four years, multiple failures, a miserable COVID-19 response and a severe economic downturn--all of which he showed no capacity to handle in terms of policy, as he tried to finesse them as PR challenges--was he supposed to win?

The short-fingered vulgarian, the serial philanderer, the grubby little man--this is the Pied Piper of Scamming that the entire Republican party is following so blindly? To give her her due, Liz Cheney is trying to set the party straight. And it isn't because she' s so uniquely upright or honest, but because she understands the grotesque error of letting the party lead with the dumbest possible motherfucker on the planet and fail to reverse course when shit is fucked up. You have to acknowledge failure in order to show you have learned. That's just reality. 

Trump is a grubby little man, and he lost. The Republicans who want to do better than he did should be kicking him in the slats on the way out the door of his fail-basement, instead of trying to give him little awards and hoping he'll play nice. He's a nevershouldabeen. A fluke. He prospers because Republicans are mostly too weak to fail him properly. Again and again and again I will say, the power he has is that which he was yielded by the immature and spineless people (Ryan, McDaniel, McCarthy, and, sadly, McConnell--old enough to know better and too yellow to care) who let him rampage. And the yellow press on the right needs some real looking into for who funds them. Whoever funds Trumpaganda needs shutting down. He's the wedge of an axe against our unity at home. He is our weakest link.



Wednesday, July 17, 2019

For the Record

Today's vote to condemn President Trump's racist remarks regarding the House Democrats' "Squad" may not seem like a lot, but it is. For one thing, it is a highly unusual move for Congress to make, for another, the act of taking this move required an actual violation of parliamentary rules forbidding disparaging the president in order to properly characterize the things that he said.  The point, however, is that what Trump has said, and the final vote, are now a matter of record.

All Democrats, four Republicans, and Justin Amash voted to condemn. We now have a record of 187 Republicans who are comfortable, on record, with what the President said.

So, how do House Republicans want to deal with this matter. I would say, chiefly, they would prefer not to. They do want to complain that Speaker Pelosi "broke the rules" regarding decorum which is just a quaint thing to assert when defending Trump (not the greatest fan of rules or decorum). And Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Liz Cheney chose to follow Sen. Lindsey Graham's lead and talk about socialism. Because why not distract from the president's racism with a Red Scare (and, I guess, claims about the disloyalty of a certain "dark underbelly" that "pals around with terrorists" while we're at it, to not forget Kellyanne Conway's very busy day)?

In just the way this vote landed along more or less partisan lines, I think feelings about this vote and what it means will likely be interpreted differently by people based on their affiliation. To my thinking, it demonstrates that House Republicans will stick together even if the president's language is egregious, even if his behavior is egregious, for the most part. Time will tell whether this has any effect on the constituencies of those House members later on.

But the point of the exercise wasn't to shame Trump (he doesn't know what shame is) or even to change his behavior (which seems pretty baked-in at this point).  Based on prior behavior, Trump is likely to even double-down. It was to get the reaction of House Republicans down for the record.

And this is now what we have.

But also, just for the record, Rep. Swalwell also made some "unparliamentary speech"--he just quoted Donald Trump:





Friday, June 21, 2019

Cages Where Sick Babies Sleep on the Floor

There's a weird familiarity I feel with regards to the recent argument over whether the term "concentration camps" should be used regarding the detention centers where the US government is currently holding undocumented migrants. It's not that long ago, really, that former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was raked over for disputing whether "cages" was the right term for the wire holding pens in which children were being kept. 

But leaving aside the semantics of "dog pound" and "freezer" and all that, the facts are, themselves, very grim. There are children without their parents in filthy, miserable conditions, being asked to watch after younger, more miserable children.  Conditions that children (and adults) are being held in are ideal for the spread of disease and the potential for preventable deaths.  The family separations, and even the process of reuniting families are handled indifferently with shitty logistics and negligence bordering on the insane. Whatever one might prefer to call the conditions under which human beings are being kept, they are inhumane

And yes, despite what no less an expert on inhumane activity as Rep. Liz Cheney is might claim, it is very reasonable to call these shelters "concentration camps."

The messengers, here, are part of the problem for me, too--this is where the familiarity really sets in. It wasn't that long ago that Liz Cheney was extolling the virtues of what she would call "enhanced interrogation" techniques, and simple bloggers like myself would call "torture", with its embrace of tactics like "stress positions" and "rectal feeding."  Euphemizing horrible things to try to make them palatable is. itself, a form of abuse. It's gaslighting. It's telling all of us that our eyes and ears and minds aren't working right--that we are crazy for thinking there is something seriously wrong with seeing a problem with cages where sick babies sleep, or try to, on the floor, or that a system that hides the deaths among its inmates is trying to minimize its violence, or that is staffed with people who use dehumanizing language is unable to humanely deal with a humanitarian crisis.

What I can see is that when the Trump Administration argues that soap and toothpaste and bedding are too much to provide detained children, we are seeing people who have no concept of duty of care regarding their fellow human beings--even the smallest and least offending among us. And while it is true that facilities are overwhelmed, how can it be that this much is not viewed as inhumane--when it is asked of children that they rest on the concrete on as much space as a severely overcrowded area affords (sleep deprivation has been used as a form of torture) and somehow stay healthy when little basic hygiene exists?  When people are denied their reproductive rights for political reasons?

The US is housing migrants now where we once kept Japanese-American citizens during WWII. The Trump Administration has also considered keeping migrants at Guantanamo Bay.  The number of migrants coming to seek asylum or work or anything else here has not abated because of the administration's deterrence approach, and the decision to cut aid to Central America only seems likely to make things worse.  (And I'm not saying the Obama Administration had superb answers about what to do with detained migrants and asylees either--they deported at a greater rate than currently, conditions in facilities were also not ideal.)

The argument over whether to call the facilities "concentration camps" just seems to be one of throwing words at a physical and immanent issue. There are some people who can be moved by words. The people who most need to be, will perhaps already be beyond shame.  And have been for a long time.

It is useful, however, to see who falls into which group.




Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Liz Cheney For Wyoming--Sort Of!


Heh. There were claims that Liz, daughter of Dick, Cheney was a carpetbagger when she ran for Senate in 2013, but surely, that would not haunt her this time around?

Well, she won the GOP primary anyway.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

The Bush Family Drama

It seems like a little bit of family business worked its way out in public as some of the senior Bush's opinions have been related by Jon Meacham in his biography of George H. W. Bush. It seems that "41" had a bit of criticism for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a little criticism for "43".  The elder Bush described his son as having been badly served by Rumsfeld, and described Dick Cheney as becoming a more hardline and "iron ass" guy (possibly with the encouragement of his wife Lynn, and daughter, Liz). Bush "43", for his part, sticks up for those who served in his Administration. Say what you like about W.--he's loyal to a fault or a hundred.

There's nothing in that necessarily that makes me go "OMG!" about either what was said, not the source and direction of the opinion. I got a good enough sense that "43" didn't seek his father's advice when he said as much himself; when asked if he sought his father's counsel on things, he said he had a "higher father" that he relied on. This kind of statement, when it was not signifying theocratic holy war scary-times, was in line with the idea W. projected of being "the Decider". Nevertheless, in the midst of making claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, programs to build same, and relationships between Saddam Hussein and terrorists that couldn't possibly have made sense, the one thing I thought rang true was when Bush justified his invasion with "This was the guy who tried to kill my dad that one time."  This was family drama as war. Unless Bush's real reason was some crazy End-times shit--we will never really know, right?

Now, presuming that Jon Meacham is a Beltway remora and Poppy Bush still has his wits about him, that particular message slamming Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney has a couple of familial interests behind it. Knowing that Number 2 son is in need of distancing himself from the foreign policy disasters of Number 1 son, he establishes a narrative of distance by setting out that the reason for the disaster was a Team Effort, giving Number 1 son opportunity for plausible deniability and Number 2 son running room. He was trying to do a mitzvah for his boys like they understood how this worked. I guess he never told them though, or didn't think he had to.

43 hugged Dick Cheney like they were still testifying behind closed doors for like an hour that one time in front of the 9/11 commission. And Jeb, like the stunning political performer he is, also totally sided with Team Cheney. This is the guy we last saw being lashed by Donald Trump with his brother's foreign policy, and then like a mook stood in front of a mirror and straightened out the knots.

When 83-year old reptilian Donald Rumsfeld was warmed up enough by the sun, he mentioned that GHWB was "getting up in years" but that W. made his own decisions. He sure did. I'm not saying I'd make any kind of president, but after the Abu Ghraib revelations, I'd have been asking for Rumsfeld's resignation the first damn thing to show I treated this stuff as a top-down disaster.

But the insinuation that Bush "41" isn't still mentally sharp is a lie. He is. He was jumping out of planes when folks his age couldn't jump out of bed. Sharp as he ever was. The people around him, though, are only sharp as they ever were, too.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Nattering Nabob of Nepotism Pans Prez, Touts Torture



I've long been astounded at the utter cheek of the Cheney family with respects to their rather vocal defense of what was, actually, some entirely immoral and vicious activity in the name of "defense of country". This current report regarding the torture of "some folks" that President Obama is speaking of is the result of an investigation in the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", and is not just Obama out of the blue slamming the previous administration as some kind of a blind for any current activity. Concerned people have been looking into the matter of torture and murder carried out by the Bush Administration since well before Obama ever took office. I myself have blogged about it extensively.  More prolific and high-profile bloggers like Andrew Sullivan have made a point of acknowledging and recording the multiple inquiries, official and journalistic, into what had been done by the previous administration in our name. And revisiting them again and again. Because it is moral to love this country and do so.

TWGB: It's Raining Shoes!

  It certainly has been a minute, hasn't it? So, what brings me out of self-imposed blogging exile, if not something very relevant to my...