Paul Ryan is Tired of this Crap

I think I've made a regular point of noting that Paul Ryan is a little overrated and has been given a very strange reputation for seriousness--and the idea that Ryan's retirement means that "Trumpism" will follow his departure or that he looked at a potential "blue wave" coming up in the 2018 mid-term elections equally sound a little false to me.   Speaker of the House Ryan made his mind up in 2016 that if he could work with the Freedom Caucus, he could work with Trump, so long as his agenda got accomplished.  And there was nothing about that that really surprised me, there. It's one thing to note that Paul Ryan didn't so much "run" for his speakership, so much as happen to be the least awful person for the job, and even then he made clear he still wanted his family time. 

The reason why should be clear--the job sucks. It sucked when John Boehner was doing it. Boehner looks like a healthier man after his retirement. Weathering the whims of the Freedom Caucus and Trump and trying to maintain his reputation for seriousness, and dealing with what could be a loss of the GOP House majority sounds like a courage-sucking tightrope act. Of course he's ready to bail.

I just don't think what come after is worse or more necessarily "Trumpist". Let Scalise and McCarthy fight over leading the House GOP. Let Wisconsin Republicans try to find someone less odious than Paul Nehlen to run in Ryan's district. I don't think the next handful of months is going to show us a new, more liberated Paul Ryan who will, say, yank Devin Nunes from the Intelligence committee or anything really stunning like that. He's already done his big act--planning an exit. And if that puts the GOP in a tighter spot?

They deserve it. 

Look Who Shut Down the Government

The US government has shut down (again) but Congress is working overnight to reopen it. The last shutdown was 3 weeks ago https://t.co/VhjSV43Vx5

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) February 9, 2018

Did Rand son of Ron Paul also vote for the tax cut bill that promised to increase the almighty fuck out of the deficit (and thereby, the debt?).  He sure the hell did. Doesn't this mean he's just being self-aggrandizing right here? Yeppers.

Unless he's pretty much decided a shutdown was going to happen one way or another, so he might as well get weird and put his name on it. But this technically makes this a Republican shutdown.  After Trump went out of his way to insist he was cool with a shutdown it is really great to see his fellow Republican pitch in this way. Of course, this has nothing to do with DACA.

Nancy Pelosi had some things to say about DACA, but of course, she has no power to make a shut down happen. She just thought it would be great to talk about some fine undocumented but totally American folks for a handful of hours in her four inch heels.

Now, some kind of budget will get passed, and DACA might get shut out--but Dems stood for them and will remain there. It's Republican self-owning that keeps the CR a thing and the regular bickering over what should be easy choices alive. The GOP majority looks like "Rand Pauls" all the way down to us libs, anyway.

UPDATE: We've got six more weeks of government!

The State of the TrumpWorld Grab-Bag

I didn't really pay attention to the State of the Union address because I'm starting to think these staged deals don't really signify all that much. For one thing, they should probably be called the State of the Current President Address, since they seem to be about the president's vision of what the United States is about and what he (or, someday, she) is going to do about it. Your level of approval of the speech probably has as much to do with your level of approval for the current office-holder, and if that's not much, well, you won't think much of that speech, then. And given the current president, I figured it was sure to be a bit dishonest. 

And as for the rebuttals, and I guess we are going to now have multiple liberal responses since there is a Republican in office, the general effect is something like a BBS forum in ye olden 14.4 days. It's not what one would call a rapid response. I had half an inkling that Trump deliberately spoke slowly and had a speech padded out with boring talk to push the response speeches from the opposition until later in the evening to dull their impact. (I think the Kennedy youngster did good, even though he was excessively Chapsticked and sometimes seemed to be falling into his very best Barack Obama cadence. His speech was brief and inclusive and spoke of a much less divided America where we didn't leave people behind so others could get ahead. I liked that very much.)

As for hidden messages amongst the muted dog-whistles of Trump's speech, the one thing that I and others found a bit chilling was the implication that Trump meant to see Federal employees to the door if they weren't on board with his agenda. I know that a kinder, gentler interpretation of this part of his speech might just indicate a weakening of civil service protections to ensure that non-hackers who just weren't pulling their weight get the axe because a federal job ain't a hammock. That's fair. Nobody likes to see taxpayer money wasted. But I've been interpreting this sentiment from Trump differently since way before yesterday. And this is particularly true just now, since the hot new word going around on Fox News and from House Speaker Ryan is "cleansing". There has been a greater turnover rate during this administration,  than has been seen for years.

But one of the problems here is that Trump seems to think he needs to get loyalty from people he interviews. For some civil and public servants, it's really enough that they pledge loyalty to the Constitution, and at least consider the rule of law their polar star. But he has variously leaned on Jim Comey for his loyalty and sacked him when he did not get what he wanted, sacked Preet Bharara and Sally Yates for having a peculiar lack of faith, and has apparently even tried to get Rod Rosenstein to admit to being on "his team".  That sounds needy as hell.  It really does seem like Trump doesn't want any kind of independent government agencies, but wants people who answer to himself, not the voters or taxpayers or the Constitution itself.

Which brings us to the ongoing Nunes Memo saga, which suggests that even powerful members of a separate but equal branch of government, can be momentarily compromised, because this daft git seems to have recognized that the thing in question didn't do all he wanted, and tried to alter it.  This information comes after the FBI indicated that this memo was likely chock full of wrong.

I'm glad that the FBI under Wray is still expressing it's independence. After some of the "text message" charade regarding FBI agents Strzok and Page being critical of Trump meaning they would try to throw the election (although there never was any indication any negative thiing about Trump from any investigation ever leaked) it is interesting to know that Pete Strzok actually helped fuxxor over Hillary Clinton bigtime.  So much for the "rigged in favor of Hillary" thing. It is amazing what comes to light after all, eventually. 

There never appears to have been any rigging in favor of Hillary Clinton at all, which sort of undermines the "rigged" cries of one Donald J Trump.  It's really as if he might have been the one to have help. I really must say. Which sort of does point back towards Russia helping Trump--a lot, materially and obliquely. Or so my eyes do say.

Also something to do with Hope Hicks.  . Because she witnessed Donald Trump using the White House to try and sort out his son's messaging, and also probably stated for a kind of record that DJT JR would not just...Tweet all his bullshit out. Like he did. This sounds bad because it is bad.

God Damn You All to Hell!

It's pretty much what we should have expected: a Republican POTUS and both houses of Congress being Republican--tax cuts were the irresistible force against which pretend moderate Republicans proved no immovable object. So tax cuts, for corporations and rich folks, is what got passed.  It's great news for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who dreamed of screwing with poor people's access to health care benefits and giving tax cuts to the wealthy since he was just a nipper, the passage of the Senate tax bill means he gets to vote on his best favorite thing again. I do believe his release from the first passage of this monstrosity was damn-near sexual. If this is the culmination of his congressional career, I surely wouldn't mind if he did decide to call it a day and retire. 

I know Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell puts this day right up there with employing Constitution-stretching measures to deny Barack Obama his SCOTUS pick, and Merrick Garland his vote. Mitch McConnell does not care about anything but Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell is probably biodegradable, but I would recommend lead lined interment for that toxic SOB when fate finally closes his chapter.  

The failed attempts to repeal the ACA gave us some kind of hope, didn't it, that Republican Senators, at least a few of them, wouldn't pass a giant giveaway to the rich and pass that cost along to future generations in the form of increased federal debt. The dramatic postures of folks like Sen. Corker, Sen, Flake, Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski, almost looked like hope that they wouldn't fuck up the economy for sheer partisan fanservice to GOP donors and wealthy motherfuckers. (I am leaving out Sen. McCain because of his condition, but if he was entirely healthy, he'd probably be doing the same damn two-step.)

Corker, of course, was "bribed" as were several other Republican Senators of means (well, they probably would have gone for it anyway) by a provision that benefits real-estate partnerships.  The kind even the President might be familiar with. Does a man who has already announced his retirement from the Senate and already has a net worth of nearly $70 million really need this juice? He's getting it. Senator Flake, despite what anyone thinks, is as Republican as a Republican can be. He never had to be bribed to screw over the poor and middle class and his posturing about DACA was just that. Posturing. 

Senator Murkowski wore her Incredible Hulk earrings to this vote in memory of Sen. Ted Stevens because finally, the Senate was voting to violate ANWR with stupid fossil fuel drilling for stupid jobs that will not grow the Alaskan economy and will hurt wildlife there, because she is a Republican, and believes stupid things.  Pro-tip: Wearing Hulk earrings to a showing of "Thor: Ragnarok" --totally appropriate. While voting to spoil a wildlife refuge, kill an important provision of the ACA that keeps people covered and premiums down, and will hurt your constituents? Not appropriate! 

And let's talk about Sen Collins, who was hailed as a hero for stopping the repeal of the ACA. She was going to wait and see if she got certain provisions regarding health care coverage, and didn't. And criticizing her for voting yes on this turd is sexist! (Why was the coverage so focused on Collins? Because she made it seem like she had a reason to vote no and was reachable. Our bad, obviously--but criticism of a US Senator isn't sexist--it's about whether she's good on her word. Was she being seen as reachable because she's a woman--or because she said she was? Hm. Seems like it's on her.)

I don't see an upside to this vote. I think what trickle-down optimists feel about the bill regarding economic growth are just wishful thinking. The debt issue bothers me, the curtailing of government support on the state level is frustrating, the idea that this bill was in part crafted to "stick it" to Blue States is abominable. This bill favors foreign investors and practically incentivizes off-shoring.   It does many things Trump the candidate implied he would never do, and sets the stage for "entitlement program" (Ahem! "Earned Benefit"!) programs getting cut to "pay" for a giveaway to the already well-off. This is reverse-Robin Hood. This is a tactic of shock and awe devoted to increasing income inequality. 

This is bullshit in each and every way, but it is entirely and solely Republican bullshit. Trump owns the economy that stems from this, as does every participant in this vote. I only hope Democrats run hard against this shit. It is a recipe for so much suffering. Trickle-down is a lie. 

All the Pretty, Shiny Failures

It's really hard to do President Trump's very busy weekend at his Bedminster, NJ golf club justice, but just posting screen caps of the Tweets strikes me as a very good start. If you start from "To the people of Puerto Rico: Do not believe the "FakeNews!" you might be struck, as I was, by the insufficiency of brain a person must have to think that people without electricity are huddled by tv sets watching CNN or MSNBC. I'm not sure who Trump is citing as the "people who really matter"--I think they may actually live in his head. Polls show that Trump's endorsement did not help Luther Strange one bit. 

Even the military does not think that the hurricane response in PR was all it could be. There is no reason to believe all PR buildings have been inspected for safety. And for some godsforsaken reason, Trump wants to turn to his diplomatic ineptitude regarding North Korea into another distraction (I guess? from his failure regarding the ACA repeal that never was and the firing/resignation of his HHS Secretary, Swamp Pricey?) by acting as if Kim Jong Un (North Korea' leader for about five years) was the guy the US has been dealing with for 25 years. And calls him "Rocket Man", because Trump is a child, and wants to impress the other babies in the sandlot.

Trump's Twitter feed isn't just stream of conscious grousing, it's an influence campaign aiming at telling low-information people that Trump is dealing with such awful rigging--the media, the haters, the awful Democrats.

But even while he's trying out that line, you can see what he's really doing--blaming Puerto Ricans for their own disaster--for not doing more when they have no access to power, drinkable water and food. Like his spoiled ass thinks they can magic those things up from nothing, the way he can push a button and get a Coke.   Puerto Rico's community is working--he probably posted this from a golf cart.

This is the flailing of a failure--the unattractive self-petarding of a Peter's Principle promotion gone horribly wrong. And the sick thing is--he knows what his failures are. He knows! He just uses Twitter to blame them on absolutely everyone else.  But if you must know, at least Speaker of the House Paul Ryan thinks Trump's heart is in the right place.  That might mean "under his ribcage and between his lungs", but between you and me--I still think Donald Trump is mostly racist as all hell. And no tax cuts for Paul Ryan's donors or cutting off of small, sick children from access to health insurance makes Trump less of a monster--it just reminds me of how much many Republicans are, as well. Because they see these pretty, shiny failures, and go turd-gilding.

Trump Made a Good Call

You probably won't hear this from me very often, but President Trump made the right call in making a deal with Democrats on the Hill to raise the debt ceiling and ensure Hurricane Harvey relief. I won't exactly be gleeful at the disarray this puts the GOP in, but if Trump was thinking of "sending a message" to McConnell and Ryan that he only has so much patience with them--I can entirely understand. Their lack of interest in governance has had me right out of patience for some time. I also don't think it's as strategic as one might expect of a politician, because I don't view Trump as a politician (or really a long-term strategic thinker). 

What I do think is that, in the wake of the devastation from Harvey and the threat of Irma, with his political agenda not nearly cleared to his satisfaction, with whatever is going on with North Korea, it would be appalling to be bogged down in a debt ceiling row right now. Anyone thinking of a government shutdown or political horseplay right now would have to be off their rocker. 

And here's the thing: Ryan and McConnell might have been "blindsided" or "shell-shocked" by Trump's decision, but they set themselves up for this because of previous debt ceiling gamesmanship. I hate, hate, hate the idea of debt ceilings having to be congressionally approved but even more so now that they've become politically-charged, so I entirely appreciate wanting a longer period between government-funding battles. I hate, hate, hate shut-down nonsense, too. But at the same time, remember how they set their agenda to tell Trump what he wanted to hear?  And he got nothing? 

He wants McConnell and Ryan to deliver him something. Here's a few months of funding the government and helping our fellow Americans out of a disaster. Now McConnell and Ryan can figure out how to make the most of the time they have until the next row. 

Hint--it might involve bipartisanship. He made it harder for them, unless they figure out how deals get made. Do I know that's what Trump is thinking? Hell no. But it makes sense that Trump is used to getting his way and will look for a way to get it. 

TrumpWorld Grab-Bags Should Be Less Obvious

The ongoing effort to prove collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia sometimes gets a wee boost, but I would have to say that the best source of your very finest collusion hints comes from the actual behavior of POTUS Trump Himself. Even people sort of in his circle are recognizing a problem when they see it. 

And as per his usual, Trump makes no bones about his doing Putin's bidding, apparently. 

But let's just pretend there was still a little doubt--Russia hands who have witnessed their strategy see similar techniques at work with grooming Trump and associates.  Also, it looks like one of Trump's campaign in-crowd; Paul Manafort, was very indebted to Russian interests and then, for reasons we can only guess at, decided to work for the Trump campaign pro-bono for a bit. 

(But the rot seems to be deeper than Trump's immediate circle--take Rep. Dana Rohrabacker, as an example. A bad example. The "joke" between Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan about who is on Putin's payroll sounds a lot less amusing, huh?) 

It smells a little--odd. Just like Trump's over-eagerness to get Putin's attention at the G20 dinner. Not definitely wrong. Just...a little obvious.

UPDATE: And somehow, there is still more to take a look at--Trump's loans.  Trump has recently said that Robert Mueller to keep out of looking into the Trump family finances. Which also seems a little, I dunno. Obvious.

The GOP Won One For the Groper

There's something a little weird about watching President Trump and House Republicans celebrate the vote to repeal and replace the ACA: there really is still the Senate vote to go, which isn't actually a done deal, and this bill wasn't rated by the CBO and is pretty likely a dud when it comes to lowering premiums for all but the young and healthy, and will likely result in un-insuring about 24 million folks, and raising premiums for some older and sicker people, and making it all but impossible for many people with pre-existing conditions to get insured. They can pop cheap beer and have a Rose Garden chuckle over handing a Republican president a little victory--but it's kind of grim.

Now, I don't doubt that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might just take Trump up on one of his tweets and do away with the 60 vote legislative barrier, just as he did for confirming Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS, and get this mangy dog of a health care bill pushed through the Senate with a bare majority. Why is it that I don't doubt that?

Because they can. Not because it's great legislation or better for their constituents. But because they probably promised X number of donors and can count on y number of voters to forget about this issue before their election comes up.

And they can also count on people not realizing that the ACA really did get more people covered, and for less money than it might have taken. I've never been certain that policy coverage in the media did the best job of explaining how the ACA worked-and plenty of the language against the ACA led me to suspect that many Republicans don't really get how insurance works, or what a pool is and how costs are distributed in a larger pool of healthier-trending people.

What will especially suck, if the current AHCA passes, is that pre-existing conditions will create a kind of second-class citizen for health purposes. Things like pregnancy, C-Section, domestic violence, rape, heavy periods, acne, could cause higher premiums or coverage denials for many people (quite a lot of them female-bodied). This doesn't sit well with me--it seems prejudicial. Things like asthma, allergies, high blood pressure, can affect certain (ethnic/racial) groups and certain regions more decidedly--which also seems prejudicial.

It bothers me that this might be viewed as a "win" for Donald Trump--can you believe he's even president, and this gets passed in the kind of Tea-party GOP House? Should Paul Ryan be smiling because he won one, and won't get a challenger to his Speakership anytime real soon--or does this vote for an unpopular change in health care law bode poorly for him come 2018?

We'll just have to see. But it sticks in my craw that so many of the "pre-existing conditions" that will drop women from coverage under the "grab'em by the pussy" POTUS' watchful eyes, stem from their victimization--DV, sexual assault, even certain reproductive health care treatment. Does he even see us as people--not the sum of our confusing lady business? Who knows--to me he is always a groper.

Damn--Presidenting By Tweet is Weird

For people who might have expected President Trump's Saturday morning Twitter to reach March 4th levels of WTF after the "Trumpcare" loss, being greeted with the only Tweet of note being "Watch @JudgeJeanine on @FoxNews tonight at 9:00 P.M." is sort of like have your Little Orphan Annie Decoder ring message be "Drink your Ovaltine". Is it just an ad he's repeating because he happens to be watching Fox News right this minute? Or is there a deeper message that will be cryptically delivered if you tune in?

Turns out, Jeanine Pirro used much of her show to tear down House Speaker Paul Ryan as being responsible for the "repeal and replace" loss. Her argument that he really was the one who had seven years to come up with something better and should have been selling a real, live plan much harder is kind of interesting, and I don't think Trump himself would mind Ryan shouldering the lion's share of the blame, but I do have some remarks on the Trump/Ryan dynamic.

For one thing, keep in mind that Ryan hasn't been the Speaker for the last seven years. John Boehner, retired (and probably pretty damn glad of it) had that honor for most of that time, and for what it's worth, until Trump took office, there's an argument to be made that while the GOP has been a majority party in the House, it did not have to be a governing party, and Rep. Ryan did not have to concern himself with governing. You could say Paul Ryan sold Trump a bill of bad goods with the replacement plan, but I think the dynamic cut both ways--Ryan might have known the bill wasn't great, but counted on Trump to sell to the Freedom Caucus because that was what Trump was supposed to be good at. Which I don't think excuses him overselling the votes in hand despite what observers where saying about the whip-count, leading, for example, Press Sec. Sean Spicer to tell the pool that the votes were growing when they pretty obviously were not.

But this sets us up for a pretty weird dynamic--a Republican in the White House who might be at odds with the Republican Speaker of the House (Steve Bannon, 'tis widely said, can't stand the fellow.) And yet that is likely to be the dynamic for the next ...two years? More? (Having resigned myself to the idea that impeachment is unlikely to occur regardless of what the Trump/Russia investigation turns up with both houses of Congress being Republican-held.) After all--who could replace Paul Ryan, when it has been established precious few others would like the job or be even half-assed at it? And anyway, Trump needs a good relationship with the Speaker to get his agenda through because he can't do everything by executive order.

But who even knows whether POTUS has a problem with how the healthcare debacle happened anyway? He's got us reading tweets like they were chicken entrails.

Bad Medicine Is What They Need!

As near as I can tell, the Trump Administration would like to get a "repeal and replace" thing done very quickly because they need a win--but I really don't think they care at all what is in it, because the original version didn't even fulfill Trump's campaign promises regarding health care. He even went so far as to imply that not voting for the repeal and replace measure could cost GOP House members their seats.

VP Mike Pence worked on them, too, but so many members simply failed to be as ecstatic as Speaker Paul Ryan was over the prospect of 24 million Americans losing their coverage and several millions more having their premiums go up.

So what are they doing? Why, they are diluting the mandatory coverage so that premiums stay low enough for people to accept weak tax credits for shittier coverage, meaning that tax money will go to providing people with the kind of coverage that should be a shame to offer at any price. No one at this rate will know what exactly is in the bill until it passes, and it's guaranteed to still cover less people and do less for them. But to what extent we won't know, because there will be no CBO score on that at all.

And for all I know, this crazy unhealthy unpopular nonsense might even succeed. Not that I think congresspeople up for re-election should want getting this wrong on their c.v. But didn't Trump tell them this was important? And to never mind the people showing up at their townhalls?

I am interested in the outcome--not in the same way a person with pre-existing condition(s) is, or who knows someone or is someone who could easily exhaust a cap right at the beginning of a year, or who has health care only because the exchanges plus a subsidy were available to them. Not in the same way a person who might be penalized by Medicaid by having to pay back benefits for having a body with leukemia tastes on a laryngitis budget would. But as a person who really wants to know who will take the leap with Trump and Ryan over this bad medicine bill. And who wonders just where that will get them.

Unfit to Serve

Wow. So, today President Obama weighed in on Donald Trump's very bad campaign, describing the GOP nominee as "unfit to serve" and inviting the GOP leadership to take note that if they genuinely disapprove of the things that Trump says, it rings hollow when they don't disavow the man himself. This is basically what I've been saying--you can't have it both ways. Every day that the leadership supports someone who clearly seems hell-bent on turning off large portions of the electorate in weird and almost deliberate-seeming ways, is another day that they are being part of his rolling disaster.

Now, while Obama was making this unprecedented statement for a sitting President (and to undercut what might appear to be the partisan nature of the comment, admitted that he felt no such sense of horrible lack in his own former opponents, Senator McCain and Governor Romney), Donald Trump was ejecting a lady with a crying baby from one of his rallies. I know, I know. You may be thinking that demonic Hillary Clinton enticed a fire marshal to plant the lady with a baby there, but no, he mocked a lady with a crying baby because of course he did babies are the worst. I guess it was stealing his attention. As you know, things are totally rigged for babies. Sad!

If it wasn't for being so unfit for office that POTUS had to comment on it, the baby-banishing thing, the fact that an oh-so-carefully-taught child was calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" at Trump's event, and all that sort of thing, I guess we'd probably have time to note that he still hasn't apologized to the Khans, that he thinks if a woman is sexually harassed, she can just "change her career" (so in touch with working folks, you guys!) and that he accepted a Purple Heart as a gift, saying, "I always wanted one of these," which is utter madness for a guy with five deferments from serving his country to state.

Pretty much all of these things could be separate blogposts, if Trump could stop being horrendous long enough for a person to catch the hell up.

Donald Trump's Stupid Weekend

Donald Trump decided to spend his weekend being a goddamn idiot, for mostly political values of idiot. He resigned himself to a program of "punching down" at civilian private citizens Khizr and Ghazala Khan who spoke at the DNC regarding his bigotry against Muslims and the sacrifice of their son, Captain Humayun Khan.


But that was not his only stupid activity--he also denied that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Um, but, um, well? How about what actually happened where people could see and have been reporting on, since like, more than a year?

You aren't getting a smart response from Trump in this one. You can't. It's sort of like his ridiculous conflation of former VA Gov. Tim Kaine and former NJ Governor Thomas Kean--quite different persons holding offices years apart in different states and affiliated with different parties--it does not seem possible he should be able to screw them up in his mind--did he? Well, maybe Trump has been notoriously dumb in public before.  But the stuff he's been coming up with lately is on a whole 'nother level--as if he had no staff and his kids/handlers/close associates couldn't even tell him to not be stupid. Or maybe--they have ideologically conceded that it's better not to even try to be wise?

But the fact remains--he does not seem to, on the surface or deep down, understand the least thing about what the office he is running for entails, or how he would occupy it. His understanding of history and process is minimal, and his personality is more or less being a jagoff.

Khizr Khan invited Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to  disavow Trumpism--they could. I have invited them, via this blog, to take the knee on the White House, and concentrate on downticket battles to remain competitive. But if they don't? I find myself empty of any real sympathy--

They knew what he was when they picked him up.

Take Your Bill of Attainder and Shove It

In news that does my heart good, DNI James Clapper denied House Speaker Paul Ryan's dumb partisan request to deny former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton classified intelligence briefings. As I linked to last week, this was what Republicans were trying:

Ryan, in a letter dated Wednesday, formally asked Clapper to "refrain from providing any classified information to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the duration of her candidacy for president" because of the FBI's findings. The letter was obtained by Reuters from a source familiar with the matter.

Ryan, a Republican vice presidential candidate in 2012, said he was aware Clinton would begin receiving classified intelligence briefings after the Democratic National Convention if she is formally nominated as expected. Presidential candidates are customarily provided such briefings.

"Given the FBI's findings, denying Secretary Clinton access to classified information certainly constitutes appropriate sanctions," Ryan said in the letter.

The "FBI's findings" being that they couldn't reasonably charge her with anything. So they wanted to "appropriately sanction" her for? Now, sanctions are appropriate if you've proven someone has done something (and FBI Director Comey's comments about recklessness sort of got pushed back a little with the slightly clueless line of questioning House GOP Reps offered). If you otherwise are just trying to declare someone guilty of something as a matter of legislation, then that would be a bill of attainder, which isn't a very Constitutional thing.

Anyhow, what Clapper explained was that presidential candidates receive their briefing because of their status as nominated candidates for the office of the presidency--this is just information they will need if they are going to be up for the job, and their qualification was getting here. The primary process was the vetting.

If Speaker Ryan is queasy about a former Secretary of State receiving this information, but has no qualms about a petty naif  like Donald Trump who has never handled this information before, having it, this says a lot more about Ryan's judgment than it does Mrs. Clinton's. And given that Ryan was second banana on a presidential ticket himself, I am more than pleased about the bullet we dodged. Whew--say Wisconsin? Rep. Ryan has a challenger. I think maybe Mr. Ryan needs to go back to the Weinermobile.

The Campaign from 1964 and Draper Sterling

A lot of people might think that when the Trump Campaign fired Corey Lewandowski by phone, and he was escorted out by security due to some kind of coup arranged by the Trump children (especially Ivanka, who I guess is the brains of the group) that this was the news of the day--so not. That wasn't even the best bit of the day, even though it was ammmmaaaaaazzzing that Lewandowski could manhandle a reporter and even be arrested and charged, and it is like "No big"--until Trump falls behind Clinton in the national polls by so much! But yeah, that only looks cosmetically bad--presidential campaigns have personnel shake-ups all the time, especially when transitions are being made--and we think Donald Trump is going to PIVOT TO THE GENERAL ANY SECOND NOW.

Right?

But this weirdly addressed political campaign info dump on a Monday morning at the top of the news cycle makes no sense unless it was supposed to bigfoot some other, more awkward news--if I suspect that there is anyone kind of media-savvy in Team Trump, and based on the primary, could be. The sort of bad news--the Trump campaign is all kinds of broke--but this isn't new for them. The news that the Trump campaign only raised like $3.1 mill this month and has $1.3 mill on hand and owes something like $42 mill, and mostly uses Trump properties for its expenses meaning Trump is paying himself back--whoa! It's complicated, right? It's a lot like maybe the Trump campaign is just a giant funnel constructed to get GOP donations where Trump pretends to self-fund by "loaning" money to his campaign, but since the loans aren't forgiven--meh? The accounting stuff is probably boring to all y'all even if I think it's the most interesting thing I've seen in a forever. (Money nerd for life.)

But the cutesy thing where his web IT guys are "Draper Sterling"? Like from the tv series Mad Men? Are you shitting me?

The Honor of Rep. Paul Ryan

As was foretold by, well, anyone with any sense, GOP Speaker of the House Paul Ryan managed to Tweet an endorsement of the GOP Presidential Nominee-apparent, as well as writing an op-ed to justify his decision. He may not approve of all the terrible things Donald Trump has to say--Oh, Gracious, No! But he is pretty well satisfied that Donald Trump is exactly the person to be counted on to make the House GOP's agenda into law. You know, the lot so dysfunctional he's the only guy they can even make act as presiding grown-up.

In other words, he does not give a good goddamn if Trump is a Nazi, so long as he's quite on board with granny-starving. I don't know if the Speaker of the House thinks he's riding the bull, or has found himself under it. I do not even know if there is any value in the way he does not like Trump's racialist tone regarding the nationality of the judge presiding over his fraud case.

He has endorsed Trump. That is all we know, and all we need to know.

The Trump Problem 3: Did I Mention He'll Say Anything?

The meeting that took place with Donald Trump and a handful of Republican lawmakers was partially billed as a meeting between Trump and Paul Ryan--part of the process I've been calling "getting Ryan to 'yes'". While Speaker Ryan didn't endorse Trump (yet) I'm pretty sure I heard the strains of the traditional wedding march "Momma Brought a Shotgun and Daddy Brought a Jug" composed in G minor for the world's smallest fiddle playing in the background.

It was a positive meeting. They are very convinced that Trump is so conservative enough for the likes of the GOP establishment. Which comes just in time for the revelation that Trump's former butler is a racist conspiracy theorist who called for President Obama's lynching.

Now, I'd would say a man can't be blamed for what an employee does with his private social media, but it certainly is an uncomfortable reminder that the main objection a lot of people would have regarding Trump isn't his conservative resume. He's not being protested everywhere he goes because he's an acceptable conservative to the establishment--it's because he's a racist conspiracy theorist.  And he fully intends to continue using being a bottom-scraper in his campaign.

So while it's very nice that Trump can sometimes put on big-boy manners, I think it's appalling that his "charm offensive" is being read as anything other than offensive, period. But it certainly tells me something I already know that the GOP establishment is willing to work with it if it's all they've got.

The Trump Problem 2: What the Elites Don't Know, but the Base Understands

This morning, the Oracle of Wasilla Sarah Palin made a curse against Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and all his doin's, to the effect of her being in support of Rep. Ryan's being primaried and cast in the place of darkness, there to wail and gnash his teeth, like Eric Cantor was. 

This is not an absurd thing to say. There is a Republican challenger for Ryan's seat, and if I know anything about the good folks of Wisconsin, it's that they voted for Walker three times and produced a Glenn Grothman, so? Maybe the pride of Janesville should feel a little discomfort. (Or maybe, if freed from having to appeal to everybody as the guy both begged to become Speaker of the House and arm-twisted until he had to deny wanting to make a run at the convention for president in the event it was contested, the sigh of relief.) But how vast this former VP candidate's (Ryan, I mean, not Palin) heresy is depends on your POV.

After all, when I derided Paul Ryan's response to Trump's nomination as he was "just not ready" as being willing to be brought to "yes",  I considered that he was going to get there, eventually, but it was just possible that he was aware of a certain ticket with a flashy, but under-informed VP candidate with great right-wing bona fides, but which, nonetheless, lost to a celebrity-quality POC with a funny foreign name and a gaffe-prone 70's vintage Democrat Congresscritter.  And even Sarah Palin knows the weaknesses of that particular ticket. In other words--Ryan is just being cagey about whether the entire country is ready to swallow what the GOP base drinks in every day.

I remember when that very question was very much on the minds of a handful of high-profile names in the GOP circa 2009. Rep. Eric Cantor, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Gov. Jeb Bush were all keen to take what they learned from the post-mortems of the 2008 election and try to reconcile it with a listening tour of the Republican base.

There's a pretty impressive "Where are they now?" Romney lost in 2012, Rep. Cantor lost in a primary, and Jeb Bush's 2016 Presidential Primary bid was a subject of pity and awe. Whatever they were listening to--it could not help them.

The Trump Problem

Joe Scarborough Says He Won't Vote for Trump Unless He Changes His Tune https://t.co/8mC2hbfTD0 pic.twitter.com/NmpV7EK2Rj

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) May 5, 2016

The Morning Joe team is so known for their velvet-glove treatment of Donald Trump that Larry Wilmore made a colorful joke about it at the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner--so it's actually kind of a howler for Joe Scarborough to say now that he just can't support Donald Trump unless he "changes his tune":

“I gotta say I was surprised and disappointed … that yesterday, he stuck by the Muslim ban. That’s a loser. It’s a loser with the majority of Americans. And you’ve got Republicans like me. I just, I’m not going to vote for a guy” like that, Scarborough said, according to Politico.

Well, sure. But wouldn't it have been better to just be a little bit surprised and disappointed the first time he said it? And the disappointment--is it that Trump really seems to mean it--or that he keeps saying it out loud where the general election audience can hear? Does he just want Trump to change what he's saying for the general election regardless of what he believes? Oh! I get it! He wants a principled Republican!

This is why I can't take Senators Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte as having a credible, sensible, or even half-assed stand when they offer their non-endorsement-level support. That isn't a needle you can really thread, is it? When Speaker of the House Paul Ryan bats his baby-blues and juts his manly jaw to say "I am just not ready" to support Donald Trump at this time--isn't he implying he's looking for a reason to be gotten to "yes" by some silver-tongued art of the deal? When the older, grayer heads of the party simply decline to show up, are they withdrawing support--or is it more like they are backing down from fighting for their party's values in the most conspicuous place?

That last ship has probably sailed. I think Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse has been admirably consistent in rejecting what Trump stands for--he'd be a Constitutional nightmare and I think there could be real agreement between left and right on that--but looking for a third-party conservative to rescue Republicans from the disgrace of considering voting for Hillary Clinton on the basis of knowing what she is actually doing and not being a conspiracy-theory-chugging whackaloon is a bit late. There was this thing called a GOP primary where there were 16 other people, all of them with resumes of varying degrees of seriousness. And nobody wanted them more than the people who wanted Trump, wanted Trump. And I noticed how no one put in their strong endorsements for any of the puppies in that slushy sled race. Folks didn't all pile on in Summer of 2015, when it might have counted. And it would have been a lie anyway, because they all applauded secretly when this jackass was calling for Obama's birth certificate and school records back in 2011. They courted his attention. They mainstreamed his ass.

Boo-hoo.

My advice to the GOP is take the knee on the presidency and focus on the down-ticket races, because those poor exposed congress-critters who can't figure out whether they want to support Trump for president or not need all the help they can get. That's my free-of-charge feelings on how to partially handle the Trump Problem, and I doubt you'd get better from experts at any price.

But as a lifelong Democrat, this problem is only my problem if this doofus gets elected, and I already know I'd do anything I can to not let that happen. I wish everyone else saw it that way--but I wouldn't be surprised if any number of Republicans get into that voting booth when it's only them and their conscience and their Maker, if they believe in one, who know a time for choosing when they see it.

All Buzz, No Fly?

EXCLUSIVE: Long-held belief by top Republicans that @SpeakerPaulRyan will be the nominee: https://t.co/QzZP6BoN9q pic.twitter.com/CzvwA0yEgq

— Mike Allen (@mikeallen) April 4, 2016

The idea that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan can swoop in and get the 2016 GOP nomination for president sounds great, except for all the details. Like, when he was being talked about for Speaker, activists were calling him "too establishment"--so how would that change in a big year for insurgents at a brokered convention against Trump?  You know, the guy who suggested there could be "riots" if he did not win the nomination. Ryan has reportedly emphatically said no.

Which I guess is being treated like a firm "maybe".

But really--I was shocked when he became Romney's running mate. His House gig is a good gig, and a VP run didn't seem like a step up. I don't know how much good a failed Presidential run does him. (I do not see success, here.)  Also--

Who in the heck would replace him as Speaker!?  (I know, I want Nancy Pelosi. I want lots of things...)

Profiles in Chickenshit

Today was like watching an amazing case of "follow the leader", where state governor after state governor decided to Make! A! Political! Statement! that they would no-way, no-how, be accepting any Syrian refugees in their state. AL Gov. Bentley managed to combine his statement refusing to accept any Syrian refugees (which his state as of to date hasn't done) with a prayer for "those who have suffered loss." Nice. Syrian refugees have lost family, neighbors, their homes. He'll pray for them--but by the way, they can fuck off. A slew of other governors followed on this small-hearted and shallow-souled wake. (One even signifying on a Louie "Terror Babies" Gohmert level of ridiculousness.)

It's obscene that the Paris attacks, mostly carried out by people already French or Belgian citizens, are causing a problem for Syrian refugees, who did not do this. The one case where a Syrian passport was found near a suicide bomber (which was cited by TX Gov. Abbott, because of course a person can blow themselves up and their passport survives, and who doesn't take their passport to a suicide bombing?) it was very probably a fake.

And why would anyone do that? Because Daesh wants Westerners to reject Syrian refugees. They want to drive a wedge between people, polarizing them, eliminating the middle. Imagine, for example, what happens when Syrian people are turned away from a place to shelter. They are facing the possibility of returning home to die, because there are a lot of ways to die in Syria right now. They knew, depending upon the length and path of their route that they might be facing death anyway--and that this would be especially hard on children.

So in this great and generous, and some would even claim, Christian nation--what are these elected officials doing? Pretending to send people who are most likely no threat at all, and who are themselves under terrible threat, away from people in their states who they would like to convince they just did a wonderful brave thing for--because they are chickenshits. And they would rather fake leadership by making this basically annoying stand,  because the alternative is learning stuff and being decent and showing actual courage and compassion--and who even has time for that?

Because the people who make these mouth noises about how we can't really know who's who? Apparently have no clue that refugee application involves multi-agency inspections and can take 18-24 months to process. The US has only taken about 2000 people to date since 2012, and here's the scorecard on who is actually dangerous to our fellow Americans. Counting 9/11 as basically sui generis, you've got a lot of homegrown horrorshows. And here's my point--toddlers have, in any given year but 2001, killed more Americans than terrorists have. Take, like, any four American school-shooters, and you'd have an event that rivals the Paris attacks. The actual risk of a Syrian refugee actually turning out to be a Daesh operative is seriously low. It's ridiculous to angst over--

And in the meanwhile--think about the generation of Syrian youth who just got the message that we considered them disposable. Is that not radicalizing?

It's chickenshit. It's leading by following uninformed opinion. It's pants-pissing xenophobia and nationalistic signifying.

And Mike Huckabee wants Paul Ryan to step down if he doesn't stop the refugees from slowly dribbling in as they've been doing. And Ted Cruz wants to ensure that Syrian Muslims, specifically, are barred from entry. I can't imagine responses that would make Daesh happier, honestly. They couldn't be playing into what Daesh wants more if they tried. Are they that stupid? That pandering?

And what about the Authorization of Force against ISIL/Daesh Obama requested?

Right. Chickenshit.