Let’s Think About This – Open Thread

by

by wj

I notice that we’ve got politics sneaking into the TWA thread, so clearly we need a new open thread. Here goes.

I’ve seen a variety of discussions about a possible impeachment next year. The general argument seems to start with the assumption that the Democrats take the House, so they can hold hearings, dig out facts that have been covered up, and generally build a case. But, the argument goes, is it worthwhile actually bringing impeachment to the floor, even if it can be passed? After all, the Senate is not going to be 2/3 Democrats, even if they manage to squeeze out a majority. So why bother going thru the motions?

Implicit in this is the assumption that no (or certainly not more than a couple of) Republican Senators are going to vote to remove. Which, in today’s hyper-partisan environment, isn’t a totally unreasonable position. But is it true?

Let’s think about this. Imagine yourself a Republican Senator, especially one just (re)elected this year. You won’t face the voters again for 6 years – which is an eternity. By then, if someone is going to primary you, they will have more recent issues to use; Trump, if he is gone, will be like a three years’ ago Super Bowl: even if there was a horrible call, it’s no longer a big motivator in conversations. And he’s doing stuff that hurts/irritates lots of your constituents.

So if you’re a Republican Senator, why not get rid of Trump? That gets rid of a big motivator for Democratic voters getting out to the polls in 2020. A President Pence will be at least as reliable in doing things that you want done. Probably a lot more reliable. While not doing things, e.g. starting trade wars, that you definitely don’t want done. And he might even replace some of the more blatantly corrupt officials that Trump has appointed, which would remove another Democratic talking point going forward. I mean, it’s not like the result of a removal would be a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Of course, a lot depends on what all those hearings turn up. But my guess is, there will be lots of grist for the mill, some of it pretty enormous. So I wouldn’t assume too much about what might happen. Think about it.

738 thoughts on “Let’s Think About This – Open Thread”

  1. Just to be clear, the prospect of a President Pence doesn’t fill me with enthusiasm. Although I do think he would be less bad.

  2. Just to be clear, the prospect of a President Pence doesn’t fill me with enthusiasm. Although I do think he would be less bad.

  5. I was amused by juxtaposition of these to headlines on Google news:

    Three reasons why Kavanaugh deserves a seat on the Supreme Court
    Brett Kavanaugh is a threat to women, workers, and the environment

  6. I was amused by juxtaposition of these to headlines on Google news:

    Three reasons why Kavanaugh deserves a seat on the Supreme Court
    Brett Kavanaugh is a threat to women, workers, and the environment

  9. Republican Senators and Representatives are
    1. terrified of their primary voters, who are the most intransigent and unforgiving of right-wingers, and who continue to punish any deviation from visible support for Trump.
    2. looking at enormous sunk costs. They’ve put in almost two years of protecting Trump, tying themselves to his popularity in the Republican base.
    3. not notable for their political courage.
    I can’t see any of them joining the Dems to impeach or convict.

  10. Republican Senators and Representatives are
    1. terrified of their primary voters, who are the most intransigent and unforgiving of right-wingers, and who continue to punish any deviation from visible support for Trump.
    2. looking at enormous sunk costs. They’ve put in almost two years of protecting Trump, tying themselves to his popularity in the Republican base.
    3. not notable for their political courage.
    I can’t see any of them joining the Dems to impeach or convict.

  11. So if you’re a Republican Senator, why not get rid of Trump? That gets rid of a big motivator for Democratic voters getting out to the polls in 2020.
    That presumes that motivated Democratic voters are too dumb to realize where the responsibility for Clickbait lies. Somehow I just can’t imagine millions of people saying, “Okay, Clickbait is gone, I can go back to sleep now.” It will happen with a lot of people eventually, but 2020 is right around the corner.
    So if you’re a Republican Senator, why not get rid of Trump?
    To add to joel hanes’s list — though this borders on conspiracy theory territory, it seems unlikely that the rot from Russian influence (e.g. Butina, the NRA, etc.) stops at some clear boundary around Clickbait and his close associates.

  12. So if you’re a Republican Senator, why not get rid of Trump? That gets rid of a big motivator for Democratic voters getting out to the polls in 2020.
    That presumes that motivated Democratic voters are too dumb to realize where the responsibility for Clickbait lies. Somehow I just can’t imagine millions of people saying, “Okay, Clickbait is gone, I can go back to sleep now.” It will happen with a lot of people eventually, but 2020 is right around the corner.
    So if you’re a Republican Senator, why not get rid of Trump?
    To add to joel hanes’s list — though this borders on conspiracy theory territory, it seems unlikely that the rot from Russian influence (e.g. Butina, the NRA, etc.) stops at some clear boundary around Clickbait and his close associates.

  13. Granted, for lots of Republican Senators what Joel and Janie say is true. But the threshold for a dozen or so is lower. And if, for example, Cruz loses? Surviving a primary or avoiding a primary challenge isn’t helpful if you can see where you would then lose in the general.
    IF (and I admit it is a big if) Democrats end up with even a slim majority in the Senate, that means a lot of Democrats won in red states this year. Which would make that a serious concern going forward. Not necessarily a universal serious concern, but one that couldn’t just be ignored. “Safe” seats, even in the Senate, may not be as secure as they once were.

  14. Granted, for lots of Republican Senators what Joel and Janie say is true. But the threshold for a dozen or so is lower. And if, for example, Cruz loses? Surviving a primary or avoiding a primary challenge isn’t helpful if you can see where you would then lose in the general.
    IF (and I admit it is a big if) Democrats end up with even a slim majority in the Senate, that means a lot of Democrats won in red states this year. Which would make that a serious concern going forward. Not necessarily a universal serious concern, but one that couldn’t just be ignored. “Safe” seats, even in the Senate, may not be as secure as they once were.

  15. Josh Marshall weighed in on this a couple of days ago. His arguments make sense to me.
    IMO there would be value in bringing articles of impeachment purely to make the point that you can’t pull shit like Trump has without prompting a response. But if it’s not a slam-dunk in the Senate, there are probably more valuable things to spend time and effort on.
    We’ll see what the world looks like after the mid-terms.

  16. Josh Marshall weighed in on this a couple of days ago. His arguments make sense to me.
    IMO there would be value in bringing articles of impeachment purely to make the point that you can’t pull shit like Trump has without prompting a response. But if it’s not a slam-dunk in the Senate, there are probably more valuable things to spend time and effort on.
    We’ll see what the world looks like after the mid-terms.

  17. 1. terrified of their primary voters, who are the most intransigent and unforgiving of right-wingers, and who continue to punish any deviation from visible support for Trump.
    I do wonder if (I wish I could say when) a process of correction will set in on this front. That is: will the less intransigent and extreme segment of the right wing ever wake up and say: “We’ve had enough of this shit” — and go to the primary polls to nominate someone other than the extremists?
    Maybe some significant losses in the general because they’ve let the balance of power in their party go too far to the right will wake them up. Or maybe in reality there are too few of them to matter in this sense.
    I’m not optimistic.

  18. 1. terrified of their primary voters, who are the most intransigent and unforgiving of right-wingers, and who continue to punish any deviation from visible support for Trump.
    I do wonder if (I wish I could say when) a process of correction will set in on this front. That is: will the less intransigent and extreme segment of the right wing ever wake up and say: “We’ve had enough of this shit” — and go to the primary polls to nominate someone other than the extremists?
    Maybe some significant losses in the general because they’ve let the balance of power in their party go too far to the right will wake them up. Or maybe in reality there are too few of them to matter in this sense.
    I’m not optimistic.

  19. I think the logic is sound wj, except for the Pence/ trade wars thing. It isn’t a given today that his “trade war stuff” is even bad, much less considered bad by centrist Republicans.
    It all assumes long term escalation with no US gain. A pattern that is questionable at this point. Pence might not stop those.

  20. I think the logic is sound wj, except for the Pence/ trade wars thing. It isn’t a given today that his “trade war stuff” is even bad, much less considered bad by centrist Republicans.
    It all assumes long term escalation with no US gain. A pattern that is questionable at this point. Pence might not stop those.

  21. JanieM, that process of correction is what’s supposed to happen, but in order to hang onto power even though they’re a minority, the Rs have spent thirty years carefully identifying those voters who are most implacably driven by resentment and outrage, and then feeding them red meat every day. Those extremely motivated and mostly-misinformed voters have become the Republican primary electorate.
    The broader Republican Party still contains some people who can be reached, but every R officeholder is now keenly aware that the craziest 27% of the national electorate can and prevent their nomination in the next cycle, and will do so at the slightest sign of compromise with Dems.
    It’s a problem for the Rs: they knew eight years ago that they were on a collision course with demographic doom, but they are no longer in control of their Party’s agenda: their primary voter base refuses to be led.
    It’s a problem for the Ds: there are no longer any good faith actors on the R side with whom one can negotiate, or even anyone willing to be constrained by the norms, or even by the law. Even if a deal were to be constructed, there’s no one on the R side who can reliably deliver the promised votes from their caucus.
    It’s a problem for the nation.
    Until we can drive the Rs into the wilderness for at least twelve years, the self-reinforcing radicalization of the R primary electorate will continue to drive the Republican Party further and further into extremism. Already they chafe at the rule of law.

  22. JanieM, that process of correction is what’s supposed to happen, but in order to hang onto power even though they’re a minority, the Rs have spent thirty years carefully identifying those voters who are most implacably driven by resentment and outrage, and then feeding them red meat every day. Those extremely motivated and mostly-misinformed voters have become the Republican primary electorate.
    The broader Republican Party still contains some people who can be reached, but every R officeholder is now keenly aware that the craziest 27% of the national electorate can and prevent their nomination in the next cycle, and will do so at the slightest sign of compromise with Dems.
    It’s a problem for the Rs: they knew eight years ago that they were on a collision course with demographic doom, but they are no longer in control of their Party’s agenda: their primary voter base refuses to be led.
    It’s a problem for the Ds: there are no longer any good faith actors on the R side with whom one can negotiate, or even anyone willing to be constrained by the norms, or even by the law. Even if a deal were to be constructed, there’s no one on the R side who can reliably deliver the promised votes from their caucus.
    It’s a problem for the nation.
    Until we can drive the Rs into the wilderness for at least twelve years, the self-reinforcing radicalization of the R primary electorate will continue to drive the Republican Party further and further into extremism. Already they chafe at the rule of law.

  23. “It’s a problem for the Rs: they knew eight years ago that they were on a collision course with demographic doom..”
    I’m curious what this means.

  24. “It’s a problem for the Rs: they knew eight years ago that they were on a collision course with demographic doom..”
    I’m curious what this means.

  25. The Republicans have mostly driven people of color from the party.
    Even without much immigration, white people will compose a smaller and smaller percentage of the US electorate in future years. The trend is well-documented, and probably cannot be significantly changed.
    So if only whites vote R, and whites are a shrinking minority of the voters, then the R vote will shrink until they no longer win.
    This argument from demographics has been bruited about for at least a decade, and the R party leaders publicly addressed it in 2016, but were unable to turn their Party away from statements and actions that drive away people of color: the momentum is large, and the base of R primary voters did not want to change course.
    And, of course Trump has made this problem much worse.
    So, already in a minority, and seeing their share of the general electorate shrinking, the Rs must either resort to non-majoritarian hardball, or seek to broaden their appeal. The primary voters won’t stand for the second course, so R officeholders must pursue the first, or see their party out of power.

  26. The Republicans have mostly driven people of color from the party.
    Even without much immigration, white people will compose a smaller and smaller percentage of the US electorate in future years. The trend is well-documented, and probably cannot be significantly changed.
    So if only whites vote R, and whites are a shrinking minority of the voters, then the R vote will shrink until they no longer win.
    This argument from demographics has been bruited about for at least a decade, and the R party leaders publicly addressed it in 2016, but were unable to turn their Party away from statements and actions that drive away people of color: the momentum is large, and the base of R primary voters did not want to change course.
    And, of course Trump has made this problem much worse.
    So, already in a minority, and seeing their share of the general electorate shrinking, the Rs must either resort to non-majoritarian hardball, or seek to broaden their appeal. The primary voters won’t stand for the second course, so R officeholders must pursue the first, or see their party out of power.

  27. wrs in a recent thread, addressing Marty: My values are not your values.
    This bit from joel hanes, above, is pertinent to the question of shared values: It’s a problem for the Ds: there are no longer any good faith actors on the R side with whom one can negotiate, or even anyone willing to be constrained by the norms, or even by the law.
    The problem about values, now, isn’t just that we disagree on stuff like how much beyond paving the roads we should fund collectively. We no longer agree on the process by which we should resolve such disagreements.
    The Supreme Court’s role in the election of 2000, and the successful blocking of Obama’s chance to make a SCOTUS nomination in his last year in office — death knells for shared abstract values about how to sort out our unshared practical values. You don’t even have to mention Clickbait to summarize it.

  28. wrs in a recent thread, addressing Marty: My values are not your values.
    This bit from joel hanes, above, is pertinent to the question of shared values: It’s a problem for the Ds: there are no longer any good faith actors on the R side with whom one can negotiate, or even anyone willing to be constrained by the norms, or even by the law.
    The problem about values, now, isn’t just that we disagree on stuff like how much beyond paving the roads we should fund collectively. We no longer agree on the process by which we should resolve such disagreements.
    The Supreme Court’s role in the election of 2000, and the successful blocking of Obama’s chance to make a SCOTUS nomination in his last year in office — death knells for shared abstract values about how to sort out our unshared practical values. You don’t even have to mention Clickbait to summarize it.

  31. 1. Removing Trump only partially mollifies Democratic voters, and only partially reduces their determination to vote. For a lot of them, the problem isn’t Trump directly, it’s the morally degraded state of conservative voters- collectively rotten people who have been trained to reject valid sources of factual and moral authority in favor of narcissistic blowhards.
    2. Trump won’t go quietly into the night. He’ll be kicking and screaming for years after he’s impeached. He’ll explain everything in terms of stabs in the back and conspiracies and secret Democrats. This will keep him in the news, which contributes to (1). And since conservative voters are a morally degraded bunch, a lot of them will believe Trump. Which creates primary problems for Republicans who support impeachment.
    3. (2) could be handled if the conservative media was on board with dumping Trump. They have signaled that they will do the opposite. And they will have an easy time supporting Trump because their target audience is degraded. See (1).

  32. 1. Removing Trump only partially mollifies Democratic voters, and only partially reduces their determination to vote. For a lot of them, the problem isn’t Trump directly, it’s the morally degraded state of conservative voters- collectively rotten people who have been trained to reject valid sources of factual and moral authority in favor of narcissistic blowhards.
    2. Trump won’t go quietly into the night. He’ll be kicking and screaming for years after he’s impeached. He’ll explain everything in terms of stabs in the back and conspiracies and secret Democrats. This will keep him in the news, which contributes to (1). And since conservative voters are a morally degraded bunch, a lot of them will believe Trump. Which creates primary problems for Republicans who support impeachment.
    3. (2) could be handled if the conservative media was on board with dumping Trump. They have signaled that they will do the opposite. And they will have an easy time supporting Trump because their target audience is degraded. See (1).

  33. Republican judicial paragon Brett Kavanaugh talking about and to He, Trump:

    No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

    Is this shameless toady what passes for a “sane” Republican? A fact-respecting Republican? A Republican with “judicial temperament”?
    Or is he exactly the kind of Republican who will soberly and impartially rule that water runs uphill when his master’s “base” demands it?
    –TP

  34. Republican judicial paragon Brett Kavanaugh talking about and to He, Trump:

    No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

    Is this shameless toady what passes for a “sane” Republican? A fact-respecting Republican? A Republican with “judicial temperament”?
    Or is he exactly the kind of Republican who will soberly and impartially rule that water runs uphill when his master’s “base” demands it?
    –TP

  35. the Rs have spent thirty years
    2018 – 1968 = 50
    the successful blocking of Obama’s chance to make a SCOTUS nomination in his last year in office
    that was pretty blatant.
    we’ve entered some kind of ‘will to power’ zone in domestic politics at this point. I’m not sure the (D)’s have figured that out, Obama certainly did not seem to be able to recognize or accept it.
    I’m not sure how it’s going to play out.

  36. the Rs have spent thirty years
    2018 – 1968 = 50
    the successful blocking of Obama’s chance to make a SCOTUS nomination in his last year in office
    that was pretty blatant.
    we’ve entered some kind of ‘will to power’ zone in domestic politics at this point. I’m not sure the (D)’s have figured that out, Obama certainly did not seem to be able to recognize or accept it.
    I’m not sure how it’s going to play out.

  37. The broader Republican Party still contains some people who can be reached
    wj is the only one I can think of.
    And actually, the rest of joel hanes’s 03.15 seems right on the money to me.

  38. The broader Republican Party still contains some people who can be reached
    wj is the only one I can think of.
    And actually, the rest of joel hanes’s 03.15 seems right on the money to me.

  39. I think Joel is right, too. The only hope for the Republican party is for them to lose elections for a generation.
    But the R party is not only beholden to its quasi fascist base–they are also bought and paid for by the corporatist donors who are as indifferent to R base voters as they are to the rest of us. And global climate change is real and the effects on the economy are going to be worse and worse over time.
    Which means the usual Republican voter mentality–cut my taxes, give me services and everything is always the fault of you, not me–will become more and more untenable over time.
    Republican voters are just as committed to turning to the federal government for help as everyone else. And as the storms and floods and droughts make it harder and harder to live in a red state…the message “Vote r because we will protect you from the evil Other” is going to decrease in effectiveness and yet that’s the message R politicians HAVE to run on because they cannot run on the agenda their donor class purchased with the donation money.
    So I think that in the long run R messages are going to lose effectiveness with R leaning independents and even with R base voters.d
    it will be too late to save our beautiful public lands and the animals from orcas to migrating birds are living on borrowed time and I am glad to be old and childless, but I don’t see the R message of bigotry fear defamation and scapegoating in service to the one percent as being one that will work as farms dry up and blow away and cities get washed away or blown away.

  40. I think Joel is right, too. The only hope for the Republican party is for them to lose elections for a generation.
    But the R party is not only beholden to its quasi fascist base–they are also bought and paid for by the corporatist donors who are as indifferent to R base voters as they are to the rest of us. And global climate change is real and the effects on the economy are going to be worse and worse over time.
    Which means the usual Republican voter mentality–cut my taxes, give me services and everything is always the fault of you, not me–will become more and more untenable over time.
    Republican voters are just as committed to turning to the federal government for help as everyone else. And as the storms and floods and droughts make it harder and harder to live in a red state…the message “Vote r because we will protect you from the evil Other” is going to decrease in effectiveness and yet that’s the message R politicians HAVE to run on because they cannot run on the agenda their donor class purchased with the donation money.
    So I think that in the long run R messages are going to lose effectiveness with R leaning independents and even with R base voters.d
    it will be too late to save our beautiful public lands and the animals from orcas to migrating birds are living on borrowed time and I am glad to be old and childless, but I don’t see the R message of bigotry fear defamation and scapegoating in service to the one percent as being one that will work as farms dry up and blow away and cities get washed away or blown away.

  41. in order to hang onto power even though they’re a minority, the Rs have spent thirty years carefully identifying those voters who are most implacably driven by resentment and outrage, and then feeding them red meat every day. Those extremely motivated and mostly-misinformed voters have become the Republican primary electorate.
    True, Joel, but let’s not overlook the fact that they have also been engaged in what amounts to a slow-motion coup, and that represents a real danger to the country. (In this they are abetted, of course, by some very foolish provisions of the Constitution.)
    Bush v. Gore
    Voter suppression.
    New heights in gerrymandering.
    Merrick Garland

  42. in order to hang onto power even though they’re a minority, the Rs have spent thirty years carefully identifying those voters who are most implacably driven by resentment and outrage, and then feeding them red meat every day. Those extremely motivated and mostly-misinformed voters have become the Republican primary electorate.
    True, Joel, but let’s not overlook the fact that they have also been engaged in what amounts to a slow-motion coup, and that represents a real danger to the country. (In this they are abetted, of course, by some very foolish provisions of the Constitution.)
    Bush v. Gore
    Voter suppression.
    New heights in gerrymandering.
    Merrick Garland

  45. Add to the list, byomtov, conspiracy with a foreign government to tamper with the elections. Apparently, people just don’t want to face up to this, but it’s pretty freaking obvious by now.

  46. Add to the list, byomtov, conspiracy with a foreign government to tamper with the elections. Apparently, people just don’t want to face up to this, but it’s pretty freaking obvious by now.

  47. byomtov :
    I think russell is incorreect in thinking that the Rs have been doing this for fifty years. Somehow, the Republicans of 1964 were able to support the Voting Rights Act, and the Republicans of 1968 were able to support environmental regulation.
    I said “thirty years”, thinking of Reagan’s 1980 speech in Philadephia, Mississippi — but the actual turn toward the dark side was a year earlier, when Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell founded “The Moral Majority”. It was neither moral, nor a majority — it was the first organized Republican reaction to the realization that white Christian men were beginning to lose their customary hegemony. Weyrich sold the Republicans to the theocrats, and Falwell sold the souls of the evangelicals in exchange for secular political power. The results have been a tragedy for the evangelicals, for the Republicans, and for the nation.
    I guess that’s almost forty years.
    I grow old, I grow old
    I shall wear my trousers rolled
    Note that Weyrich also founded The Heritage Foundation and ALEC.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich
    All the violations of norms and laws that you cite can be “justified” if one is a certain type of theist (e.g, Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann), and is convinced that one is defending a God-given order of society against the forces of Satan.

  48. byomtov :
    I think russell is incorreect in thinking that the Rs have been doing this for fifty years. Somehow, the Republicans of 1964 were able to support the Voting Rights Act, and the Republicans of 1968 were able to support environmental regulation.
    I said “thirty years”, thinking of Reagan’s 1980 speech in Philadephia, Mississippi — but the actual turn toward the dark side was a year earlier, when Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell founded “The Moral Majority”. It was neither moral, nor a majority — it was the first organized Republican reaction to the realization that white Christian men were beginning to lose their customary hegemony. Weyrich sold the Republicans to the theocrats, and Falwell sold the souls of the evangelicals in exchange for secular political power. The results have been a tragedy for the evangelicals, for the Republicans, and for the nation.
    I guess that’s almost forty years.
    I grow old, I grow old
    I shall wear my trousers rolled
    Note that Weyrich also founded The Heritage Foundation and ALEC.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich
    All the violations of norms and laws that you cite can be “justified” if one is a certain type of theist (e.g, Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann), and is convinced that one is defending a God-given order of society against the forces of Satan.

  51. “The ends justify the means” is one of the more common slippery slopes. Even for those who are supposed to be religious leaders.

  52. “The ends justify the means” is one of the more common slippery slopes. Even for those who are supposed to be religious leaders.

  53. The Supreme Court’s role in the election of 2000, and the successful blocking of Obama’s chance to make a SCOTUS nomination in his last year in office — death knells for shared abstract values about how to sort out our unshared practical values. You don’t even have to mention Clickbait to summarize it.
    Exactly. The right way to share practical values of how to sort out disputes is to try to kill the presidential vote in the Florida panhandle through the media and when that doesn’t succeed forgo a statewide recount in favor of a few overtly democrat counties. Because that makes sense and is a fair way to resolve election disputes. And then you complain about the Garland nomination because the historical norm of the winner of the presidential election getting to choose the nominee during a presidential election year shouldn’t apply because, well, Obama. He stopped the rising of the seas and all. And then you deploy the nuclear option in the Senate before that because, well, you are in the majority at the time and that makes sense and you don’t like Mitch McConnell anyway. Top it all off with opposing any and all nominees to the right of Che Guevara because you like international norms as an theory of Constitutional interpretation. There, you have made your case for the Republicans being solely responsible for not using a “shared values” model of dispute resolution.
    All sarcasm aside there is more than enough to complain about on both sides.

  54. The Supreme Court’s role in the election of 2000, and the successful blocking of Obama’s chance to make a SCOTUS nomination in his last year in office — death knells for shared abstract values about how to sort out our unshared practical values. You don’t even have to mention Clickbait to summarize it.
    Exactly. The right way to share practical values of how to sort out disputes is to try to kill the presidential vote in the Florida panhandle through the media and when that doesn’t succeed forgo a statewide recount in favor of a few overtly democrat counties. Because that makes sense and is a fair way to resolve election disputes. And then you complain about the Garland nomination because the historical norm of the winner of the presidential election getting to choose the nominee during a presidential election year shouldn’t apply because, well, Obama. He stopped the rising of the seas and all. And then you deploy the nuclear option in the Senate before that because, well, you are in the majority at the time and that makes sense and you don’t like Mitch McConnell anyway. Top it all off with opposing any and all nominees to the right of Che Guevara because you like international norms as an theory of Constitutional interpretation. There, you have made your case for the Republicans being solely responsible for not using a “shared values” model of dispute resolution.
    All sarcasm aside there is more than enough to complain about on both sides.

  57. tp: I responded a while back that the quote from Kavanaugh bothered me too. But what I have seen since then has impressed. The endorsements from the clerks (more than half women), the affirmance rate by SCOTUS, his adherence to precedent, etc. Sounds like you are sticking to the statement. Has the info made no impact on you? Would anything?

  58. tp: I responded a while back that the quote from Kavanaugh bothered me too. But what I have seen since then has impressed. The endorsements from the clerks (more than half women), the affirmance rate by SCOTUS, his adherence to precedent, etc. Sounds like you are sticking to the statement. Has the info made no impact on you? Would anything?

  59. Asked about the blockade favored by Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Collins said the Senate is “best served by following the regular order” but added that she was “not optimistic that I will be changing minds on this issue.”
    Susan Collins, 4/5/16

  60. Asked about the blockade favored by Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Collins said the Senate is “best served by following the regular order” but added that she was “not optimistic that I will be changing minds on this issue.”
    Susan Collins, 4/5/16

  61. the historical norm of the winner of the presidential election getting to choose the nominee during a presidential election year
    Quite seriously, I am unfamiliar with this norm. I was aware that, for Garland, the Rs claimed that it “should be” that way.
    Is there some historical precedent you can cite? I’m always interested in deflating my own misconceptions.

  62. the historical norm of the winner of the presidential election getting to choose the nominee during a presidential election year
    Quite seriously, I am unfamiliar with this norm. I was aware that, for Garland, the Rs claimed that it “should be” that way.
    Is there some historical precedent you can cite? I’m always interested in deflating my own misconceptions.

  63. Has the info made no impact on you? Would anything?
    Does it bother you that the Republicans are hiding over 90% of relevant documents? Why are they hiding it? Would anything dissuade you that this guy is basically a Republican political hack, whose positions on legal issues reverse themselves depending on the party affiliation of the people affected, and that is going to block any effort to hold Trump accountable for criminal conduct?

  64. Has the info made no impact on you? Would anything?
    Does it bother you that the Republicans are hiding over 90% of relevant documents? Why are they hiding it? Would anything dissuade you that this guy is basically a Republican political hack, whose positions on legal issues reverse themselves depending on the party affiliation of the people affected, and that is going to block any effort to hold Trump accountable for criminal conduct?

  65. Wish we had an after-the-fact edit button. But, also, what’s with his rudeness to the father of the dead high school student?

  66. Wish we had an after-the-fact edit button. But, also, what’s with his rudeness to the father of the dead high school student?

  67. bc :
    On the day that Kavanaugh votes to uphold Roe v Wade in substance and in full, I will donate $128 to a charity of your choice.
    I don’t think we’ll need to wait long.
    Iowa has a case all tee’ed up that the Iowa Rs are really hoping is the case to take down Roe.

  68. bc :
    On the day that Kavanaugh votes to uphold Roe v Wade in substance and in full, I will donate $128 to a charity of your choice.
    I don’t think we’ll need to wait long.
    Iowa has a case all tee’ed up that the Iowa Rs are really hoping is the case to take down Roe.

  71. the Republicans of 1968 were able to support environmental regulation.
    Southern strategy. 1968.
    If you want to count from Goldwater, start the clock at 1964.
    the historical norm of the winner of the presidential election getting to choose the nominee during a presidential election year
    Show me the historical norm of a POTUS declining to nominate a replacement for a SCOTUS justice who passes away in February of an election year.
    Never mind “historical norm”, show me an example. One.
    As far as shared values, I do not see that they exist. I don’t want what you want.
    Regarding Kavanaugh, his professional life up until W rewarded him with a judicial appointment was as an explicitly partisan (R) activist. Not a jurist who happened to be conservative in outlook, but a (R) hatchet man, openly and gladly so.
    The man has no business on the Supreme Court.

  72. the Republicans of 1968 were able to support environmental regulation.
    Southern strategy. 1968.
    If you want to count from Goldwater, start the clock at 1964.
    the historical norm of the winner of the presidential election getting to choose the nominee during a presidential election year
    Show me the historical norm of a POTUS declining to nominate a replacement for a SCOTUS justice who passes away in February of an election year.
    Never mind “historical norm”, show me an example. One.
    As far as shared values, I do not see that they exist. I don’t want what you want.
    Regarding Kavanaugh, his professional life up until W rewarded him with a judicial appointment was as an explicitly partisan (R) activist. Not a jurist who happened to be conservative in outlook, but a (R) hatchet man, openly and gladly so.
    The man has no business on the Supreme Court.

  73. I responded a while back that the quote from Kavanaugh bothered me too. But what I have seen since then has impressed. The endorsements from the clerks (more than half women), the affirmance rate by SCOTUS, his adherence to precedent, etc
    FFS. he was nominated for one reason. look to the GOP base and their overwhelming support will tell you the reason.
    if there was ANY doubt that Kavenaugh wasn’t going to vote exactly in line with what Republicanism (in the age of Trump!!!!) demands, we would have heard it by now. we haven’t.
    endorsements from people who are going to have cases in front of him, or who are eager to see their students get clerk jobs? that’s all chummy small-world-of-elite-lawyers politics.

  74. I responded a while back that the quote from Kavanaugh bothered me too. But what I have seen since then has impressed. The endorsements from the clerks (more than half women), the affirmance rate by SCOTUS, his adherence to precedent, etc
    FFS. he was nominated for one reason. look to the GOP base and their overwhelming support will tell you the reason.
    if there was ANY doubt that Kavenaugh wasn’t going to vote exactly in line with what Republicanism (in the age of Trump!!!!) demands, we would have heard it by now. we haven’t.
    endorsements from people who are going to have cases in front of him, or who are eager to see their students get clerk jobs? that’s all chummy small-world-of-elite-lawyers politics.

  75. All sarcasm aside there is more than enough to complain about on both sides.
    Donald Trump wants to fuck his own daughter. let’s see what the Dems have to say.

  76. All sarcasm aside there is more than enough to complain about on both sides.
    Donald Trump wants to fuck his own daughter. let’s see what the Dems have to say.

  77. forgo a statewide recount in favor of a few overtly democrat counties.
    “overtly Democratic,” is what I think you meant to say. But leave that aside.
    I agree that it would have been wiser to seek a statewide recount, though whether that was feasible I do not know.
    That said, the Gore campaign took exactly the wrong strategy in selecting counties for a recount. Surely it would have been smarter to ask for a recount in heavily Republican counties. Correcting errors there was going to produce more Gore votes than correcting errors in Democratic counties.

  78. forgo a statewide recount in favor of a few overtly democrat counties.
    “overtly Democratic,” is what I think you meant to say. But leave that aside.
    I agree that it would have been wiser to seek a statewide recount, though whether that was feasible I do not know.
    That said, the Gore campaign took exactly the wrong strategy in selecting counties for a recount. Surely it would have been smarter to ask for a recount in heavily Republican counties. Correcting errors there was going to produce more Gore votes than correcting errors in Democratic counties.

  79. bc: The endorsements from the clerks (more than half women), the affirmance rate by SCOTUS, his adherence to precedent, etc
    You may have become aware of Kavanaugh’s previous Outstanding Achievements in the Field of Excellence after he revealed himself to be a fawning sycophant, but such as they may have been they all occurred before he transparently lied — or at least flaunted his entirely unjudicial disrespect for facts — in order to suck up to He, Trump. Kavanaugh’s “impressive” qualities are his past; his current persona is grovelling courtier.
    An accomplished man who is “sober as a judge” does NOT giddily flatter his benefactor in public. He at least has brains enough to do his ass-kissing in private.
    –TP

  80. bc: The endorsements from the clerks (more than half women), the affirmance rate by SCOTUS, his adherence to precedent, etc
    You may have become aware of Kavanaugh’s previous Outstanding Achievements in the Field of Excellence after he revealed himself to be a fawning sycophant, but such as they may have been they all occurred before he transparently lied — or at least flaunted his entirely unjudicial disrespect for facts — in order to suck up to He, Trump. Kavanaugh’s “impressive” qualities are his past; his current persona is grovelling courtier.
    An accomplished man who is “sober as a judge” does NOT giddily flatter his benefactor in public. He at least has brains enough to do his ass-kissing in private.
    –TP

  81. cleek :
    I wish we weren’t going there, even if it’s true. There’s more than enough other stuff to bring him down if it’s going to happen.

  82. cleek :
    I wish we weren’t going there, even if it’s true. There’s more than enough other stuff to bring him down if it’s going to happen.

  87. I think I disagree with Josh and Joel. The key issue in impeachment isn’t whether or not you are sure you can get 67 Senators to convict (although that’s important). The key issue is whether you can make a strong enough case that a decisive majority of the voters think Trump *should* have been convicted on the evidence. That will depend in part on the evidence that Mueller brings, and on what you can develop through committee hearings. So we shouldn’t commit to definite impeachment yet.
    But assuming that the evidence is there and can be made into that case for the voters, either their voters will convince enough Senators to go along (possibly at the last minute), or Democrats should then spend the next six years running a credible candidate against each and every R senator who voted against conviction, with the message: “Here’s all the ways Trump was corrupt and was destroying the rule of law in this country. Senator X had the chance to stand up for democracy and hold Trump accountable, but he voted to keep him and his corruption in office. Vote now for the party who wants to protect our democracy and preserve liberty and justice *for all*.”
    If they are going to stick with Trump to the bitter end, make them fucking own it. Every last one of them.

  88. I think I disagree with Josh and Joel. The key issue in impeachment isn’t whether or not you are sure you can get 67 Senators to convict (although that’s important). The key issue is whether you can make a strong enough case that a decisive majority of the voters think Trump *should* have been convicted on the evidence. That will depend in part on the evidence that Mueller brings, and on what you can develop through committee hearings. So we shouldn’t commit to definite impeachment yet.
    But assuming that the evidence is there and can be made into that case for the voters, either their voters will convince enough Senators to go along (possibly at the last minute), or Democrats should then spend the next six years running a credible candidate against each and every R senator who voted against conviction, with the message: “Here’s all the ways Trump was corrupt and was destroying the rule of law in this country. Senator X had the chance to stand up for democracy and hold Trump accountable, but he voted to keep him and his corruption in office. Vote now for the party who wants to protect our democracy and preserve liberty and justice *for all*.”
    If they are going to stick with Trump to the bitter end, make them fucking own it. Every last one of them.

  89. The GOP leadership was open about not considering ANY SCOTUS nomination from Hillary Clinton, should she win. They declared that they would keep vacancies open if need be for 8 years. So, the doctrine they followed was that no (Dem) POTUS should nominate any SCOTUS justice in the last 8 years of being in office.

  90. The GOP leadership was open about not considering ANY SCOTUS nomination from Hillary Clinton, should she win. They declared that they would keep vacancies open if need be for 8 years. So, the doctrine they followed was that no (Dem) POTUS should nominate any SCOTUS justice in the last 8 years of being in office.

  91. There’s more than enough other stuff to bring him down if it’s going to happen.
    it isn’t going to happen.
    the GOP is a cult.

  92. There’s more than enough other stuff to bring him down if it’s going to happen.
    it isn’t going to happen.
    the GOP is a cult.

  101. If they are going to stick with Trump to the bitter end, make them fucking own it. Every last one of them.
    Impeachment is a political process. First, the D’s need to take the House. Then they have to decide if the impeachment effort is worth the candle.
    Right now, I’d say yes, but 2020 is a long ways off. The R’s could get a lot of mileage out of “They tried to take me down, but they failed!”
    You know a lot of liberals mock leftists who espouse the “heighten the contradictions” strategy. But we are now faced with dealing with an entire powerful political party dedicated to very this way of looking at things….
    We are in dangerous territory.

  102. If they are going to stick with Trump to the bitter end, make them fucking own it. Every last one of them.
    Impeachment is a political process. First, the D’s need to take the House. Then they have to decide if the impeachment effort is worth the candle.
    Right now, I’d say yes, but 2020 is a long ways off. The R’s could get a lot of mileage out of “They tried to take me down, but they failed!”
    You know a lot of liberals mock leftists who espouse the “heighten the contradictions” strategy. But we are now faced with dealing with an entire powerful political party dedicated to very this way of looking at things….
    We are in dangerous territory.

  103. It’s rich to see someone bringing up a purported “norm” as a justification for Republican nonsense in the norm-breaking environment we now find ourselves in thanks to the current leader of the Republican party. I guess respect for norms is ephemeral.

  104. It’s rich to see someone bringing up a purported “norm” as a justification for Republican nonsense in the norm-breaking environment we now find ourselves in thanks to the current leader of the Republican party. I guess respect for norms is ephemeral.

  105. It’s rich to see someone bringing up a purported “norm” …
    …who in the same paragraph writes about “democrat counties,” which is either deliberate trolling or a bubble-habit so deeply ingrained that the writer is no longer conscious of the sneer.
    Respect for norms is expedient, and as with everything else, there are degrees of challenge. Some challenges bend the system, others break it.

  106. It’s rich to see someone bringing up a purported “norm” …
    …who in the same paragraph writes about “democrat counties,” which is either deliberate trolling or a bubble-habit so deeply ingrained that the writer is no longer conscious of the sneer.
    Respect for norms is expedient, and as with everything else, there are degrees of challenge. Some challenges bend the system, others break it.

  107. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-says-nikes-stock-is-getting-absolutely-killed-with-anger-and-boycotts-2018-09-05?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    Let’s review. Cast your rheumy eyes to the far left of the chart to the date when a certain over-melanined individual took the oath of office .. for the first time:
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=NKE&insttype=Stock&freq=2&show=&time=13
    No norms. No rule of law.
    Act accordingly, in spades:
    If a republican/conservative points out the lack of precedence in your actions, slap their bloody fucking lying face.

  108. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-says-nikes-stock-is-getting-absolutely-killed-with-anger-and-boycotts-2018-09-05?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    Let’s review. Cast your rheumy eyes to the far left of the chart to the date when a certain over-melanined individual took the oath of office .. for the first time:
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=NKE&insttype=Stock&freq=2&show=&time=13
    No norms. No rule of law.
    Act accordingly, in spades:
    If a republican/conservative points out the lack of precedence in your actions, slap their bloody fucking lying face.

  109. You know a lot of liberals mock leftists who espouse the “heighten the contradictions” strategy
    In modern America, the contradictions heighten themselves.

  110. You know a lot of liberals mock leftists who espouse the “heighten the contradictions” strategy
    In modern America, the contradictions heighten themselves.

  111. Brett Kavanaugh just gave a long answer to an Orrin Hatch question, explaining the affirmative action he took to hire female law clerks in the face of an established “pipeline” traditionally favoring male ones. He did not say “affirmative action”, of course. Wrong branding. Just like you can’t cut Medicare unless you call it an entitlement first, it’s okay to take affirmative action as long as you don’t call it affirmative action.
    –TP

  112. Brett Kavanaugh just gave a long answer to an Orrin Hatch question, explaining the affirmative action he took to hire female law clerks in the face of an established “pipeline” traditionally favoring male ones. He did not say “affirmative action”, of course. Wrong branding. Just like you can’t cut Medicare unless you call it an entitlement first, it’s okay to take affirmative action as long as you don’t call it affirmative action.
    –TP

  113. “deeply ingrained that the writer is no longer conscious of the sneer.”
    I have no idea why this matters, I know it does; I just have no idea why.

  114. “deeply ingrained that the writer is no longer conscious of the sneer.”
    I have no idea why this matters, I know it does; I just have no idea why.

  121. I have no idea why this matters
    Because people like to have their preferences about the language used to refer to them respected.
    Because people view it as a slight when language that is commonly and deliberately used to basically poke that preference in the eye is used instead.
    The use of eye-poking language might be deliberate, or it might be simply a matter of habit. Both possibilities are somewhat obnoxious.
    Most likely, you knew all of that, but in case not, that’s the breakdown.

  122. I have no idea why this matters
    Because people like to have their preferences about the language used to refer to them respected.
    Because people view it as a slight when language that is commonly and deliberately used to basically poke that preference in the eye is used instead.
    The use of eye-poking language might be deliberate, or it might be simply a matter of habit. Both possibilities are somewhat obnoxious.
    Most likely, you knew all of that, but in case not, that’s the breakdown.

  123. Republicans are lucky to have a name that serves as both an adjective and a noun. Using “Democrat” (or “democrat”) as an adjective is a more subtle version of “f**k your feelings.”

  124. Republicans are lucky to have a name that serves as both an adjective and a noun. Using “Democrat” (or “democrat”) as an adjective is a more subtle version of “f**k your feelings.”

  127. on the bright side, “Democrat Party” makes the speaker sound like a 1960s southern blowhard.
    On the not-so-bright side, that appeals to a significant minority of Americans.

  128. on the bright side, “Democrat Party” makes the speaker sound like a 1960s southern blowhard.
    On the not-so-bright side, that appeals to a significant minority of Americans.

  131. Not original with me: “Democrat Party” is like making a point of calling someone Jimmy, and when they say they prefer James, saying “Got it, Jimmy.”

  132. Not original with me: “Democrat Party” is like making a point of calling someone Jimmy, and when they say they prefer James, saying “Got it, Jimmy.”

  133. I have no idea why this matters
    D-I-S-R-E-S-P-E-C-T …
    Kavanaugh just gave a long answer to an Orrin Hatch question, explaining the affirmative action he took to hire female law clerks in the face of an established “pipeline” traditionally favoring male ones…
    He should take a look at the Washington Post chart I posted above, which fairly clearly demonstrates the hiring practices of the guy who nominated him…whom he has displayed an somewhat injuducious tendency to fellate in public.

  134. I have no idea why this matters
    D-I-S-R-E-S-P-E-C-T …
    Kavanaugh just gave a long answer to an Orrin Hatch question, explaining the affirmative action he took to hire female law clerks in the face of an established “pipeline” traditionally favoring male ones…
    He should take a look at the Washington Post chart I posted above, which fairly clearly demonstrates the hiring practices of the guy who nominated him…whom he has displayed an somewhat injuducious tendency to fellate in public.

  137. Sure it was clear it was eye poking language, and still I dont know why it is eye poking language. If there is a history, I am not aware of it.

  138. Sure it was clear it was eye poking language, and still I dont know why it is eye poking language. If there is a history, I am not aware of it.

  151. and still I dont know why it is eye poking language. If there is a history, I am not aware of it…
    Neither was I, Marty (I’m a Brit), but having been called out on it, I didn’t have a problem being polite, or feign disbelief that persisting might be a bit dickish.

  152. and still I dont know why it is eye poking language. If there is a history, I am not aware of it…
    Neither was I, Marty (I’m a Brit), but having been called out on it, I didn’t have a problem being polite, or feign disbelief that persisting might be a bit dickish.

  153. If there is a history, I am not aware of it.
    No worries.
    The analogy to “Jimmy”/”James” upthread hits the nail on the head.

  154. If there is a history, I am not aware of it.
    No worries.
    The analogy to “Jimmy”/”James” upthread hits the nail on the head.

  155. OK, so this is kind of a poser.
    I have a couple of responses.
    First, I can’t think of a precedent for anything quite like this. Can anyone else?
    Next, it pretty much pisses me off. You’re telling me the POTUS sucks – dangerously so – but also telling me you’re going to support him and support keeping him in office. Because you like tax cuts and deregulation.
    Finally, it really pisses me off because it ends with a call to “rise above politics” and “come together”.
    You’re benefiting from the presidency of a man you openly claim is utterly unsuited from the office, and will not do a thing about the fact that he’s utterly unsuited to the office. Because you’re benefiting from it – you’re getting the policies you want.
    But folks like me should put all of that aside and “come together”?
    I’m not together with the author of this piece or with anyone like him. I don’t see any basis for “coming together” with the author of this piece. Based on what was written here, this person strikes me as a whore for power.
    You can’t break and generally piss on the institutions that are the basis of political community, and then bemoan the lack of political community. WTF about that is hard to understand?
    Quit moaning in the NYT op-ed pages and do your freaking duty.

  156. OK, so this is kind of a poser.
    I have a couple of responses.
    First, I can’t think of a precedent for anything quite like this. Can anyone else?
    Next, it pretty much pisses me off. You’re telling me the POTUS sucks – dangerously so – but also telling me you’re going to support him and support keeping him in office. Because you like tax cuts and deregulation.
    Finally, it really pisses me off because it ends with a call to “rise above politics” and “come together”.
    You’re benefiting from the presidency of a man you openly claim is utterly unsuited from the office, and will not do a thing about the fact that he’s utterly unsuited to the office. Because you’re benefiting from it – you’re getting the policies you want.
    But folks like me should put all of that aside and “come together”?
    I’m not together with the author of this piece or with anyone like him. I don’t see any basis for “coming together” with the author of this piece. Based on what was written here, this person strikes me as a whore for power.
    You can’t break and generally piss on the institutions that are the basis of political community, and then bemoan the lack of political community. WTF about that is hard to understand?
    Quit moaning in the NYT op-ed pages and do your freaking duty.

  159. poser.
    Enablers and thieves.
    Analogously, they make sure he has enough whiskey to get drunk, but not enough to kill himself. They hide the car keys when he’s drunk, but won’t take them away. They put documents he doesn’t understand in front of him for his signature, and use those to advance their policy goals.
    The author wants to think of him as a virtuous patriot, and wants us to view him that way too. IMHO, he’s dishonest, manipulative scum.

  160. poser.
    Enablers and thieves.
    Analogously, they make sure he has enough whiskey to get drunk, but not enough to kill himself. They hide the car keys when he’s drunk, but won’t take them away. They put documents he doesn’t understand in front of him for his signature, and use those to advance their policy goals.
    The author wants to think of him as a virtuous patriot, and wants us to view him that way too. IMHO, he’s dishonest, manipulative scum.

  161. Wow, Russell. Just wow.
    But I don’t really hear him saying:
    You’re telling me the POTUS sucks – dangerously so – but also telling me you’re going to support him and support keeping him in office.
    What I hear him saying is more like
    – I would like this administration to succeed.
    – But that mostly means working around Trump.
    – If we could get rid of Trump, that would be great. But he doesn’t see a path to get there right now. And until and unless that happens, the author intends to stay on the job, thwarting Trump as much as possible.
    Yes, he does approve of a couple of things that have happened during this administration. Mostly, as far as I can see, where someone else (often, but not always, Congress; or officials who Trump OKed, but didn’t actually pick; or even the Federalist Society) did something and Trump just went along with it. Pretty much never where Trump came up with something on his own and made it happen.

  162. Wow, Russell. Just wow.
    But I don’t really hear him saying:
    You’re telling me the POTUS sucks – dangerously so – but also telling me you’re going to support him and support keeping him in office.
    What I hear him saying is more like
    – I would like this administration to succeed.
    – But that mostly means working around Trump.
    – If we could get rid of Trump, that would be great. But he doesn’t see a path to get there right now. And until and unless that happens, the author intends to stay on the job, thwarting Trump as much as possible.
    Yes, he does approve of a couple of things that have happened during this administration. Mostly, as far as I can see, where someone else (often, but not always, Congress; or officials who Trump OKed, but didn’t actually pick; or even the Federalist Society) did something and Trump just went along with it. Pretty much never where Trump came up with something on his own and made it happen.

  167. If we could get rid of Trump, that would be great. But he doesn’t see a path to get there right now.
    He -or she – declines to take the path to get there right now.
    Basically, the NYT is publishing a letter from someone they claim is a “senior official in the Trump administration”, telling us that yes, the guy is incompetent, but don’t worry, we got this.
    How is this not a coup d’etat?
    By what authority does the author and his or her associates act to interfere with the actions and directives of the elected POTUS?
    We are asked to (a) accept that the author is even who the NYT claims him or her to be, (b) accept that this anonymous person and his or her associates – all almost certainly unelected and appointees of the apparently unreliable POTUS – can be trusted to run the nation, and (c) respond to all of this by “coming together”.
    You have to be shitting me.
    If the POTUS is unfit or incapable of exercising the office responsibly, there is a remedy. It’s called the 25th A. It is not a “Constitutional crisis” to exercise that, it is exactly and precisely following the Constitution.
    If the author is Cabinet level, and what is described here is accurate, failing to take that action is a dereliction of the duties of office.
    Assuming the author is who the NYT claims they are, he or she and his or her associates are basically publicly proclaiming that they are usurping the office of the POTUS. And we should just go along with and “come together”. Because, yeah Trump is out of control, but they got this. Whoever they are.
    WT bloody F.

  168. If we could get rid of Trump, that would be great. But he doesn’t see a path to get there right now.
    He -or she – declines to take the path to get there right now.
    Basically, the NYT is publishing a letter from someone they claim is a “senior official in the Trump administration”, telling us that yes, the guy is incompetent, but don’t worry, we got this.
    How is this not a coup d’etat?
    By what authority does the author and his or her associates act to interfere with the actions and directives of the elected POTUS?
    We are asked to (a) accept that the author is even who the NYT claims him or her to be, (b) accept that this anonymous person and his or her associates – all almost certainly unelected and appointees of the apparently unreliable POTUS – can be trusted to run the nation, and (c) respond to all of this by “coming together”.
    You have to be shitting me.
    If the POTUS is unfit or incapable of exercising the office responsibly, there is a remedy. It’s called the 25th A. It is not a “Constitutional crisis” to exercise that, it is exactly and precisely following the Constitution.
    If the author is Cabinet level, and what is described here is accurate, failing to take that action is a dereliction of the duties of office.
    Assuming the author is who the NYT claims they are, he or she and his or her associates are basically publicly proclaiming that they are usurping the office of the POTUS. And we should just go along with and “come together”. Because, yeah Trump is out of control, but they got this. Whoever they are.
    WT bloody F.

  171. I guess we need a new government mandate to make ethanol from soybeans.
    Last I knew, we were already producing all the ethanol that could be safely blended into the gasoline supply. Using “safely” to mean keeping the percentage below the level where it starts to eat the fuel lines and fuel pump membranes in older cars, cause low-temperature starting problems, and more.

  172. I guess we need a new government mandate to make ethanol from soybeans.
    Last I knew, we were already producing all the ethanol that could be safely blended into the gasoline supply. Using “safely” to mean keeping the percentage below the level where it starts to eat the fuel lines and fuel pump membranes in older cars, cause low-temperature starting problems, and more.

  173. …who in the same paragraph writes about “democrat counties,” which is either deliberate trolling or a bubble-habit so deeply ingrained that the writer is no longer conscious of the sneer.
    Neither. But thanks for the false dichotomy. I didn’t call it the “Democrat Party.” I realize it is the Democratic Party. I think I had that sentence written differently (Democrat-controlled? led by Democrats?) and I changed it but didn’t catch the adjective change.
    And to think of all the “tea baggers” Rethuglicans and such that has been bandied about over the years intentionally, all I can say is wow, you guys are sensitive lately.

  174. …who in the same paragraph writes about “democrat counties,” which is either deliberate trolling or a bubble-habit so deeply ingrained that the writer is no longer conscious of the sneer.
    Neither. But thanks for the false dichotomy. I didn’t call it the “Democrat Party.” I realize it is the Democratic Party. I think I had that sentence written differently (Democrat-controlled? led by Democrats?) and I changed it but didn’t catch the adjective change.
    And to think of all the “tea baggers” Rethuglicans and such that has been bandied about over the years intentionally, all I can say is wow, you guys are sensitive lately.

  175. i’m betting it’s not a “he”.
    i’m thinking Nikki Haley.
    note the foreign policy focus and the reference to “some of his aides” but not “some of us”.

  176. i’m betting it’s not a “he”.
    i’m thinking Nikki Haley.
    note the foreign policy focus and the reference to “some of his aides” but not “some of us”.

  177. I changed it but didn’t catch the adjective change.
    I find this completely believable. No snark.
    you guys are sensitive lately.
    the time is out of joint.

  178. I changed it but didn’t catch the adjective change.
    I find this completely believable. No snark.
    you guys are sensitive lately.
    the time is out of joint.

  179. If the POTUS is unfit or incapable of exercising the office responsibly, there is a remedy. It’s called the 25th A
    He could still not see a path forward, just because he knows that there aren’t even close to enough cabinet officials who would be willing to step up. Considering the ass kissing that apparently happens routinely in Trump’s meetings with cabinet officials, that doesn’t seem far fetched.
    Is this a de facto coup? Yeah. But note that, at least as I read it, this isn’t some career civil servant (aka the deep state). This is someone that Trump appointed to high office. Doesn’t really make it better, but it does make it different. IMHO.

  180. If the POTUS is unfit or incapable of exercising the office responsibly, there is a remedy. It’s called the 25th A
    He could still not see a path forward, just because he knows that there aren’t even close to enough cabinet officials who would be willing to step up. Considering the ass kissing that apparently happens routinely in Trump’s meetings with cabinet officials, that doesn’t seem far fetched.
    Is this a de facto coup? Yeah. But note that, at least as I read it, this isn’t some career civil servant (aka the deep state). This is someone that Trump appointed to high office. Doesn’t really make it better, but it does make it different. IMHO.

  181. if you know he’s a danger, but you also know there will be no 25th A remedy and that there will be no impeachment remedy … what are your options?
    quit and hope your replacement is more effective at corralling him (and won’t just enable him?) that’s a big gamble.
    i’d like to think i’d stay and try to rally support for impeachment or the 25th A. which is probably why this was written.

  182. if you know he’s a danger, but you also know there will be no 25th A remedy and that there will be no impeachment remedy … what are your options?
    quit and hope your replacement is more effective at corralling him (and won’t just enable him?) that’s a big gamble.
    i’d like to think i’d stay and try to rally support for impeachment or the 25th A. which is probably why this was written.

  183. And to think of all the “tea baggers” Rethuglicans and such that has been bandied about over the years intentionally, all I can say is wow, you guys are sensitive lately.
    I haven’t used the term “Rethuglican, which is more on a par with “DemonCrat” or the like than “Democrat Party.” I haven’t seen it used here, though maybe someone has done so. Still, neither term is used routinely by Senators and other high officials. “Democrat party” is so used, often, and it must be, at this point, considered a deliberate poke in the eye when used by them. Yeah. Civility.
    As for “teabaggers,” I confess that I was completely unaware of the offensive connotation, and did use it before I learned better. It didn’t seem to be an inappropriate term for people who hung lots of teabags from their hats.

  184. And to think of all the “tea baggers” Rethuglicans and such that has been bandied about over the years intentionally, all I can say is wow, you guys are sensitive lately.
    I haven’t used the term “Rethuglican, which is more on a par with “DemonCrat” or the like than “Democrat Party.” I haven’t seen it used here, though maybe someone has done so. Still, neither term is used routinely by Senators and other high officials. “Democrat party” is so used, often, and it must be, at this point, considered a deliberate poke in the eye when used by them. Yeah. Civility.
    As for “teabaggers,” I confess that I was completely unaware of the offensive connotation, and did use it before I learned better. It didn’t seem to be an inappropriate term for people who hung lots of teabags from their hats.

  185. what are your options?
    For an honest person ?
    One who takes their Constitutional duties seriously ?
    1. Stay. Quietly gather evidence.
    Go to Mueller.
    Testify.
    2. Resign.
    Go to Mueller
    Testify.

  186. what are your options?
    For an honest person ?
    One who takes their Constitutional duties seriously ?
    1. Stay. Quietly gather evidence.
    Go to Mueller.
    Testify.
    2. Resign.
    Go to Mueller
    Testify.

  187. i’d like to think i’d stay and try to rally support for impeachment or the 25th A. which is probably why this was written.
    Except neither suggestion is made. In fact, the 25th Amendment option was stated to be a “Constitutional crisis.” No, the Constitutional crisis is that the need for Constitutional remedies is obvious, but are being ignored. Why that is may be more complicated than greed and lust for power, but it certainly seems that those are the compelling reasons.
    I will withhold judgment until I think about it more, but for now, I don’t trust the bona fides of the author. The timing obscures a very contentious Supreme Court hearing, in which the nominees ethics are seriously being questioned. Why did this person choose this moment to say what’s happening? Who will benefit from this? Who will take action who is not already doing so? It doesn’t add up to a heroic move. I hope I’m wrong.

  188. i’d like to think i’d stay and try to rally support for impeachment or the 25th A. which is probably why this was written.
    Except neither suggestion is made. In fact, the 25th Amendment option was stated to be a “Constitutional crisis.” No, the Constitutional crisis is that the need for Constitutional remedies is obvious, but are being ignored. Why that is may be more complicated than greed and lust for power, but it certainly seems that those are the compelling reasons.
    I will withhold judgment until I think about it more, but for now, I don’t trust the bona fides of the author. The timing obscures a very contentious Supreme Court hearing, in which the nominees ethics are seriously being questioned. Why did this person choose this moment to say what’s happening? Who will benefit from this? Who will take action who is not already doing so? It doesn’t add up to a heroic move. I hope I’m wrong.

  189. Iirc the term ‘teabagger/ing’ was used initially by the guys themselves until someone informed them that it was already taken.
    I admit having used the term GOPsters on a regular base (to me it came more natural to read GOP as rhyming with blob not sea o’pee).
    And imo the mentality of the party leadership has mobbish qualities indeed.
    I think it is only a matter of time before Gottwald* Party would become the most apt term.
    *after this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klement_Gottwald

  190. Iirc the term ‘teabagger/ing’ was used initially by the guys themselves until someone informed them that it was already taken.
    I admit having used the term GOPsters on a regular base (to me it came more natural to read GOP as rhyming with blob not sea o’pee).
    And imo the mentality of the party leadership has mobbish qualities indeed.
    I think it is only a matter of time before Gottwald* Party would become the most apt term.
    *after this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klement_Gottwald

  191. Gottwald* Party
    I like it. Maybe GOPwald Party. Interesting biography, Hartmut. Thanks.
    I’ve used disparaging terms for the lRepublican Party, because I don’t like it, and more and more it becomes, well, what Hartmut said. If people don’t like the Democratic Party, and call it the democrat party, I know what they think of the people I vote for. Whatever. They should know, though, that it’s a disparaging term, and that most people take it that way.

  192. Gottwald* Party
    I like it. Maybe GOPwald Party. Interesting biography, Hartmut. Thanks.
    I’ve used disparaging terms for the lRepublican Party, because I don’t like it, and more and more it becomes, well, what Hartmut said. If people don’t like the Democratic Party, and call it the democrat party, I know what they think of the people I vote for. Whatever. They should know, though, that it’s a disparaging term, and that most people take it that way.

  193. “or feign disbelief that persisting might be a bit dickish.”
    Now I’m not sure what this meant.
    But I do understand the history, although probably not the intensity of reaction. I got my answer from the internet after all.
    Having said that, I do try hard to always type it correctly anyway.

  194. “or feign disbelief that persisting might be a bit dickish.”
    Now I’m not sure what this meant.
    But I do understand the history, although probably not the intensity of reaction. I got my answer from the internet after all.
    Having said that, I do try hard to always type it correctly anyway.

  195. One of my first lessons from Hilzoy on this site was not to use left or democrat for shorthand (this was back when I was a republican/conservative, poking away at a blackberry probably 50 yards from Andrew Olmstead in Fort Leavenworth, 2007). I was definitely surprised these were pejorative, but complied. I understood liberal was pejorative.
    I don’t feel it, though. Now that I am a convert, I don’t think democrat party is bad. I think the names of both parties are stupid. Republicans certainly think they believe in democracy, and are therefore democratic. Democrats believe in the republic, and are therefore republicans.
    Neither term conforms to the trademark rules I understand. Apple Computers can be trademarked, Apple apples cannot. Same should be true for political parties.

  196. One of my first lessons from Hilzoy on this site was not to use left or democrat for shorthand (this was back when I was a republican/conservative, poking away at a blackberry probably 50 yards from Andrew Olmstead in Fort Leavenworth, 2007). I was definitely surprised these were pejorative, but complied. I understood liberal was pejorative.
    I don’t feel it, though. Now that I am a convert, I don’t think democrat party is bad. I think the names of both parties are stupid. Republicans certainly think they believe in democracy, and are therefore democratic. Democrats believe in the republic, and are therefore republicans.
    Neither term conforms to the trademark rules I understand. Apple Computers can be trademarked, Apple apples cannot. Same should be true for political parties.

  197. In honor of the Kavanaugh hearings, I posted the above as I recall it. It may have been ‘liberal’ that I used, knowing that it was pejorative, but was again poking away on a blackberry in a bunk at Funston, on Fort Leavenworth. In any event, I am sure Hilzoy was annoyed enough to bless me with contact.
    I thought about confirming my memory…but this memory game we use for confirmations just seems unreasonable. It is an overly legalistic way to determine whether someone should be selected (I get the irony).
    We got here by allowing potential justices to avoid actual questions about their beliefs (“that is a hypothetical.”) There is no Constitutional reason to allow that. The Senate evolved that way when it was collegial. It no longer is, and the Democrat party no longer has to accept those answers.

  198. In honor of the Kavanaugh hearings, I posted the above as I recall it. It may have been ‘liberal’ that I used, knowing that it was pejorative, but was again poking away on a blackberry in a bunk at Funston, on Fort Leavenworth. In any event, I am sure Hilzoy was annoyed enough to bless me with contact.
    I thought about confirming my memory…but this memory game we use for confirmations just seems unreasonable. It is an overly legalistic way to determine whether someone should be selected (I get the irony).
    We got here by allowing potential justices to avoid actual questions about their beliefs (“that is a hypothetical.”) There is no Constitutional reason to allow that. The Senate evolved that way when it was collegial. It no longer is, and the Democrat party no longer has to accept those answers.

  199. Sorry, interesting times here. I was in Osaka with a friend for the typhoon and we watched Netflix and drank. My friend doesn’t have NHK (which works like BBC) I was only aware of how bad things were the day after, and this am, the earthquake in Hokkaido, where is where my father-in-law lives (he lives near Chitose, but he’s fine, but we couldn’t get in touch with him for a couple of hours)
    For bc
    I think I had that sentence written differently (Democrat-controlled? led by Democrats?) and I changed it but didn’t catch the adjective change.
    I realize that this might be over-analyzing it, but I’m curious why you had ‘overtly’ there. I realize that we all make mistakes and lots of things can happen in rewriting comments, especially working in a comment box or on a phone. But why ‘overtly’? Are there ‘covert’ counties?
    Anyway, Marty, one reason for the intensity of reaction is from the fact that the comment was hanging there for quite a while. It’s hard to take into account the asynchronous nature of comments and the absence of response. It’s also, I think, not really the reaction that’s the issue.
    At any rate, I can understand making a mistake on editing, what with comment boxes and phones, but what I don’t understand why bc needs to claim that people who point it out are ‘sensitive’. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but the issue is that people are not going to take the writer seriously here and I assume that the writer wants to be taken seriously. So it’s not a question of whether the other side is ‘sensitive’, it is whether the writer wants to make a case to the other side, so they want to put the terms to get their ideas across.
    Matt’s 12:34 about James/Jimmy is precisely on target, and you have to imagine the person who gives some reason for why they used Jimmy and then complains that the hearer is being oversensitive is basically saying ‘I don’t care about your feelings’. I hope that explains why I think that it is not the sensitivity that is the issue, it is the way the discussion has gone.

  200. Sorry, interesting times here. I was in Osaka with a friend for the typhoon and we watched Netflix and drank. My friend doesn’t have NHK (which works like BBC) I was only aware of how bad things were the day after, and this am, the earthquake in Hokkaido, where is where my father-in-law lives (he lives near Chitose, but he’s fine, but we couldn’t get in touch with him for a couple of hours)
    For bc
    I think I had that sentence written differently (Democrat-controlled? led by Democrats?) and I changed it but didn’t catch the adjective change.
    I realize that this might be over-analyzing it, but I’m curious why you had ‘overtly’ there. I realize that we all make mistakes and lots of things can happen in rewriting comments, especially working in a comment box or on a phone. But why ‘overtly’? Are there ‘covert’ counties?
    Anyway, Marty, one reason for the intensity of reaction is from the fact that the comment was hanging there for quite a while. It’s hard to take into account the asynchronous nature of comments and the absence of response. It’s also, I think, not really the reaction that’s the issue.
    At any rate, I can understand making a mistake on editing, what with comment boxes and phones, but what I don’t understand why bc needs to claim that people who point it out are ‘sensitive’. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but the issue is that people are not going to take the writer seriously here and I assume that the writer wants to be taken seriously. So it’s not a question of whether the other side is ‘sensitive’, it is whether the writer wants to make a case to the other side, so they want to put the terms to get their ideas across.
    Matt’s 12:34 about James/Jimmy is precisely on target, and you have to imagine the person who gives some reason for why they used Jimmy and then complains that the hearer is being oversensitive is basically saying ‘I don’t care about your feelings’. I hope that explains why I think that it is not the sensitivity that is the issue, it is the way the discussion has gone.

  201. The technical term for “I’m not going to take steps to remove this unfit ruler but I am going to sabotage his agenda while trying to use him to advance my own” is “collaborator.” There is no “coming together” over this. The author’s agenda is vile, and I don’t support it. I also don’t support Trump’s agenda. Why would I “come together” over this. In what way is “Republicans get to use Trump to advance their agenda and we all agree its for the best because Trump’s agenda would be worse” “coming together?” That sounds more like hostage taking. “Nice country you’ve got here, good thing I’m keeping my buddy Trump from burning it down. He’s crazy like that, you don’t want to see what he’s like when he’s off the chain. Now lets discuss cutting taxes for the wealthy in ways that increase the deficit.”

  202. The technical term for “I’m not going to take steps to remove this unfit ruler but I am going to sabotage his agenda while trying to use him to advance my own” is “collaborator.” There is no “coming together” over this. The author’s agenda is vile, and I don’t support it. I also don’t support Trump’s agenda. Why would I “come together” over this. In what way is “Republicans get to use Trump to advance their agenda and we all agree its for the best because Trump’s agenda would be worse” “coming together?” That sounds more like hostage taking. “Nice country you’ve got here, good thing I’m keeping my buddy Trump from burning it down. He’s crazy like that, you don’t want to see what he’s like when he’s off the chain. Now lets discuss cutting taxes for the wealthy in ways that increase the deficit.”

  205. “or feign disbelief that persisting might be a bit dickish.”
    Now I’m not sure what this meant.
    Apologies Marty, as I was far less than clear that this bit was not intended to be directed at you, which is how it can be read.
    It seems to be a frequent response from those called out for deliberately trolling Democrats in this manner.

  206. “or feign disbelief that persisting might be a bit dickish.”
    Now I’m not sure what this meant.
    Apologies Marty, as I was far less than clear that this bit was not intended to be directed at you, which is how it can be read.
    It seems to be a frequent response from those called out for deliberately trolling Democrats in this manner.

  209. We got here by allowing potential justices to avoid actual questions about their beliefs (“that is a hypothetical.”) There is no Constitutional reason to allow that…
    Absolutely. This, and the “I’m just an umpire” line have always annoyed me extremely.
    SC Justices are not just interpreting the rules of the game; they are also, within very wide bounds, writing the rules of the game, and it is absolutely imperative that they answer such questions.
    Justices only respect state decisions until they decide they don’t want to, Which is not infrequent.

  210. We got here by allowing potential justices to avoid actual questions about their beliefs (“that is a hypothetical.”) There is no Constitutional reason to allow that…
    Absolutely. This, and the “I’m just an umpire” line have always annoyed me extremely.
    SC Justices are not just interpreting the rules of the game; they are also, within very wide bounds, writing the rules of the game, and it is absolutely imperative that they answer such questions.
    Justices only respect state decisions until they decide they don’t want to, Which is not infrequent.

  211. An umpire makes rulings based on clear rules. A Supreme Court justice makes rluings in cases where the rules aren’t clear — else the case would never have gotten that far.

  212. An umpire makes rulings based on clear rules. A Supreme Court justice makes rluings in cases where the rules aren’t clear — else the case would never have gotten that far.

  213. The other point is that any umpire who interpreted the rules as Kavanaugh does, from time to time, Would be suspended form duty and set for retraining:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-roe-heller.html?
    Which is not really an option with Supreme Court Judges.
    It’s a really shitty and self -serving metaphor which should never have been allowed to gain currency, let alone deployed as an excuse for not answering straight questions.

  214. The other point is that any umpire who interpreted the rules as Kavanaugh does, from time to time, Would be suspended form duty and set for retraining:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-roe-heller.html?
    Which is not really an option with Supreme Court Judges.
    It’s a really shitty and self -serving metaphor which should never have been allowed to gain currency, let alone deployed as an excuse for not answering straight questions.

  215. Except neither suggestion is made. In fact, the 25th Amendment option was stated to be a “Constitutional crisis.” No, the Constitutional crisis is that the need for Constitutional remedies is obvious, but are being ignored
    the 25th A (sec 4) is kindof a disaster of a process.
    VP and co says “The Pres is nuts”, then takes office.
    then the Pres says “Nope. Am not”.
    then VP and goes to Congress and says “Oh woe is us. You decide.”
    then Congress gets to decide if the Pres is nuts or not.
    it’s one crisis after another, deliberately.

  216. Except neither suggestion is made. In fact, the 25th Amendment option was stated to be a “Constitutional crisis.” No, the Constitutional crisis is that the need for Constitutional remedies is obvious, but are being ignored
    the 25th A (sec 4) is kindof a disaster of a process.
    VP and co says “The Pres is nuts”, then takes office.
    then the Pres says “Nope. Am not”.
    then VP and goes to Congress and says “Oh woe is us. You decide.”
    then Congress gets to decide if the Pres is nuts or not.
    it’s one crisis after another, deliberately.

  217. The Senate evolved that way when it was collegial. It no longer is, and the Democrat party no longer has to accept those answers.
    why you little…!!!

  218. The Senate evolved that way when it was collegial. It no longer is, and the Democrat party no longer has to accept those answers.
    why you little…!!!

  219. the “I’m just an umpire” line
    The “I’m just an umpire” line is what we hear from so-called originalists, who want to present themselves as simply applying the text, impartially, to a given situation, rather than allowing any personal interpretation, values, or agenda to influence their reasoning.
    It’s not a realistic picture of the judicial process. Certainly not at the SCOTUS level – cases where simple application of existing law to a given situation don’t go to the SCOTUS.
    Maybe they’re being disingenuous, maybe they’re in some kind of denial. Maybe they really believe they’re above it all. In any case, I don’t believe them.
    the 25th A (sec 4) is kindof a disaster of a process.
    Agreed.
    Could be that, for whoever wrote the editorial, the 25th is a non-starter. Not enough support within the Cabinet, no chance of getting an agreement from Congress.
    We’re probably stuck with Trump until 2021. Maybe impeachment, but that also depends on a lot of things, and also has to get through Senate. Short of a revelation the Trump is a space alien who feasts on the brains of the innocent, I don’t see impeachment getting through the Senate. The longer we get into this term in office, the more likely I think folks are going to be to just say what the hell, let’s just figure out how to muddle through until the next election.
    This is what Trump voters have given us. I wonder if any of them consider that they may have made a mistake.

  220. the “I’m just an umpire” line
    The “I’m just an umpire” line is what we hear from so-called originalists, who want to present themselves as simply applying the text, impartially, to a given situation, rather than allowing any personal interpretation, values, or agenda to influence their reasoning.
    It’s not a realistic picture of the judicial process. Certainly not at the SCOTUS level – cases where simple application of existing law to a given situation don’t go to the SCOTUS.
    Maybe they’re being disingenuous, maybe they’re in some kind of denial. Maybe they really believe they’re above it all. In any case, I don’t believe them.
    the 25th A (sec 4) is kindof a disaster of a process.
    Agreed.
    Could be that, for whoever wrote the editorial, the 25th is a non-starter. Not enough support within the Cabinet, no chance of getting an agreement from Congress.
    We’re probably stuck with Trump until 2021. Maybe impeachment, but that also depends on a lot of things, and also has to get through Senate. Short of a revelation the Trump is a space alien who feasts on the brains of the innocent, I don’t see impeachment getting through the Senate. The longer we get into this term in office, the more likely I think folks are going to be to just say what the hell, let’s just figure out how to muddle through until the next election.
    This is what Trump voters have given us. I wonder if any of them consider that they may have made a mistake.

  221. Short of a revelation the Trump is a space alien who feasts on the brains of the innocent, I don’t see impeachment getting through the Senate.
    Yes, clearly in the case of Trump even lbdg wouldn’t do it. Meanwhile, textual analysts think the anonymous writer might be Pence because of the use of the word “lodestar” (apparently one of his faves).

  222. Short of a revelation the Trump is a space alien who feasts on the brains of the innocent, I don’t see impeachment getting through the Senate.
    Yes, clearly in the case of Trump even lbdg wouldn’t do it. Meanwhile, textual analysts think the anonymous writer might be Pence because of the use of the word “lodestar” (apparently one of his faves).

  223. lodestar.
    from which, QOTD:

    Further, an unnamed White House official who frequently leaks to media outlets told Axios in May that he or she is very attentive to the verbal mannerisms of White House coworkers, the better to leave red herrings in leaked quotes.
    “To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers’ idioms and use that in my background quotes,” the official told Axios. “That throws the scent off me.”

    What a fun place to work!

  224. lodestar.
    from which, QOTD:

    Further, an unnamed White House official who frequently leaks to media outlets told Axios in May that he or she is very attentive to the verbal mannerisms of White House coworkers, the better to leave red herrings in leaked quotes.
    “To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers’ idioms and use that in my background quotes,” the official told Axios. “That throws the scent off me.”

    What a fun place to work!

  229. the 25th A (sec 4) is kindof a disaster of a process.
    The biggest difficulty is that it was designed to address a different problem. It assumes that the President was originally (i.e. when he was naming cabinet members) sane and sensible — so he appointed (mostly) sensible people who care about the nation. Then, due to changed circumstances (stroke ala President Wilson, etc.), there is a problem.
    But it was never intended to deal with someone who was never interested in anything but himself, and appointed similarly self-interested crooks and toadies to the cabinet. That would need a whole different approach.

  230. the 25th A (sec 4) is kindof a disaster of a process.
    The biggest difficulty is that it was designed to address a different problem. It assumes that the President was originally (i.e. when he was naming cabinet members) sane and sensible — so he appointed (mostly) sensible people who care about the nation. Then, due to changed circumstances (stroke ala President Wilson, etc.), there is a problem.
    But it was never intended to deal with someone who was never interested in anything but himself, and appointed similarly self-interested crooks and toadies to the cabinet. That would need a whole different approach.

  231. lbdg
    No comprendo.
    Google gives me only the Leighton Buzzard Drama Group….
    If they can bring off the impeachment of Trump, I’m all for it, but it seems mildly unlikely ?

  232. lbdg
    No comprendo.
    Google gives me only the Leighton Buzzard Drama Group….
    If they can bring off the impeachment of Trump, I’m all for it, but it seems mildly unlikely ?

  237. “Short of a revelation the Trump is a space alien who feasts on the brains of the innocent, I don’t see impeachment getting through the Senate.”
    Shorter RWNJs: were they REALLY innocent?1?? We should wait until all the facts are in, while exchanging some tasty brain recipes, because that would tots own the libs
    Kuru. It’s what’s for dinner.

  238. “Short of a revelation the Trump is a space alien who feasts on the brains of the innocent, I don’t see impeachment getting through the Senate.”
    Shorter RWNJs: were they REALLY innocent?1?? We should wait until all the facts are in, while exchanging some tasty brain recipes, because that would tots own the libs
    Kuru. It’s what’s for dinner.

  239. Live Boy Dead Girl.
    The biggest difficulty is that it was designed to address a different problem
    Yes, I think you’re right.
    The nation has elected someone to the office of POTUS who is unfit to hold it. The remedies for that are (a) a new election and (b) impeachment.
    “New election” is unavailable for another two years plus. Impeachment is unlikely because the (R)’s in Congress are extremely unlikely to contribute the votes that would be needed to pass it. Because the (R) base generally loves Trump, and opposing him would cause Congressional (R)’s to be primaried into a new career.
    Trump is just being Trump. He is exactly the guy that his supporters voted for, and they generally appear to be perfectly happy with him.
    The rest of us are basically screwed.
    As far as “comity” and “coming together”, my personal feeling is that 62 million Americans voted for a flaming irresponsible ass for POTUS. The things that make me describe him as “flaming irresponsible ass” were all well known, because he has been a public figure for almost 40 years. And, they were on flagrant display throughout his campaign.
    What I take away from all of that is that those qualities were part of his appeal then, and present no impediment to supporting him now.
    So I do not wish to come together with his supporters. I think they have knowingly, willingly, and in most cases quite happily FUBAR’d the government of the United States.
    I don’t hate them, don’t wish them ill, I just want nothing whatsoever to do with them as regards any aspect of public life.
    I don’t see what I have in common with them. What are we going to come together about?
    And I’ll leave it at that, lest the discourse here become uncivil.
    And I’m not concerned about my point of view causing the nation to “become divided”. The nation is divided.
    FWIW, I think the NYT was out of their freaking minds to publish that piece anonymously. I can’t imagine what good it is going to do. If the author wants to make the situation better, he or she ought to have approached Congress with his or her concerns. If a public statement was needed, sign your name to it, so we know who you are and so we can make some appraisal of your credibility and of the merit of what you have to say.
    I don’t see how any of this is going to end well, and I have no idea where it all goes from here.
    Thanks for nothing, Trumpies.

  240. Live Boy Dead Girl.
    The biggest difficulty is that it was designed to address a different problem
    Yes, I think you’re right.
    The nation has elected someone to the office of POTUS who is unfit to hold it. The remedies for that are (a) a new election and (b) impeachment.
    “New election” is unavailable for another two years plus. Impeachment is unlikely because the (R)’s in Congress are extremely unlikely to contribute the votes that would be needed to pass it. Because the (R) base generally loves Trump, and opposing him would cause Congressional (R)’s to be primaried into a new career.
    Trump is just being Trump. He is exactly the guy that his supporters voted for, and they generally appear to be perfectly happy with him.
    The rest of us are basically screwed.
    As far as “comity” and “coming together”, my personal feeling is that 62 million Americans voted for a flaming irresponsible ass for POTUS. The things that make me describe him as “flaming irresponsible ass” were all well known, because he has been a public figure for almost 40 years. And, they were on flagrant display throughout his campaign.
    What I take away from all of that is that those qualities were part of his appeal then, and present no impediment to supporting him now.
    So I do not wish to come together with his supporters. I think they have knowingly, willingly, and in most cases quite happily FUBAR’d the government of the United States.
    I don’t hate them, don’t wish them ill, I just want nothing whatsoever to do with them as regards any aspect of public life.
    I don’t see what I have in common with them. What are we going to come together about?
    And I’ll leave it at that, lest the discourse here become uncivil.
    And I’m not concerned about my point of view causing the nation to “become divided”. The nation is divided.
    FWIW, I think the NYT was out of their freaking minds to publish that piece anonymously. I can’t imagine what good it is going to do. If the author wants to make the situation better, he or she ought to have approached Congress with his or her concerns. If a public statement was needed, sign your name to it, so we know who you are and so we can make some appraisal of your credibility and of the merit of what you have to say.
    I don’t see how any of this is going to end well, and I have no idea where it all goes from here.
    Thanks for nothing, Trumpies.

  241. I think the NYT was out of their freaking minds to publish that piece anonymously. I can’t imagine what good it is going to do.
    I’ve been wondering about that as well. I can only see one conceivable plus: One might guess (incorrectly, I suspect) that, by sending Trump into further spasms of paranoia, it would distract him from
    a) doing anything about the people quoted by Woodward
    b) doing anything else disastrous for a few more weeks/months.
    I;m open to considering other ideas. But that’s the poor best I’ve managed.

  242. I think the NYT was out of their freaking minds to publish that piece anonymously. I can’t imagine what good it is going to do.
    I’ve been wondering about that as well. I can only see one conceivable plus: One might guess (incorrectly, I suspect) that, by sending Trump into further spasms of paranoia, it would distract him from
    a) doing anything about the people quoted by Woodward
    b) doing anything else disastrous for a few more weeks/months.
    I;m open to considering other ideas. But that’s the poor best I’ve managed.

  243. I think the NYT was out of their freaking minds to publish that piece anonymously. I can’t imagine what good it is going to do.
    it’s probably brought them a few hundred million extra web visits. that’s a lot of good for them.

  244. I think the NYT was out of their freaking minds to publish that piece anonymously. I can’t imagine what good it is going to do.
    it’s probably brought them a few hundred million extra web visits. that’s a lot of good for them.

  249. Google gives me only the Leighton Buzzard Drama Group….
    If they can bring off the impeachment of Trump, I’m all for it, but it seems mildly unlikely ?
    This did actually make me laugh out loud, which as it happens I needed today. I was taught this acronym recently by Hartmut, after asking for elucidation. As I said earlier in this thread, it is my favourite of all the acronyms ObWi has given me!

  250. Google gives me only the Leighton Buzzard Drama Group….
    If they can bring off the impeachment of Trump, I’m all for it, but it seems mildly unlikely ?
    This did actually make me laugh out loud, which as it happens I needed today. I was taught this acronym recently by Hartmut, after asking for elucidation. As I said earlier in this thread, it is my favourite of all the acronyms ObWi has given me!

  253. This did actually make me laugh out loud, which as it happens I needed today. I was taught this acronym recently by Hartmut, after asking for elucidation.
    To my shame, I myself could not remember it today and did not find it with a quick googling either.

  254. This did actually make me laugh out loud, which as it happens I needed today. I was taught this acronym recently by Hartmut, after asking for elucidation.
    To my shame, I myself could not remember it today and did not find it with a quick googling either.

  255. There’s also the more-modern GOP scandal iteration of TWSADBG*, but none have survived it….so far.
    (* Two Set Suits, Anal Dildo, Ball Gag)

  256. There’s also the more-modern GOP scandal iteration of TWSADBG*, but none have survived it….so far.
    (* Two Set Suits, Anal Dildo, Ball Gag)

  261. Seems Bookers whole “civil disobedience” was a lie. The documents were cleared to be made public last night.
    “”We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker’s staff asked us to,” Burck said in a statement. “In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate Democrats to make documents public.”

  262. Seems Bookers whole “civil disobedience” was a lie. The documents were cleared to be made public last night.
    “”We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker’s staff asked us to,” Burck said in a statement. “In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate Democrats to make documents public.”

  265. I guess Cornyn was lying too.
    But the Republican side of the committee later disputed the idea that Booker was committing an act of “civil disobedience.” A spokesman for Cornyn said the documents were already cleared for release at 4:00 a.m., and “the senators were notified of this before speaking began this morning.”
    However, Cornyn acknowledged in a tweet Thursday afternoon that he was unaware of that change when he challenged Booker.

  266. I guess Cornyn was lying too.
    But the Republican side of the committee later disputed the idea that Booker was committing an act of “civil disobedience.” A spokesman for Cornyn said the documents were already cleared for release at 4:00 a.m., and “the senators were notified of this before speaking began this morning.”
    However, Cornyn acknowledged in a tweet Thursday afternoon that he was unaware of that change when he challenged Booker.

  267. So since the documents in question had already been released, why was Senator Cornyn going on about ejecting Senator Booker from the Senate for making them public?

  268. So since the documents in question had already been released, why was Senator Cornyn going on about ejecting Senator Booker from the Senate for making them public?

  269. Seems Bookers whole “civil disobedience” was a lie. The documents were cleared to be made public last night.
    So what was Cronyn talking about ?
    In any event, the extraordinary refusal to release the majority of documents relating to the time period Kavanaugh himself says shaped his judicial attitudes is inexcusable – as is the document dump the night before the hearing.
    It is simply impossible for a relatively detached observer to believe the Republicans are acting in good faith.

  270. Seems Bookers whole “civil disobedience” was a lie. The documents were cleared to be made public last night.
    So what was Cronyn talking about ?
    In any event, the extraordinary refusal to release the majority of documents relating to the time period Kavanaugh himself says shaped his judicial attitudes is inexcusable – as is the document dump the night before the hearing.
    It is simply impossible for a relatively detached observer to believe the Republicans are acting in good faith.

  273. Booker is very tricky that way. He got them to think he was breaking the rules, just so he could make a bigger deal out of releasing the documents. Jedi mind tricks, people. Don’t be naïve.

  274. Booker is very tricky that way. He got them to think he was breaking the rules, just so he could make a bigger deal out of releasing the documents. Jedi mind tricks, people. Don’t be naïve.

  275. Kavanaugh.
    So I just really don’t care very much whether Booker was actually at risk of being expelled from the Senate, or whether he was just grandstanding.

  276. Kavanaugh.
    So I just really don’t care very much whether Booker was actually at risk of being expelled from the Senate, or whether he was just grandstanding.

  277. It will be a bit ironic if Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination ends up getting him booted off the Federal bench altogether for perjury.
    And won’t it be amusing, if that is attempted, to listen to his Congressional partisans explaining why lying to Congress is no big deal?

  278. It will be a bit ironic if Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination ends up getting him booted off the Federal bench altogether for perjury.
    And won’t it be amusing, if that is attempted, to listen to his Congressional partisans explaining why lying to Congress is no big deal?

  279. …or whether he was just grandstanding.
    If he got those guys to take the bait, my hat’s off to him. Jersey!

  280. …or whether he was just grandstanding.
    If he got those guys to take the bait, my hat’s off to him. Jersey!

  283. I wonder why the Senators don’t ask prospective justices how they would have decided in past cases, to avoid the hypothetical argument. ‘Judge Kavanaugh, would you have joined the majority or minority in Casey?’
    All the facts are there, and any judge who claims he doesn’t know enough about the case to choose should not be a judge.

  284. I wonder why the Senators don’t ask prospective justices how they would have decided in past cases, to avoid the hypothetical argument. ‘Judge Kavanaugh, would you have joined the majority or minority in Casey?’
    All the facts are there, and any judge who claims he doesn’t know enough about the case to choose should not be a judge.

  285. As a mattter of judicial independence, I cannot comment on anything that has happened or might happen.

  286. As a mattter of judicial independence, I cannot comment on anything that has happened or might happen.

  287. As a mattter of judicial independence, I cannot comment on anything that has happened or might happen.
    As a matter of judicial independence, I need to be sure I don’t piss off my direct benefactor by promising to recuse myself from matters pertaining to his case.

  288. As a mattter of judicial independence, I cannot comment on anything that has happened or might happen.
    As a matter of judicial independence, I need to be sure I don’t piss off my direct benefactor by promising to recuse myself from matters pertaining to his case.

  289. I wonder whether he did a go fund me about his debt situation. I read somewhere that he went from tens of thousands of dollars to zero.
    Hmmmm. Probably the usual Republican bullshit.

  290. I wonder whether he did a go fund me about his debt situation. I read somewhere that he went from tens of thousands of dollars to zero.
    Hmmmm. Probably the usual Republican bullshit.

  291. Anyway, about the NYT opinion writer, what shameless bullshit. Also, what shameless bullshit from Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse. What a horror story. They should be the first on the Count’s list. What deeply depraved people.

  292. Anyway, about the NYT opinion writer, what shameless bullshit. Also, what shameless bullshit from Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse. What a horror story. They should be the first on the Count’s list. What deeply depraved people.

  293. lj:
    Not keeping up on this thread very well, but saw:
    why ‘overtly’? Are there ‘covert’ counties?
    No, just using the word in the “obvious” sense. hsh (I think) said something about why Gore went with the Democratic counties rather than Republican (sarcastically if I recall). My point was simply that Gore should have gone statewide at the get-go if he wanted any credibility, IMHO, or at least all the punch card counties of whatever stripe. It bit him in the rear to only go with those counties that were heavily Democratic. If I recall correctly, the courts at every stage had an issue with that. Overt=obvious, patent, etc.
    but what I don’t understand why bc needs to claim that people who point it out are ‘sensitive’. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but the issue is that people are not going to take the writer seriously here and I assume that the writer wants to be taken seriously.
    Well, that is unfortunate. I think people are seriously word parsing here, lj, on a simple post that I said, in the post itself, was intended to be sarcastic. And then I lightheartedly accuse people of being sensitive in response and now THAT is coming under scrutiny. Maybe I’m not doing well on my tone-over-the-internet in writing. russell got it. I’m not trying to be offensive and russell was funny back (I hope! Please tell me that’s true!).
    If you don’t take me seriously in a sarcastic post, and that is the rational thing to do, what the heck am I supposed to do with the count, frex? I take him seriously. I see through the verbal barrage, sometimes funny, sometimes not, and see his point. And sometimes his point is pure, rule-breaking venting. And I get that too.
    And I take-nay, welcome even-the brow beating from many here on my thinking, my facts, and so forth. Maybe I’ve got a thick skin. Maybe I’m stupid. But I am not afraid to have my opinion challenged, my misconceptions laid bare, and my thinking brought into question. I won’t let what I perceive as an affront stand in my way. We are having a dialogue, right? Or so I thought.
    And please understand that I don’t intend to leave things hanging, but I do have a job and kids and I volunteer and I’m super busy. Like a lot of you. Off to soccer. More later. Love you all. (AND THAT WAS NOT SARCASTIC!!!)

  294. lj:
    Not keeping up on this thread very well, but saw:
    why ‘overtly’? Are there ‘covert’ counties?
    No, just using the word in the “obvious” sense. hsh (I think) said something about why Gore went with the Democratic counties rather than Republican (sarcastically if I recall). My point was simply that Gore should have gone statewide at the get-go if he wanted any credibility, IMHO, or at least all the punch card counties of whatever stripe. It bit him in the rear to only go with those counties that were heavily Democratic. If I recall correctly, the courts at every stage had an issue with that. Overt=obvious, patent, etc.
    but what I don’t understand why bc needs to claim that people who point it out are ‘sensitive’. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but the issue is that people are not going to take the writer seriously here and I assume that the writer wants to be taken seriously.
    Well, that is unfortunate. I think people are seriously word parsing here, lj, on a simple post that I said, in the post itself, was intended to be sarcastic. And then I lightheartedly accuse people of being sensitive in response and now THAT is coming under scrutiny. Maybe I’m not doing well on my tone-over-the-internet in writing. russell got it. I’m not trying to be offensive and russell was funny back (I hope! Please tell me that’s true!).
    If you don’t take me seriously in a sarcastic post, and that is the rational thing to do, what the heck am I supposed to do with the count, frex? I take him seriously. I see through the verbal barrage, sometimes funny, sometimes not, and see his point. And sometimes his point is pure, rule-breaking venting. And I get that too.
    And I take-nay, welcome even-the brow beating from many here on my thinking, my facts, and so forth. Maybe I’ve got a thick skin. Maybe I’m stupid. But I am not afraid to have my opinion challenged, my misconceptions laid bare, and my thinking brought into question. I won’t let what I perceive as an affront stand in my way. We are having a dialogue, right? Or so I thought.
    And please understand that I don’t intend to leave things hanging, but I do have a job and kids and I volunteer and I’m super busy. Like a lot of you. Off to soccer. More later. Love you all. (AND THAT WAS NOT SARCASTIC!!!)

  295. Please tell me that’s true
    no worries, bc.
    it is a weird time. We gotta learn to bear with one another.
    Don’t be a stranger.
    On other topics, I trashed my old tablet and my new one insists on supplying capitals. Don’t be misled, it’s still me.

  296. Please tell me that’s true
    no worries, bc.
    it is a weird time. We gotta learn to bear with one another.
    Don’t be a stranger.
    On other topics, I trashed my old tablet and my new one insists on supplying capitals. Don’t be misled, it’s still me.

  299. bc,
    Let me apologize both for previously and in advance putting your comments in general and the question of your invocation of sensitivity in particular under the microscope, and echoing russell’s comment, and I hope you can bear with me and not feel I am trying to run you off. I also hope you can see why I’m interested in sensitivity as it relates to discussion here and other places.
    Sensitivity is a pretty fraught battleground lately, and I can’t speak for the others, but it seems to me that no one who observed the wording was insulted by it, they took it as a representation of your opinions and the material that you read to get your opinions, which then might have them discount your opinion. Whether that is fair or not is a separate question, but thinking that people are ignoring your opinions because they are too ‘sensitive’, doesn’t really reflect what is going on in the discussion. I would like you to participate, but I think you are going to get misled about why you are getting the reaction you are if you think that people are being too sensitive to what you write.
    You bring up the Count, and you feel this may be a cop-out, but my feeling is that if you have an issue with what the Count says, I think you should ask him. While I _don’t_ take him seriously, I feel like he is getting across exactly what he wants to get across and I don’t need to wonder if he really understands the impression he is giving.
    As for calling people a teabagger or a Rethuglican, I don’t believe I’ve ever called anyone that when having a dialogue with them, but if I did and they complained, I don’t think I would say (or think) ‘gee, you are being too sensitive’. I also don’t think liberals have tshirts like this
    https://www.scoopnest.com/user/frankthorp/786726338820448256
    So I think your analogy is misplaced.
    Again, this may seem aggressive or unfair, and I apologize for that, but the question of sensitivity is one that I have been thinking about quite a bit, especially in terms of #metoo and other social issues, so I hope you can see why I’m writing about this. Thanks for your patience.

  300. bc,
    Let me apologize both for previously and in advance putting your comments in general and the question of your invocation of sensitivity in particular under the microscope, and echoing russell’s comment, and I hope you can bear with me and not feel I am trying to run you off. I also hope you can see why I’m interested in sensitivity as it relates to discussion here and other places.
    Sensitivity is a pretty fraught battleground lately, and I can’t speak for the others, but it seems to me that no one who observed the wording was insulted by it, they took it as a representation of your opinions and the material that you read to get your opinions, which then might have them discount your opinion. Whether that is fair or not is a separate question, but thinking that people are ignoring your opinions because they are too ‘sensitive’, doesn’t really reflect what is going on in the discussion. I would like you to participate, but I think you are going to get misled about why you are getting the reaction you are if you think that people are being too sensitive to what you write.
    You bring up the Count, and you feel this may be a cop-out, but my feeling is that if you have an issue with what the Count says, I think you should ask him. While I _don’t_ take him seriously, I feel like he is getting across exactly what he wants to get across and I don’t need to wonder if he really understands the impression he is giving.
    As for calling people a teabagger or a Rethuglican, I don’t believe I’ve ever called anyone that when having a dialogue with them, but if I did and they complained, I don’t think I would say (or think) ‘gee, you are being too sensitive’. I also don’t think liberals have tshirts like this
    https://www.scoopnest.com/user/frankthorp/786726338820448256
    So I think your analogy is misplaced.
    Again, this may seem aggressive or unfair, and I apologize for that, but the question of sensitivity is one that I have been thinking about quite a bit, especially in terms of #metoo and other social issues, so I hope you can see why I’m writing about this. Thanks for your patience.

  303. I wasn’t at all bothered by bc’s use of “democrat.” I’m not sure I would have noticed it if JanieM hadn’t pointed it out, only because the way it was used wasn’t as overt (not that word again!) as when used in other contexts.
    But I’m well aware of how it gets used and for what purpose. I suppose awareness is a kind of sensitivity. It’s just not a matter of being terribly bothered by it so much as recognizing that someone is being an ass on purpose (not bc, IMO) when they do it in a particular way, and maybe calling them out on it if it seems warranted.

  304. I wasn’t at all bothered by bc’s use of “democrat.” I’m not sure I would have noticed it if JanieM hadn’t pointed it out, only because the way it was used wasn’t as overt (not that word again!) as when used in other contexts.
    But I’m well aware of how it gets used and for what purpose. I suppose awareness is a kind of sensitivity. It’s just not a matter of being terribly bothered by it so much as recognizing that someone is being an ass on purpose (not bc, IMO) when they do it in a particular way, and maybe calling them out on it if it seems warranted.

  305. It’s also sometimes worth mentioning it when someone (e.g. bc) isn’t deliberately being an ass. But just doesn’t realize what the usual usage is all about.

  306. It’s also sometimes worth mentioning it when someone (e.g. bc) isn’t deliberately being an ass. But just doesn’t realize what the usual usage is all about.

  309. Let’s have a little sympathy for Kavanaugh. Suppose he were to say that Trump’s attacks on judges are “disheartening”, as Gorsuch did. This time, Trump might do what he apparently almost did then and withdraw the nomination. Not to mention if Kavanaugh were to say that he thinks that the President is subject to the laws of the land.
    Not to say that Kavanaugh necessarily thinks either of those. He is, after all, basically a partisan hack. But he has to know that, if he did say something like that, his shot at the Supreme Court would evaporate instantly. It would take real character to take that risk.

  310. Let’s have a little sympathy for Kavanaugh. Suppose he were to say that Trump’s attacks on judges are “disheartening”, as Gorsuch did. This time, Trump might do what he apparently almost did then and withdraw the nomination. Not to mention if Kavanaugh were to say that he thinks that the President is subject to the laws of the land.
    Not to say that Kavanaugh necessarily thinks either of those. He is, after all, basically a partisan hack. But he has to know that, if he did say something like that, his shot at the Supreme Court would evaporate instantly. It would take real character to take that risk.

  313. It would take real character to take that risk.
    Supreme Court justices should have real character – it’s part of the job description.
    I have no sympathy for him. He’s not only a partisan hack, he’s done some truly disgraceful things (that we know about), and clearly doesn’t even have the courage of presence of mind to shake the hand of a bereaved parent. What a colossal jerk.

  314. It would take real character to take that risk.
    Supreme Court justices should have real character – it’s part of the job description.
    I have no sympathy for him. He’s not only a partisan hack, he’s done some truly disgraceful things (that we know about), and clearly doesn’t even have the courage of presence of mind to shake the hand of a bereaved parent. What a colossal jerk.

  317. We’re probably going to be stuck with him for the next 30 years.
    Unless….
    – It appears that he lied under oath during his previous confirmation hearings.
    – If you look at the map of which Senate seats are up after 2018, you could see the Democrats getting to a pretty substantial majority. Possible enough to impeach and remove even a Supreme Court justice who was guilty of perjury.
    Not, perhaps, a high probability. But, I would say, higher than ever before in our nation’s history. (Unless someone has a prior example of which I am simply ignorant.)

  318. We’re probably going to be stuck with him for the next 30 years.
    Unless….
    – It appears that he lied under oath during his previous confirmation hearings.
    – If you look at the map of which Senate seats are up after 2018, you could see the Democrats getting to a pretty substantial majority. Possible enough to impeach and remove even a Supreme Court justice who was guilty of perjury.
    Not, perhaps, a high probability. But, I would say, higher than ever before in our nation’s history. (Unless someone has a prior example of which I am simply ignorant.)

  325. I’ve been thinking some more about the Anonymous op-ed in the Times.
    Trump has been ranting about “traitors”, and everybody in the White House is flailing around trying to make sure that they aren’t suspected. Very little else seems to be happening, other than looking for suspects.
    All of which was entirely predictable. And the author has to have known it. So why would he do it? Since it is obviously going to make managing the child more difficult going forward.
    Suppose, for example, that Trump was pushing to start a war somewhere. Maybe someone was disrespectful. Maybe he’s decided it would be a great way to rally voters to his side in the election. With Trump, who knows? And it doesn’t really matter.
    If you are smart enough to see what a disaster that would be, how do you stop it? From everything we know, you try to distract him until he forgets about it. It seems to be an on-going methodology.
    But some things are harder to distract from than just swiping a memo trashing a critical alliance off the desk in the Oval Office. If he’s thinking of it as a way to rally voters and avoid the scrutiny that would come with a Democratic majority in the House (never mind impeachment), you need something BIG. And nothing is more guaranteed to get Trump going, for days and weeks, than someone “betraying” him.
    No idea if that’s actually the motivation. But it doesn’t seem implausible.

  326. I’ve been thinking some more about the Anonymous op-ed in the Times.
    Trump has been ranting about “traitors”, and everybody in the White House is flailing around trying to make sure that they aren’t suspected. Very little else seems to be happening, other than looking for suspects.
    All of which was entirely predictable. And the author has to have known it. So why would he do it? Since it is obviously going to make managing the child more difficult going forward.
    Suppose, for example, that Trump was pushing to start a war somewhere. Maybe someone was disrespectful. Maybe he’s decided it would be a great way to rally voters to his side in the election. With Trump, who knows? And it doesn’t really matter.
    If you are smart enough to see what a disaster that would be, how do you stop it? From everything we know, you try to distract him until he forgets about it. It seems to be an on-going methodology.
    But some things are harder to distract from than just swiping a memo trashing a critical alliance off the desk in the Oval Office. If he’s thinking of it as a way to rally voters and avoid the scrutiny that would come with a Democratic majority in the House (never mind impeachment), you need something BIG. And nothing is more guaranteed to get Trump going, for days and weeks, than someone “betraying” him.
    No idea if that’s actually the motivation. But it doesn’t seem implausible.

  331. Kavanaugh is right about presidential indictment.
    I don’t think a sitting president can be prosecuted. I think the sole remedy for criminal behavior for the President is impeachment. After impeachment, he can be prosecuted.
    Impeachment itself has a lower bar at least theoretically than criminal conviction, and I think it makes sense that there is a significant protection for the President against every federal, state, and city prosecutor with an axe to grind to prevent significant interruption to the Executive.
    My recollection with Clinton was that they allowed a civil suit to go forward, but not a criminal one. He was impeached based on perjury, but not indicted.
    As much as the current situation makes me want to have that option, I don’t think it is good policy or Constitutional, and would have an awful long-term effect going forward.
    Congress is the only body that can remove a President.

  332. Kavanaugh is right about presidential indictment.
    I don’t think a sitting president can be prosecuted. I think the sole remedy for criminal behavior for the President is impeachment. After impeachment, he can be prosecuted.
    Impeachment itself has a lower bar at least theoretically than criminal conviction, and I think it makes sense that there is a significant protection for the President against every federal, state, and city prosecutor with an axe to grind to prevent significant interruption to the Executive.
    My recollection with Clinton was that they allowed a civil suit to go forward, but not a criminal one. He was impeached based on perjury, but not indicted.
    As much as the current situation makes me want to have that option, I don’t think it is good policy or Constitutional, and would have an awful long-term effect going forward.
    Congress is the only body that can remove a President.

  333. I think it makes sense that there is a significant protection for the President against every federal, state, and city prosecutor with an axe to grind to prevent significant interruption to the Executive.
    That’s a potential problem, but so is Presidential immunity from criminal laws.
    On the one hand, there is danger that partisanship and ambition will create the problem you describe. On the other, there is the danger that partisanship will protect a criminal in the White House from impeachment.
    Waiting for the term to end is a bit of a problem, simply because of the delay. Do you think that there cannot even be a criminal investigation because it would be too distracting, more so than an impeachment investigation?
    My personal opinion is that there should certainly be a high bar, but at some point it has to be allowed.

  334. I think it makes sense that there is a significant protection for the President against every federal, state, and city prosecutor with an axe to grind to prevent significant interruption to the Executive.
    That’s a potential problem, but so is Presidential immunity from criminal laws.
    On the one hand, there is danger that partisanship and ambition will create the problem you describe. On the other, there is the danger that partisanship will protect a criminal in the White House from impeachment.
    Waiting for the term to end is a bit of a problem, simply because of the delay. Do you think that there cannot even be a criminal investigation because it would be too distracting, more so than an impeachment investigation?
    My personal opinion is that there should certainly be a high bar, but at some point it has to be allowed.

  335. I don’t think it is good policy or Constitutional, and would have an awful long-term effect going forward.
    I disagree, especially where, as here, the crimes alleged affect the perception of the President’s legitimacy because they were an attempt (possibly successful) to interfere with our Democracy. Congress can’t be trusted as a legitimate tribunal when its members were also elected under a cloud of foreign interference. And, more and worse damage to our democracy can happen and is happening, by the fact that the office is occupied by someone who subverted the system.
    There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes indicting and prosecuting a President. He can’t be removed from office by being prosecuted (he would, perhaps, govern from jail), but he needs to be held accountable.
    As to being harassed by various prosecutors around the country, there is nothing to preclude a state or local government prosecutor from bringing criminal charges. If the power to prosecute needs to be limited, I would think that a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to go about it.

  336. I don’t think it is good policy or Constitutional, and would have an awful long-term effect going forward.
    I disagree, especially where, as here, the crimes alleged affect the perception of the President’s legitimacy because they were an attempt (possibly successful) to interfere with our Democracy. Congress can’t be trusted as a legitimate tribunal when its members were also elected under a cloud of foreign interference. And, more and worse damage to our democracy can happen and is happening, by the fact that the office is occupied by someone who subverted the system.
    There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes indicting and prosecuting a President. He can’t be removed from office by being prosecuted (he would, perhaps, govern from jail), but he needs to be held accountable.
    As to being harassed by various prosecutors around the country, there is nothing to preclude a state or local government prosecutor from bringing criminal charges. If the power to prosecute needs to be limited, I would think that a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to go about it.

  339. I don’t think a sitting president can be prosecuted. I think the sole remedy for criminal behavior for the President is impeachment. After impeachment, he can be prosecuted.
    Prosecuted? Perhaps not. But indicted, with prosecution pending departure from office? Not sure that’s off the table. And subpoenaed to testify? Absolutely possible.
    There can be an argument about scheduling — at least for Presidents who aren’t spending hours every day glued to the TV, rather than doing their job. But required to show up and testify would definitely be possible. Sure, you couldn’t lock him up for contempt if he refused to appear. But that, in and of itself, would clearly be an impeachable offense. Not to mention prosecution after leaving office.

  340. I don’t think a sitting president can be prosecuted. I think the sole remedy for criminal behavior for the President is impeachment. After impeachment, he can be prosecuted.
    Prosecuted? Perhaps not. But indicted, with prosecution pending departure from office? Not sure that’s off the table. And subpoenaed to testify? Absolutely possible.
    There can be an argument about scheduling — at least for Presidents who aren’t spending hours every day glued to the TV, rather than doing their job. But required to show up and testify would definitely be possible. Sure, you couldn’t lock him up for contempt if he refused to appear. But that, in and of itself, would clearly be an impeachable offense. Not to mention prosecution after leaving office.

  341. Congress can’t be trusted as a legitimate tribunal when its members were also elected under a cloud of foreign interference. And, more and worse damage to our democracy can happen and is happening, by the fact that the office is occupied by someone who subverted the system.
    I think this is absolutely true, but it seems a real Catch 22 situation. If the first sentence is true, then how (exactly as now) do you get the President impeached? If you have to wait for a blue wave that may not come, theoretically anything can happen in the meantime (war, plague, pestilence etc). What once seemed like a reasonably robust democracy is starting to look rather shakier than one would like….(and for the avoidance of doubt, I do not exempt the UK from a similar although less advanced condition. Brexit, Cambridge Analytica, Russian meddling etc – western democracy definitely seems to be having a difficult time).

  342. Congress can’t be trusted as a legitimate tribunal when its members were also elected under a cloud of foreign interference. And, more and worse damage to our democracy can happen and is happening, by the fact that the office is occupied by someone who subverted the system.
    I think this is absolutely true, but it seems a real Catch 22 situation. If the first sentence is true, then how (exactly as now) do you get the President impeached? If you have to wait for a blue wave that may not come, theoretically anything can happen in the meantime (war, plague, pestilence etc). What once seemed like a reasonably robust democracy is starting to look rather shakier than one would like….(and for the avoidance of doubt, I do not exempt the UK from a similar although less advanced condition. Brexit, Cambridge Analytica, Russian meddling etc – western democracy definitely seems to be having a difficult time).

  343. President Clinton argued in Clinton v. Jones that he was immune from civil suit while in office. The USSC did not accept that argument, and based on the decision that court would likely have allowed a criminal case to go forward too (and it was unanimous).
    Petitioner’s principal submission–that in all but the most exceptional cases, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he took office–cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent. The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts–i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 752, and n. 32–provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct…
    …In response to the complaint, petitioner promptly advised the District Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of Presidential immunity, and requested the court to defer all other pleadings and motions until after the immunity issue was resolved.
    So it is at least not clear whether the President can be prosecuted. And as recently as 1997 it took the USSC to decide whether he can be privately sued.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/520/681

  344. President Clinton argued in Clinton v. Jones that he was immune from civil suit while in office. The USSC did not accept that argument, and based on the decision that court would likely have allowed a criminal case to go forward too (and it was unanimous).
    Petitioner’s principal submission–that in all but the most exceptional cases, the Constitution affords the President temporary immunity from civil damages litigation arising out of events that occurred before he took office–cannot be sustained on the basis of precedent. The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts–i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 752, and n. 32–provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct…
    …In response to the complaint, petitioner promptly advised the District Court that he intended to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of Presidential immunity, and requested the court to defer all other pleadings and motions until after the immunity issue was resolved.
    So it is at least not clear whether the President can be prosecuted. And as recently as 1997 it took the USSC to decide whether he can be privately sued.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/520/681

  345. If the first sentence is true, then how (exactly as now) do you get the President impeached?
    We can’t get him impeached We aren’t getting him impeached. Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep him in office. That’s the reason I’m saying that we can’t rely on impeachment; we have to be able to prosecute.
    I don’t think the people who drafted the Constitution anticipated a criminal conspiracy of this magnitude. However, fortunately for us, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits prosecution. It’s been a DOJ policy, and jrudkis states the reasons clearly, not to prosecute. Law professors have opined on both sides. It’s not explicit in the Constitution, and it could happen.

  346. If the first sentence is true, then how (exactly as now) do you get the President impeached?
    We can’t get him impeached We aren’t getting him impeached. Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep him in office. That’s the reason I’m saying that we can’t rely on impeachment; we have to be able to prosecute.
    I don’t think the people who drafted the Constitution anticipated a criminal conspiracy of this magnitude. However, fortunately for us, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits prosecution. It’s been a DOJ policy, and jrudkis states the reasons clearly, not to prosecute. Law professors have opined on both sides. It’s not explicit in the Constitution, and it could happen.

  347. I listened to part of Obama’s speech today. I am still moved by what he has to say.
    “Better is good.” I think we have to work on that premise, because it’s going to take a very long time to get out of this hole.

  348. I listened to part of Obama’s speech today. I am still moved by what he has to say.
    “Better is good.” I think we have to work on that premise, because it’s going to take a very long time to get out of this hole.

  349. morning all, just a quick note to follow up on wj’s 11:41 point.
    I’m realize that it becomes/I become very pedantic when I dissect a word (in this case ‘sensitive’), and I totally understand when Marty pointed out in the previous thread “I suspect the style is from being a teacher, Where you are trying to prod or lead me into some epiphany of my shortcomings.” The only change I would make to that statement is to change the 1st person singular me/my to the plural us/our. I’m pretty conscious that the people we are online only imperfectly mirrors who we are in real life so I hope that bc was not offended by my observations.

  350. morning all, just a quick note to follow up on wj’s 11:41 point.
    I’m realize that it becomes/I become very pedantic when I dissect a word (in this case ‘sensitive’), and I totally understand when Marty pointed out in the previous thread “I suspect the style is from being a teacher, Where you are trying to prod or lead me into some epiphany of my shortcomings.” The only change I would make to that statement is to change the 1st person singular me/my to the plural us/our. I’m pretty conscious that the people we are online only imperfectly mirrors who we are in real life so I hope that bc was not offended by my observations.

  351. I’m far more impressive online, not that I’m all that impressive online. But you should see the mess I am IRL. Yuck!

  352. I’m far more impressive online, not that I’m all that impressive online. But you should see the mess I am IRL. Yuck!

  355. Not at all, lj. Takes a lot to get me offended. And that wasn’t even close! I’m just surprised by the kerfuffle is all. And I have all of you to blame for having to think about noun adjuncts or whatever they call them now. I was in fact aware of the “Democrat Party” vs. “Democratic Party” issue. I wasn’t aware, however, that just about any use of “Democrat” other than “she/he is a Democrat” is going to draw ire. Lesson learned. I’ll stick with the pure noun use (if there is such a thing) from now on.

  356. Not at all, lj. Takes a lot to get me offended. And that wasn’t even close! I’m just surprised by the kerfuffle is all. And I have all of you to blame for having to think about noun adjuncts or whatever they call them now. I was in fact aware of the “Democrat Party” vs. “Democratic Party” issue. I wasn’t aware, however, that just about any use of “Democrat” other than “she/he is a Democrat” is going to draw ire. Lesson learned. I’ll stick with the pure noun use (if there is such a thing) from now on.

  357. Lesson learned.
    Good for you. We’re kind of subtle, as compared to the “fuck your feelings” thing that R’s do. Not to mention the lying and traitor stuff. But go right ahead, bc. Obama encourages me to engage.

  358. Lesson learned.
    Good for you. We’re kind of subtle, as compared to the “fuck your feelings” thing that R’s do. Not to mention the lying and traitor stuff. But go right ahead, bc. Obama encourages me to engage.

  359. Article I, section 4, discussing the power of the Senate to judge in cases of impeachment:

    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

    What I take away from this is that the POTUS is exempt from indictment, trial and punishment while in office, and liable to all of the above once out.
    Subpoenas are neither indictments, trials, or punishment.

  360. Article I, section 4, discussing the power of the Senate to judge in cases of impeachment:

    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

    What I take away from this is that the POTUS is exempt from indictment, trial and punishment while in office, and liable to all of the above once out.
    Subpoenas are neither indictments, trials, or punishment.

  361. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
    This clause assumes that impeachment is first, but doesn’t mandate that impeachment be first. It basically says that double jeopardy isn’t a problem for impeachment, then conviction.

  362. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
    This clause assumes that impeachment is first, but doesn’t mandate that impeachment be first. It basically says that double jeopardy isn’t a problem for impeachment, then conviction.

  363. I took Article 1 Section 4 to merely clarify the impeachment/removal didn’t constitue double jeopardy. That is, a statement that criminal trial/punishment were still also possible.

  364. I took Article 1 Section 4 to merely clarify the impeachment/removal didn’t constitue double jeopardy. That is, a statement that criminal trial/punishment were still also possible.

  365. Some points about the “Prez can’t be prosecuted because the DOJ won’t do it”.
    The indictment is issued from a Grand Jury, which is a creature of the Judicial branch, not answerable to the Executive. While federal prosecutor run the process now, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires it; in fact some states (KS, to Kobach’s peril) allows citizen initiatives to start a Grand Jury investigation; PA allows Olde English style ‘private prosecutions’ (albeit with limits). Those are State examples, but both grew out of old Common-Law principles.
    So, Trump could be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, all without DOJ running the show and it’s perfectly Constitutional. It just requires some Judges to consult their ‘original intent’, and party like it’s 1791.

  366. Some points about the “Prez can’t be prosecuted because the DOJ won’t do it”.
    The indictment is issued from a Grand Jury, which is a creature of the Judicial branch, not answerable to the Executive. While federal prosecutor run the process now, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires it; in fact some states (KS, to Kobach’s peril) allows citizen initiatives to start a Grand Jury investigation; PA allows Olde English style ‘private prosecutions’ (albeit with limits). Those are State examples, but both grew out of old Common-Law principles.
    So, Trump could be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, all without DOJ running the show and it’s perfectly Constitutional. It just requires some Judges to consult their ‘original intent’, and party like it’s 1791.

  369. So it is at least not clear whether the President can be prosecuted. And as recently as 1997 it took the USSC to decide whether he can be privately sued….
    And it could well be a court on the the notably deferential towards presidential prvivilege Kavanaugh sits which decides that one.
    What I take away from this is that the POTUS is exempt from indictment, trial and punishment while in office, and liable to all of the above once out.
    All I take from it is that the founders did not wish politicians to have the power of judges, except in the strictly bounded matter of removal from office.

  370. So it is at least not clear whether the President can be prosecuted. And as recently as 1997 it took the USSC to decide whether he can be privately sued….
    And it could well be a court on the the notably deferential towards presidential prvivilege Kavanaugh sits which decides that one.
    What I take away from this is that the POTUS is exempt from indictment, trial and punishment while in office, and liable to all of the above once out.
    All I take from it is that the founders did not wish politicians to have the power of judges, except in the strictly bounded matter of removal from office.

  373. I think the impeachment clauses can reasonably be read to say simply that impeachment is not a criminal process.
    There is no punishment other than removal from office, and the double jeopardy clause does not protect the ousted official from prosecution.

  374. I think the impeachment clauses can reasonably be read to say simply that impeachment is not a criminal process.
    There is no punishment other than removal from office, and the double jeopardy clause does not protect the ousted official from prosecution.

  377. Everyone knows you’re a mensch, hairshirt. Quit fishing!
    Stop! You’re making me blush. I hate it when people say stuff like that about me. Please don’t elaborate at length about whatever praiseworthy qualities you might think I have, because I just couldn’t stand it for even a second.
    Now that that’s out of the way… The Kavavaugh hearings remind me of when I can’t get a straight answer out of my kids, and it’s obvious that they’re playing stupid to avoid genuine engagement. I want to take his phone and iPod away and make him clean his room.

  378. Everyone knows you’re a mensch, hairshirt. Quit fishing!
    Stop! You’re making me blush. I hate it when people say stuff like that about me. Please don’t elaborate at length about whatever praiseworthy qualities you might think I have, because I just couldn’t stand it for even a second.
    Now that that’s out of the way… The Kavavaugh hearings remind me of when I can’t get a straight answer out of my kids, and it’s obvious that they’re playing stupid to avoid genuine engagement. I want to take his phone and iPod away and make him clean his room.

  379. Now that I think of it, and I mean this in all seriousness, he even gets that same stupid look on his face.

  380. Now that I think of it, and I mean this in all seriousness, he even gets that same stupid look on his face.

  381. I want the Senators to stop asking question 1) they know he isn’t going to answer 2) designed to trap him into a contradiction with some fact they think they have.
    This isn’t a trial. His two stepping is more than equaled by their lack of good faith.

  382. I want the Senators to stop asking question 1) they know he isn’t going to answer 2) designed to trap him into a contradiction with some fact they think they have.
    This isn’t a trial. His two stepping is more than equaled by their lack of good faith.

  385. Marty: I want the Senators to stop asking question 1) they know he isn’t going to answer 2) designed to trap him into a contradiction with some fact they think they have.
    This isn’t a trial. His two stepping is more than equaled by their lack of good faith.
    Kamala Harris: Yesterday I asked Kavanaugh whether or not he believed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — which prohibits state and local voting laws that discriminate on the basis of race or color— was constitutional.
    He refused to answer
    So Marty, if Kamala Harris isn’t lying, do you think that this is a question a proposed SCOTUS Justice should answer? And if not, why not?

  386. Marty: I want the Senators to stop asking question 1) they know he isn’t going to answer 2) designed to trap him into a contradiction with some fact they think they have.
    This isn’t a trial. His two stepping is more than equaled by their lack of good faith.
    Kamala Harris: Yesterday I asked Kavanaugh whether or not he believed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — which prohibits state and local voting laws that discriminate on the basis of race or color— was constitutional.
    He refused to answer
    So Marty, if Kamala Harris isn’t lying, do you think that this is a question a proposed SCOTUS Justice should answer? And if not, why not?

  387. Kamala Harrus was the worst. Every question was designed to get a sound bite one way or another. At least Booker barely hid his headline seeking agenda.
    Judges dont decide if the voting rights act is constitutional or not until presented with arguments in a court. As a whole they refuse to stake a position that would create exactly the criticisms being leveled at him.
    Out of one side of their mouths they proclaim he’s bad because he will vote a certain way, out of the other he’s bad because he says he wont.
    No single thing shows so much bad faith as a SCOTUS hearing.

  388. Kamala Harrus was the worst. Every question was designed to get a sound bite one way or another. At least Booker barely hid his headline seeking agenda.
    Judges dont decide if the voting rights act is constitutional or not until presented with arguments in a court. As a whole they refuse to stake a position that would create exactly the criticisms being leveled at him.
    Out of one side of their mouths they proclaim he’s bad because he will vote a certain way, out of the other he’s bad because he says he wont.
    No single thing shows so much bad faith as a SCOTUS hearing.

  389. Kavanaugh’s resume prior to being nominated to the bench by W Bush was political hatchet man. The paper trail for his work in the White House is being withheld based on “executive privilege”. He was nominated to the SCOTUS by a POTUS who lost the popular vote, and the investigation of whose campaign for POTUS has, to date, yielded the indictment of 26 individuals and 3 corporations, with 8 convictions.
    So far.
    And, of course, all of this follows on the straight-up refusal of the (R)s in the Senate to even give a hearing to the SCOTUS nominee of the most recent (D) POTUS.
    The “fact(s) they think they have” include, minimally, dissembling in testimony before Congress, possibly up to the point of perjury.
    The norms of political discourse do not apply to the current circumstances. The (D)’s should freaking roast Kavanaugh on a spit if they want to. The (R)’s should also, for that matter, but they won’t. So it falls to the (D)’s to do it.
    In your comments, you frequently seem to think this is all just business as usual. Both sides, same/same, nothing to see here.
    There is plenty to see here.

  390. Kavanaugh’s resume prior to being nominated to the bench by W Bush was political hatchet man. The paper trail for his work in the White House is being withheld based on “executive privilege”. He was nominated to the SCOTUS by a POTUS who lost the popular vote, and the investigation of whose campaign for POTUS has, to date, yielded the indictment of 26 individuals and 3 corporations, with 8 convictions.
    So far.
    And, of course, all of this follows on the straight-up refusal of the (R)s in the Senate to even give a hearing to the SCOTUS nominee of the most recent (D) POTUS.
    The “fact(s) they think they have” include, minimally, dissembling in testimony before Congress, possibly up to the point of perjury.
    The norms of political discourse do not apply to the current circumstances. The (D)’s should freaking roast Kavanaugh on a spit if they want to. The (R)’s should also, for that matter, but they won’t. So it falls to the (D)’s to do it.
    In your comments, you frequently seem to think this is all just business as usual. Both sides, same/same, nothing to see here.
    There is plenty to see here.

  391. I think SCOTUS candidates are right not to answer questions about which way they would rule on a particular issue.
    I also think Kavanaugh is a hypocritical lying party hack utterly unsuited to the job. Which would explain why Trump has nominated him and the Republican Party supports him.
    It’s utterly undemocratic for the minority party to be securing an enduring majority of partisan politicians on the Supreme Court. The USA’s claim to be a functioning democracy gets weaker by the day.

  392. I think SCOTUS candidates are right not to answer questions about which way they would rule on a particular issue.
    I also think Kavanaugh is a hypocritical lying party hack utterly unsuited to the job. Which would explain why Trump has nominated him and the Republican Party supports him.
    It’s utterly undemocratic for the minority party to be securing an enduring majority of partisan politicians on the Supreme Court. The USA’s claim to be a functioning democracy gets weaker by the day.

  393. What’s wrong with disagreeing with someone about a constitutional question? What’s wrong with questioning someone’s sincerity if you have evidentiary reason to do so? What should they be asking him? His favorite color?

  394. What’s wrong with disagreeing with someone about a constitutional question? What’s wrong with questioning someone’s sincerity if you have evidentiary reason to do so? What should they be asking him? His favorite color?

  395. “The norms of political discourse do not apply to the current circumstances”
    The reaction to Kavanaugh is just politics. I understand the reaction, I am as excited about protecting ourselves from an activist liberal court as you are afraid of a conservative court.
    But realistically he is a pretty mainstream conservative judge being demonized as a reaction to that fear and as a political prop for the Democrats. Nothing more or less.

  396. “The norms of political discourse do not apply to the current circumstances”
    The reaction to Kavanaugh is just politics. I understand the reaction, I am as excited about protecting ourselves from an activist liberal court as you are afraid of a conservative court.
    But realistically he is a pretty mainstream conservative judge being demonized as a reaction to that fear and as a political prop for the Democrats. Nothing more or less.

  397. a pretty mainstream conservative judge
    you just gave the game away.
    the whole point of his bullshit evasiveness was to convince the rubes that he’s an unbiased law-deciding automaton.

  398. a pretty mainstream conservative judge
    you just gave the game away.
    the whole point of his bullshit evasiveness was to convince the rubes that he’s an unbiased law-deciding automaton.

  399. Now that I think of it, and I mean this in all seriousness, he even gets that same stupid look on his face.
    The last Supreme Court nominee to look smart and give straightforward answers to questions had his name turned into a verb: Borked.

  400. Now that I think of it, and I mean this in all seriousness, he even gets that same stupid look on his face.
    The last Supreme Court nominee to look smart and give straightforward answers to questions had his name turned into a verb: Borked.

  401. The tubes know he’s conservative, they are counting on it. His evasion is because the questions are meant to creaand some trap to diswaualify him,in co.pletely bad faith.
    The rubes know that also.

  402. The tubes know he’s conservative, they are counting on it. His evasion is because the questions are meant to creaand some trap to diswaualify him,in co.pletely bad faith.
    The rubes know that also.

  403. The reaction to Kavanaugh is just politics.
    the reaction to Kavanaugh is absolutely political. *government is political*. the minimization of that with the modifier “just” is obnoxious.
    But it is more than political.
    Kavanaugh is a hack who was rewarded for his hackery with a position on a federal court. Now, he is to be rewarded with a position on the SCOTUS.
    I’d be fine with, for instance, Ketheldge – a guy who is an equally doctrinaire Federalist Society acolyte, but who did not spend his formative professional years as a white-shoe rat-fucker. When I say “fine with”, I don’t mean I would like it. I would very much dislike it. But I would recognize his nomination as a reasonable one, one that fell, correctly, within the prerogative of the office of the POTUS to make.
    Kavanaugh is basically the “fuck your feelings” SCOTUS nominee. It is more than arguable that he was selected from among the other Federalist worthies purely to reduce the likelihood of Trump being indicted.
    Y’all keep on telling us to fuck our feelings and see how it works out in the long run.

  404. The reaction to Kavanaugh is just politics.
    the reaction to Kavanaugh is absolutely political. *government is political*. the minimization of that with the modifier “just” is obnoxious.
    But it is more than political.
    Kavanaugh is a hack who was rewarded for his hackery with a position on a federal court. Now, he is to be rewarded with a position on the SCOTUS.
    I’d be fine with, for instance, Ketheldge – a guy who is an equally doctrinaire Federalist Society acolyte, but who did not spend his formative professional years as a white-shoe rat-fucker. When I say “fine with”, I don’t mean I would like it. I would very much dislike it. But I would recognize his nomination as a reasonable one, one that fell, correctly, within the prerogative of the office of the POTUS to make.
    Kavanaugh is basically the “fuck your feelings” SCOTUS nominee. It is more than arguable that he was selected from among the other Federalist worthies purely to reduce the likelihood of Trump being indicted.
    Y’all keep on telling us to fuck our feelings and see how it works out in the long run.

  405. Borked
    You mean Richard Nixon’s hatchet man? The guy who tried to help Nixon get away with his electoral crimes?
    Republicans have been at this for a very long time.

  406. Borked
    You mean Richard Nixon’s hatchet man? The guy who tried to help Nixon get away with his electoral crimes?
    Republicans have been at this for a very long time.

  407. wait, you mean knowing what he actually thinks could have a bearing on whether Senators will vote for him or not?
    OMG! that would be terrible.

  408. wait, you mean knowing what he actually thinks could have a bearing on whether Senators will vote for him or not?
    OMG! that would be terrible.

  409. Marty talks as if the nomination is not “political”, but only opposition to the nomination is.
    I will never tire of pointing out that our revered Framers did NOT specify that SCOTUS judges be selected by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They made it an explicitly political process.
    Although the Constitution does not specify the number of SCOTUS judges, it pretty clearly implies more than one. What’s the point of that? Simple: they recognized that any single judge can be wrong about The Law, however “well qualified” that judge may be. So the Framers may well have doubted the notion that as long as the nominee is “well qualified” the Senate should shut up and consent.
    But none of this matters to the Martys of the world. As long as He, Trump gets another sure vote to overturn Roe onto the court, it doesn’t matter whether His nominee is a liar, an ass-licking toady, or a hypocrite who pretends that “hypothetical” questions (a staple of law school) are improper.
    –TP

  410. Marty talks as if the nomination is not “political”, but only opposition to the nomination is.
    I will never tire of pointing out that our revered Framers did NOT specify that SCOTUS judges be selected by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They made it an explicitly political process.
    Although the Constitution does not specify the number of SCOTUS judges, it pretty clearly implies more than one. What’s the point of that? Simple: they recognized that any single judge can be wrong about The Law, however “well qualified” that judge may be. So the Framers may well have doubted the notion that as long as the nominee is “well qualified” the Senate should shut up and consent.
    But none of this matters to the Martys of the world. As long as He, Trump gets another sure vote to overturn Roe onto the court, it doesn’t matter whether His nominee is a liar, an ass-licking toady, or a hypocrite who pretends that “hypothetical” questions (a staple of law school) are improper.
    –TP

  411. As far as I’m concerned you can lay off the fuck your feelings whining. People here have been making fun of hurt fee-fees since 2010. Fuck your feelings is a liberal concept come home to roost.

  412. As far as I’m concerned you can lay off the fuck your feelings whining. People here have been making fun of hurt fee-fees since 2010. Fuck your feelings is a liberal concept come home to roost.

  415. Over here “conservative” means “opposed or averse to change”. These minority-imposed SCOTUS justices aren’t conservative, they’re plutarchist.

  416. Over here “conservative” means “opposed or averse to change”. These minority-imposed SCOTUS justices aren’t conservative, they’re plutarchist.

  417. I can honestly say it’s never been my goal to piss off conservatives. I can’t really count how many times I’ve seen people expressing glee about something pissing off the liberals, even if it was an issue they otherwise had little to no interest in. Or how about people who purposely waste energy on Earth Day? They get nothing out of it but the eye-poke. In fact, it costs them. That’s dedication.

  418. I can honestly say it’s never been my goal to piss off conservatives. I can’t really count how many times I’ve seen people expressing glee about something pissing off the liberals, even if it was an issue they otherwise had little to no interest in. Or how about people who purposely waste energy on Earth Day? They get nothing out of it but the eye-poke. In fact, it costs them. That’s dedication.

  419. Out of one side of their mouths they proclaim he’s bad because he will vote a certain way, out of the other he’s bad because he says he wont.
    That doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.
    They are criticizing him both because of the way he will vote, and because he is lying about it.
    Does anybody in their right mind not think Kavanaugh is going to overrule Roe, or let the states restrict the right into oblivion?
    Surely Garza answers that question. Kavanaugh will always find an excuse. That seems to be what he’s good at.

  420. Out of one side of their mouths they proclaim he’s bad because he will vote a certain way, out of the other he’s bad because he says he wont.
    That doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.
    They are criticizing him both because of the way he will vote, and because he is lying about it.
    Does anybody in their right mind not think Kavanaugh is going to overrule Roe, or let the states restrict the right into oblivion?
    Surely Garza answers that question. Kavanaugh will always find an excuse. That seems to be what he’s good at.

  423. cleek,
    even Vox can’t make a case for that being anything substantial.
    I think you are overstating the conclusion of the Vox article. The lawyers they consulted did not think the testimony was sufficient grounds for a perjury charge.
    That doesn’t make it insubstantial, nor should this particular pageant be allowed to fade.

  424. cleek,
    even Vox can’t make a case for that being anything substantial.
    I think you are overstating the conclusion of the Vox article. The lawyers they consulted did not think the testimony was sufficient grounds for a perjury charge.
    That doesn’t make it insubstantial, nor should this particular pageant be allowed to fade.

  425. People here have been making fun of hurt fee-fees since 2010. Fuck your feelings is a liberal concept come home to roost.
    If this is true, I am completely unaware of it, but willing to be corrected. Are there any examples that you could adduce?

  426. People here have been making fun of hurt fee-fees since 2010. Fuck your feelings is a liberal concept come home to roost.
    If this is true, I am completely unaware of it, but willing to be corrected. Are there any examples that you could adduce?

  427. GFTNC, I did a search on fee-fee in obwi it’s a two way concept that didn’t originate with this administration. I personally have been told more than once that no one cared about my fee-fees.

  428. GFTNC, I did a search on fee-fee in obwi it’s a two way concept that didn’t originate with this administration. I personally have been told more than once that no one cared about my fee-fees.

  429. byomtov: Does anybody in their right mind not think Kavanaugh is going to overrule Roe, or let the states restrict the right into oblivion?
    Even people NOT “in their right mind” expect Kavanaugh to do that.
    He, Trump for instance.
    –TP

  430. byomtov: Does anybody in their right mind not think Kavanaugh is going to overrule Roe, or let the states restrict the right into oblivion?
    Even people NOT “in their right mind” expect Kavanaugh to do that.
    He, Trump for instance.
    –TP

  431. the GOP elected President Fuck Your Feelings because they wanted someone who would stand up and tell the libs “fuck your feelings”.
    proud of your team, Marty?
    feel good to stick it to the libs?

  432. the GOP elected President Fuck Your Feelings because they wanted someone who would stand up and tell the libs “fuck your feelings”.
    proud of your team, Marty?
    feel good to stick it to the libs?

  435. I can honestly say it’s never been my goal to piss off conservatives.
    likewise.
    I personally have been told more than once that no one cared about my fee-fees
    somebody telling you they don’t care about your fee-fees on a blog.
    a campaign and political movement based on flipping the rest of the nation the bird.
    next topic.
    There are lots of conservative justices in the system that would be perfectly reasonable nominees for the SCOTUS.
    Trump chose the guy whose career up to the point that he was appointed to the bench was as an explicitly partisan political operative.
    As a thought experiment, picture Barack Obama nominating, not Merrick Garland, but Rahm Emanuel, or John Podesta.
    Or, pick any (D) political infighter you like.
    OK with you?
    FWIW, it would not be OK with me. I would not support the nomination of people like that to the SCOTUS. They would be too divisive, too explicitly partisan, too invested in the (D)’s as a party.
    For the same reasons, I do not support Kavanaugh, and I consider the (R)’s who are lining up to support him to be whores for power.
    The US has, baked in to our Constitution and institutions, measures to make sure that minority viewpoints are not simply shouted down. At this point, we have evolved to the point where the minority viewpoints are not simply not shouted down, they are able to utterly thwart the will of the majority.
    See also, Barack Obama’s nominee to the SCOTUS refused a hearing, in favor of the nominee of a guy who lost the popular vote by a margin of 10 million.
    See also, the simple fact of POTUS Trump, for that matter.
    This is unsustainable. If the (R)’s and conservatives generally continue to insist of basically fucking everybody else over to get their way, things are going to break.
    Speaking personally, at this point I would actually welcome the opportunity to re-visit the question of whether we should remain as a single country. Because I’m sick of having to deal, at a political level and at the level of public policy, with people with whom I share no common values.
    And I’m not, at all, interested in a “United States” where the feds basically print money and sponsor the armed forces, and everything else goes to the states. If that’s all we have in common, it’s time to give it up.
    And that might be all we have in common.
    Kavanaugh is a crap nominee. I’d be open to a Federalist, because there’s a (R) POTUS and a (R) majority Senate, and that’s the way it goes. But Kavanaugh is a rat-fucker who went to the Right Schools. He has no business on the SCOTUS.

  436. I can honestly say it’s never been my goal to piss off conservatives.
    likewise.
    I personally have been told more than once that no one cared about my fee-fees
    somebody telling you they don’t care about your fee-fees on a blog.
    a campaign and political movement based on flipping the rest of the nation the bird.
    next topic.
    There are lots of conservative justices in the system that would be perfectly reasonable nominees for the SCOTUS.
    Trump chose the guy whose career up to the point that he was appointed to the bench was as an explicitly partisan political operative.
    As a thought experiment, picture Barack Obama nominating, not Merrick Garland, but Rahm Emanuel, or John Podesta.
    Or, pick any (D) political infighter you like.
    OK with you?
    FWIW, it would not be OK with me. I would not support the nomination of people like that to the SCOTUS. They would be too divisive, too explicitly partisan, too invested in the (D)’s as a party.
    For the same reasons, I do not support Kavanaugh, and I consider the (R)’s who are lining up to support him to be whores for power.
    The US has, baked in to our Constitution and institutions, measures to make sure that minority viewpoints are not simply shouted down. At this point, we have evolved to the point where the minority viewpoints are not simply not shouted down, they are able to utterly thwart the will of the majority.
    See also, Barack Obama’s nominee to the SCOTUS refused a hearing, in favor of the nominee of a guy who lost the popular vote by a margin of 10 million.
    See also, the simple fact of POTUS Trump, for that matter.
    This is unsustainable. If the (R)’s and conservatives generally continue to insist of basically fucking everybody else over to get their way, things are going to break.
    Speaking personally, at this point I would actually welcome the opportunity to re-visit the question of whether we should remain as a single country. Because I’m sick of having to deal, at a political level and at the level of public policy, with people with whom I share no common values.
    And I’m not, at all, interested in a “United States” where the feds basically print money and sponsor the armed forces, and everything else goes to the states. If that’s all we have in common, it’s time to give it up.
    And that might be all we have in common.
    Kavanaugh is a crap nominee. I’d be open to a Federalist, because there’s a (R) POTUS and a (R) majority Senate, and that’s the way it goes. But Kavanaugh is a rat-fucker who went to the Right Schools. He has no business on the SCOTUS.

  437. I too did a search, and in September 2010 found someone called Tyro taunting someone called Kevin L (obviously a rightwinger since Glen Beck is mentioned) about his fee-fees. Immediately, the front-pager (Gary Farber) who put up the main post came back quoting it, and asking Tyro to desist. I don’t remember either Tyro, or Kevin L. Apart from that, the only references to fee-fees I can find on ObWi date from 2017, after Trump’s ascension and after all the well-known Trumpist taunting about “Fuck your feelings” etc. Even not on ObWi, there are very few references at all to fee-fees before that (except as a specialised sexual aid in prisons).
    As for “Fuck your feelings”, the most prominent usage (apart from the t-shirts at Trump rallies) appears to be by Milo Yannopoulos. I’m very sorry if people have been so discourteous as to say this to you, Marty, but I think it’s pretty clear that the meaning behind the taunt is much more likely to be one aimed at people whom self-defined tough conservatives consider to be liberal “snowflakes”. It seems to me pretty disingenuous to assert it’s a liberal concept come home to roost, without providing proper evidence (which may exist, I just couldn’t find it – perhaps because what lj calls my google-fu is pretty faulty).

  438. I too did a search, and in September 2010 found someone called Tyro taunting someone called Kevin L (obviously a rightwinger since Glen Beck is mentioned) about his fee-fees. Immediately, the front-pager (Gary Farber) who put up the main post came back quoting it, and asking Tyro to desist. I don’t remember either Tyro, or Kevin L. Apart from that, the only references to fee-fees I can find on ObWi date from 2017, after Trump’s ascension and after all the well-known Trumpist taunting about “Fuck your feelings” etc. Even not on ObWi, there are very few references at all to fee-fees before that (except as a specialised sexual aid in prisons).
    As for “Fuck your feelings”, the most prominent usage (apart from the t-shirts at Trump rallies) appears to be by Milo Yannopoulos. I’m very sorry if people have been so discourteous as to say this to you, Marty, but I think it’s pretty clear that the meaning behind the taunt is much more likely to be one aimed at people whom self-defined tough conservatives consider to be liberal “snowflakes”. It seems to me pretty disingenuous to assert it’s a liberal concept come home to roost, without providing proper evidence (which may exist, I just couldn’t find it – perhaps because what lj calls my google-fu is pretty faulty).

  439. The tubes know he’s conservative, they are counting on it. His evasion is because the questions are meant to creaand some trap to diswaualify him,in co.pletely bad faith.
    I’m not quite clear how these questions create a “trap”. If there’s been a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question, I missed it. Feel fell to offer examples I may have missed.
    What I have heard is questions which, if he answered them honestly, would make it politically difficult for some Republican Senators to vote to confirm him. That is, they are apparently embarrassed to admit what they are doing.
    P.S. Are some of the Democrats asking questions that they think will play well with voters? Sure. The Republican Senators could do the same . . . if they have some where they think honest answers would play well with voters beyond the narrowest part of their base. No sign of such.

  440. The tubes know he’s conservative, they are counting on it. His evasion is because the questions are meant to creaand some trap to diswaualify him,in co.pletely bad faith.
    I’m not quite clear how these questions create a “trap”. If there’s been a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question, I missed it. Feel fell to offer examples I may have missed.
    What I have heard is questions which, if he answered them honestly, would make it politically difficult for some Republican Senators to vote to confirm him. That is, they are apparently embarrassed to admit what they are doing.
    P.S. Are some of the Democrats asking questions that they think will play well with voters? Sure. The Republican Senators could do the same . . . if they have some where they think honest answers would play well with voters beyond the narrowest part of their base. No sign of such.

  445. Russell, short me. No, there is no conservative judge in the system that these random charges wouldn’t have been brought against. What he said as a lawyer working for Bush? Really?
    It’s all be meant to fihire up the rubes.

  446. Russell, short me. No, there is no conservative judge in the system that these random charges wouldn’t have been brought against. What he said as a lawyer working for Bush? Really?
    It’s all be meant to fihire up the rubes.

  447. This is unsustainable. If the (R)’s and conservatives generally continue to insist of basically fucking everybody else over to get their way, things are going to break.
    What is going to happen is that we are going to have, at the Federal level, pretty much what we have in California now: massive (over 2/3) Democratic majorities in the legislature. Democratic Presidents. For a decade or more — which will end up, I expect, doing some good things and a bunch of stuff I will dislike, sometimes intensely.
    And that’s “a decade or more” after the party starts showing a willingness to elect people who run on merely mildly conservative platforms. Unless, of course, the Democrats make the mistake of going with far left nutcase policies. (Not, note, merely liberal policies, however much I dislike them. More like the current Republican penchant for pushing things that majorities of Republican voters oppose, because the base which comes out for primaries does want them.)

  448. This is unsustainable. If the (R)’s and conservatives generally continue to insist of basically fucking everybody else over to get their way, things are going to break.
    What is going to happen is that we are going to have, at the Federal level, pretty much what we have in California now: massive (over 2/3) Democratic majorities in the legislature. Democratic Presidents. For a decade or more — which will end up, I expect, doing some good things and a bunch of stuff I will dislike, sometimes intensely.
    And that’s “a decade or more” after the party starts showing a willingness to elect people who run on merely mildly conservative platforms. Unless, of course, the Democrats make the mistake of going with far left nutcase policies. (Not, note, merely liberal policies, however much I dislike them. More like the current Republican penchant for pushing things that majorities of Republican voters oppose, because the base which comes out for primaries does want them.)

  449. things are going to break.
    there’s already a lot of talk (which i vehemently oppose) on the online left of packing the Court the next chance the Dems get.
    i don’t think Congressional Dems would ever do it. and i haven’t heard any of them even hint at it. thankfully.
    but it does show how the tensions are building.
    something is going to happen, if this keeps up.
    McConnell may go down in history as the person who broke the Court.

  450. things are going to break.
    there’s already a lot of talk (which i vehemently oppose) on the online left of packing the Court the next chance the Dems get.
    i don’t think Congressional Dems would ever do it. and i haven’t heard any of them even hint at it. thankfully.
    but it does show how the tensions are building.
    something is going to happen, if this keeps up.
    McConnell may go down in history as the person who broke the Court.

  457. I am happy to defer to the analyses offered by bernie, nigel, snarki, wj, and sapient.
    I’m seriously disturbed when anyone defers to me.
    It’s a very strange feeling.

  458. I am happy to defer to the analyses offered by bernie, nigel, snarki, wj, and sapient.
    I’m seriously disturbed when anyone defers to me.
    It’s a very strange feeling.

  461. dude, “White Punks On Dope”. c’mon man!
    Marty, shorter me: we don’t live in the same reality. I find your comments and statements here to be seriously detached from the facts. So, probably not much point in pursuing it.
    Enjoy that tax cut.

  462. dude, “White Punks On Dope”. c’mon man!
    Marty, shorter me: we don’t live in the same reality. I find your comments and statements here to be seriously detached from the facts. So, probably not much point in pursuing it.
    Enjoy that tax cut.

  463. Note: “your comments here” meaning “in this thread, on this topic”.
    Lest I be accused of suppressing dissent.

  464. Note: “your comments here” meaning “in this thread, on this topic”.
    Lest I be accused of suppressing dissent.

  465. russell, I find most of your comments here completely detached from reality….so yeah, let’s not, but if you keep posting bs I’m gonna keep calling bs.

  466. russell, I find most of your comments here completely detached from reality….so yeah, let’s not, but if you keep posting bs I’m gonna keep calling bs.

  467. Marty, you’re asking us to believe that knowing how a potential Justice actually thinks about things is beyond the pale because it might influence how people vote on his nomination.
    come on.
    in what other job interview could you get away with refusing to talk about the things you might encounter on the job ?
    “Doctor Smirf, what have you found to be the best way to treat elevated blood pressure in otherwise-healthy 50 year old men?”
    “I cannot comment on that hypothetical [because you might find out i favor leeches, sand enemas and tongue scraping].”
    “Excellent answer. I think we have our man!”

  468. Marty, you’re asking us to believe that knowing how a potential Justice actually thinks about things is beyond the pale because it might influence how people vote on his nomination.
    come on.
    in what other job interview could you get away with refusing to talk about the things you might encounter on the job ?
    “Doctor Smirf, what have you found to be the best way to treat elevated blood pressure in otherwise-healthy 50 year old men?”
    “I cannot comment on that hypothetical [because you might find out i favor leeches, sand enemas and tongue scraping].”
    “Excellent answer. I think we have our man!”

  471. cleek. I’m happy for them to ask questions. But every SC nominee refuses to discuss stances on specific laws and cases, especially as hypotheticals. So gnash teeth over that, doesn’t really bother me.
    But the ranting about his past, hes a liar and in fact satan incarnate, is just bs. Hes a judge. He has worked for conservative politicians, he has no record pf being anything but a decent family man. Good lawyer, and an accomplished jurist.
    Most of two days was spent taking stuff out of any context and trying to smear his reputation, along with asking obtuse questions hoping to get some answer where they could accuse him of lying. It was disgusting and and despicable. A contemptible partisan display. Red meat, eaten up and regurgitated.
    Enjoy the upward movement in wages.

  472. cleek. I’m happy for them to ask questions. But every SC nominee refuses to discuss stances on specific laws and cases, especially as hypotheticals. So gnash teeth over that, doesn’t really bother me.
    But the ranting about his past, hes a liar and in fact satan incarnate, is just bs. Hes a judge. He has worked for conservative politicians, he has no record pf being anything but a decent family man. Good lawyer, and an accomplished jurist.
    Most of two days was spent taking stuff out of any context and trying to smear his reputation, along with asking obtuse questions hoping to get some answer where they could accuse him of lying. It was disgusting and and despicable. A contemptible partisan display. Red meat, eaten up and regurgitated.
    Enjoy the upward movement in wages.

  473. he has no record pf being anything but a decent family man
    that we know of.
    Enjoy the upward movement in wages.
    yes, the Obama economy continues to chug along.
    at least Trump’s advisors haven’t let him totally destroy that (though he’s trying mightily).

  474. he has no record pf being anything but a decent family man
    that we know of.
    Enjoy the upward movement in wages.
    yes, the Obama economy continues to chug along.
    at least Trump’s advisors haven’t let him totally destroy that (though he’s trying mightily).

  475. also, it should be noted that no small part of those wage increases are happening on the lower end of the wage scale, in states that have recently… wait for it… raised their minimum wage!
    and those at the top grew, too. of course.
    i’m not at the top, but i’m close enough that i get a little taste of those gains. so yes, i will enjoy that, i guess? buy a sightly better bottle of wine once a month?
    but the people in the middle? nosssomuch.

  476. also, it should be noted that no small part of those wage increases are happening on the lower end of the wage scale, in states that have recently… wait for it… raised their minimum wage!
    and those at the top grew, too. of course.
    i’m not at the top, but i’m close enough that i get a little taste of those gains. so yes, i will enjoy that, i guess? buy a sightly better bottle of wine once a month?
    but the people in the middle? nosssomuch.

  477. The last Supreme Court nominee to look smart and give straightforward answers to questions had his name turned into a verb: Borked.
    at least he didn’t get Garlanded

  478. The last Supreme Court nominee to look smart and give straightforward answers to questions had his name turned into a verb: Borked.
    at least he didn’t get Garlanded

  481. Borked.
    I think conservatives need to get over Bork. The notion that he was somehow treated unfairly is myth.
    Yes, there was some harsh anti-Bork rhetoric, but the actual criticism underlying the opposition was based on Bork’s own writing, taken fully in context. Most notably, as I recall, Bork did not think that freedom speech extended beyond political speech. That alone should have been enough to reject him.
    Further, he got a hearing and a committee vote. When the committee vote was negative he requested, and got, a vote of the full Senate, which was also negative.
    Bork was not victimized by a some fanatical, irrational leftist plot. . He was judged on his record and expressed opinions, and rejected.

  482. Borked.
    I think conservatives need to get over Bork. The notion that he was somehow treated unfairly is myth.
    Yes, there was some harsh anti-Bork rhetoric, but the actual criticism underlying the opposition was based on Bork’s own writing, taken fully in context. Most notably, as I recall, Bork did not think that freedom speech extended beyond political speech. That alone should have been enough to reject him.
    Further, he got a hearing and a committee vote. When the committee vote was negative he requested, and got, a vote of the full Senate, which was also negative.
    Bork was not victimized by a some fanatical, irrational leftist plot. . He was judged on his record and expressed opinions, and rejected.

  483. Some basic facts about Kavanaugh:
    Principal author of the Starr report. Urged Starr to dig into the specific sexual details of Clinton and Lewinsky’s affair.
    Led the investigation into whether Vincent Foster’s suicide was actually a murder.
    Represented W Bush in the FL recount fiasco.
    As WH Staff Secretary, was the gatekeeper for all documents to and from W at an… interesting time.
    Took him 3 years to be approved for the DC circuit because if his obviously partisan resume. He has the most conservative record on the DC circuit during his tenure.
    Yes, I’m sure he loves his kids and is a good basketball coach.

  484. Some basic facts about Kavanaugh:
    Principal author of the Starr report. Urged Starr to dig into the specific sexual details of Clinton and Lewinsky’s affair.
    Led the investigation into whether Vincent Foster’s suicide was actually a murder.
    Represented W Bush in the FL recount fiasco.
    As WH Staff Secretary, was the gatekeeper for all documents to and from W at an… interesting time.
    Took him 3 years to be approved for the DC circuit because if his obviously partisan resume. He has the most conservative record on the DC circuit during his tenure.
    Yes, I’m sure he loves his kids and is a good basketball coach.

  485. I can see why any nominee to be a judge should not comment on pending, or potential/hypothetical, cases. But when asked, “Was xxx v yyy correctly decided?” that doesn’t apply. The whole of the case and the arguments are known. The case is decided, not pending. So why not respond? Unless you know that, if you respond honestly, you’re toast…

  486. I can see why any nominee to be a judge should not comment on pending, or potential/hypothetical, cases. But when asked, “Was xxx v yyy correctly decided?” that doesn’t apply. The whole of the case and the arguments are known. The case is decided, not pending. So why not respond? Unless you know that, if you respond honestly, you’re toast…

  487. The main thing about reality is that it doesn’t give a damn who believes in it. Also, it has no compunction about biting people in the ass.
    Marty’s reality consists of fetuses with souls, plutocrats with job consumers’ best interests at heart, and Democrats whose mission is to oppress Real Murkins. (If I’m wrong, Marty can correct me.) In that reality, a Justice Kavanaugh will make Marty’s grandkids better off.
    So who are we to warn him that his reality may not protect him from getting his ass bitten?
    –TP

  488. The main thing about reality is that it doesn’t give a damn who believes in it. Also, it has no compunction about biting people in the ass.
    Marty’s reality consists of fetuses with souls, plutocrats with job consumers’ best interests at heart, and Democrats whose mission is to oppress Real Murkins. (If I’m wrong, Marty can correct me.) In that reality, a Justice Kavanaugh will make Marty’s grandkids better off.
    So who are we to warn him that his reality may not protect him from getting his ass bitten?
    –TP

  491. But the ranting about his past, hes a liar and in fact satan incarnate, is just bs.
    You know, nobody here was calling him satan incarnate. As for being a liar, I thought that was pretty much established as fact once some of those documents were released, and compared with some of his past testimony. But the bit I don’t get (and didn’t get when McCain said it about Obama) is the “decent family man” bit. What does this even mean? McCain seemed to think (albeit when obeying an honorable impulse) it was OK to imply an arab (or was it a muslim?) couldn’t be a decent family man. When Marty says Kavanaugh is a decent family man, is this supposed to mean he can’t be a liar and a calculating arselicker who is trying to hide an unacceptable agenda? What kind of sense does this make?

  492. But the ranting about his past, hes a liar and in fact satan incarnate, is just bs.
    You know, nobody here was calling him satan incarnate. As for being a liar, I thought that was pretty much established as fact once some of those documents were released, and compared with some of his past testimony. But the bit I don’t get (and didn’t get when McCain said it about Obama) is the “decent family man” bit. What does this even mean? McCain seemed to think (albeit when obeying an honorable impulse) it was OK to imply an arab (or was it a muslim?) couldn’t be a decent family man. When Marty says Kavanaugh is a decent family man, is this supposed to mean he can’t be a liar and a calculating arselicker who is trying to hide an unacceptable agenda? What kind of sense does this make?

  495. Did you read the memo where he was talking about getting more sexual detail on Clinton, Marty?

  496. Did you read the memo where he was talking about getting more sexual detail on Clinton, Marty?

  497. He was a working lawyer, ok. So what.
    a phrase you’ll never hear a “conservative” utter about, for example, Eric Holder.

  498. He was a working lawyer, ok. So what.
    a phrase you’ll never hear a “conservative” utter about, for example, Eric Holder.

  499. GFTNC,Not specifically, but he was working as a prosecutor? Just like Mueller is now? Working on a possible sexual offense? Latitude right?

  500. GFTNC,Not specifically, but he was working as a prosecutor? Just like Mueller is now? Working on a possible sexual offense? Latitude right?

  501. Annoyingly, I cannot copy and paste from his memo, but here it is:
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-5810-d47f-a5f5-5a3c9a020001
    I refer you in particular to the final 7 questions on page 2 of the memo, and wonder if you think this was normal for a “working lawyer” investigating the case for impeachment of a President, and actually, in case he is confirmed, I refer you to his interesting comments on page 1 regarding his opinion on respect for the office of the President, and when it can or should be forfeited.

  502. Annoyingly, I cannot copy and paste from his memo, but here it is:
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-5810-d47f-a5f5-5a3c9a020001
    I refer you in particular to the final 7 questions on page 2 of the memo, and wonder if you think this was normal for a “working lawyer” investigating the case for impeachment of a President, and actually, in case he is confirmed, I refer you to his interesting comments on page 1 regarding his opinion on respect for the office of the President, and when it can or should be forfeited.

  503. Why on earth would I care whether Kavanaugh is a decent family man? I’m puzzled by that remark.
    I don’t know whether the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court next time they have the power to do it, but as a democrat I hope they do. It’s wrong to have a partisan court loaded, possibly for decades, in favour of the minority party.

  504. Why on earth would I care whether Kavanaugh is a decent family man? I’m puzzled by that remark.
    I don’t know whether the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court next time they have the power to do it, but as a democrat I hope they do. It’s wrong to have a partisan court loaded, possibly for decades, in favour of the minority party.

  505. morning, I’m really happy that I wrote my meditation on sensitivity before this blow up, and am grateful to GftNC for archive diving for the first use of ‘fee fees’. I’d note that Marty uses the terms to describe his feelings rather than someone else’s, which actually makes it different, in that he is saying that people don’t care about his feelings in the matter rather than dismissing someone else’s feelings.
    While I think Marty is not acknowledging the massive amount of norm breaking that occurred in the run up to this, especially with Merrick Garland
    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
    instead of trying to claim that there is no politics, I actually think, after reading this article
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/07/harris-booker-kavanaugh-supreme-court-810654
    That there is a lot longer game being played here. I feel that Harris especially wants to get Kavanaugh on record and when he does ascend to the SoC (there is not really much the Dems can do to stop it that I can see) Dems, who may take the House, could put together his work product from the Bush admin and his confirmation responses and make a case that he lied. Even if they can’t, he will have to be more cautious about his rulings than he would if he were just given cursory examination.
    I realize this is attributing those Obama 10th dimensional chess powers to Harris, but there is also the shorter term goal of forcing Kavanaugh to recuse himself from what seems like an inevitable decision to indict Trump.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/06/brett-kavanaugh-kamala-harris-law-firm-questions-809140
    And I think Harris is smart enough to not really want to be president, especially after Clickbait.
    So Marty is right to say it’s ‘just’ politics, but what that ‘just politics’ means is probably quite different. I’m sure that we totally disagree on who brought this to pass. And I’m sure we differ on whether Kavanaugh deserves to be in the hot seat. (It would be an interesting parlor game to think of potential SoC candidates who both sides would agree _shouldn’t_ be nominated) I don’t think, however, some vague talk about ‘fee fees’ is why Kavanaugh is in the hot seat, he’s there because this is where we find ourselves at this particular political moment. I wonder what would have happened if Kavanaugh was first chosen and it was Gorsuch, but it is clear that there is never any political calculation about trying to co-opt the Dems, it is all force, force, force.

  506. morning, I’m really happy that I wrote my meditation on sensitivity before this blow up, and am grateful to GftNC for archive diving for the first use of ‘fee fees’. I’d note that Marty uses the terms to describe his feelings rather than someone else’s, which actually makes it different, in that he is saying that people don’t care about his feelings in the matter rather than dismissing someone else’s feelings.
    While I think Marty is not acknowledging the massive amount of norm breaking that occurred in the run up to this, especially with Merrick Garland
    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
    instead of trying to claim that there is no politics, I actually think, after reading this article
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/07/harris-booker-kavanaugh-supreme-court-810654
    That there is a lot longer game being played here. I feel that Harris especially wants to get Kavanaugh on record and when he does ascend to the SoC (there is not really much the Dems can do to stop it that I can see) Dems, who may take the House, could put together his work product from the Bush admin and his confirmation responses and make a case that he lied. Even if they can’t, he will have to be more cautious about his rulings than he would if he were just given cursory examination.
    I realize this is attributing those Obama 10th dimensional chess powers to Harris, but there is also the shorter term goal of forcing Kavanaugh to recuse himself from what seems like an inevitable decision to indict Trump.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/06/brett-kavanaugh-kamala-harris-law-firm-questions-809140
    And I think Harris is smart enough to not really want to be president, especially after Clickbait.
    So Marty is right to say it’s ‘just’ politics, but what that ‘just politics’ means is probably quite different. I’m sure that we totally disagree on who brought this to pass. And I’m sure we differ on whether Kavanaugh deserves to be in the hot seat. (It would be an interesting parlor game to think of potential SoC candidates who both sides would agree _shouldn’t_ be nominated) I don’t think, however, some vague talk about ‘fee fees’ is why Kavanaugh is in the hot seat, he’s there because this is where we find ourselves at this particular political moment. I wonder what would have happened if Kavanaugh was first chosen and it was Gorsuch, but it is clear that there is never any political calculation about trying to co-opt the Dems, it is all force, force, force.

  507. GFTNC:
    I get the point. But I would also note that he was dealing with a man that looked everyone in the country in the eye and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “it depends on what the meaning of is … is.”
    It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue.

  508. GFTNC:
    I get the point. But I would also note that he was dealing with a man that looked everyone in the country in the eye and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “it depends on what the meaning of is … is.”
    It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue.

  509. It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue.
    Do you have an instance where a state prosecutor has charged someone having a consensual affair with someone else?

  510. It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue.
    Do you have an instance where a state prosecutor has charged someone having a consensual affair with someone else?

  511. And I think Harris is smart enough to not really want to be president, especially after Clickbait.
    I think she does want to be President. But just not right after Trump.

  512. And I think Harris is smart enough to not really want to be president, especially after Clickbait.
    I think she does want to be President. But just not right after Trump.

  513. I think she does want to be President. But just not right after Trump.
    I know I’m peculiar, but I still think Harris is aiming at Governor of California. Or perhaps the first Prime Minister of the Republic of California.

  514. I think she does want to be President. But just not right after Trump.
    I know I’m peculiar, but I still think Harris is aiming at Governor of California. Or perhaps the first Prime Minister of the Republic of California.

  515. bc: yup, Clinton was a tricksy, dishonest one all right in his infidelities, and after an affair involving a pretty serious imbalance (or abuse) of power too. I don’t condone it, although I do think its consensual aspect (which Monica Lewinsky totally bought into at the time) muddies the water somewhat. I have a great deal of sympathy with her, then and now, and am prepared to accept her view of it. But I think the Starr people treated her worse than Clinton did, abominably in fact, and regarding Kavanaugh’s final 7 questions in the memo, I think it’s laughable to think that their purpose is anything other than to humiliate him and attempt to drive (by the repetition of sordid details) the final nail into the impeachment attempt. The nature and repetition of the questions is such that there can be no other explanation. Despite what Kavanaugh calls Clinton’s “revolting behaviour”, the sexual acts he describes are hardly unusual (with the possible exception of the use of the cigar, which is certainly eccentric), and Lewinsky saw herself as being in love with him, so there is no implication of coercion, as has been the case with e.g. Weinstein (your example of the Hollywood producer and the prosecutor seems to suggest a coercive element which is wholly lacking here).
    So, in short (you wish!), I cannot see any way in which Kavanaugh’s vindictive, puritanical memo can be retroactively sanitised with the halo of the #metoo movement.

  516. bc: yup, Clinton was a tricksy, dishonest one all right in his infidelities, and after an affair involving a pretty serious imbalance (or abuse) of power too. I don’t condone it, although I do think its consensual aspect (which Monica Lewinsky totally bought into at the time) muddies the water somewhat. I have a great deal of sympathy with her, then and now, and am prepared to accept her view of it. But I think the Starr people treated her worse than Clinton did, abominably in fact, and regarding Kavanaugh’s final 7 questions in the memo, I think it’s laughable to think that their purpose is anything other than to humiliate him and attempt to drive (by the repetition of sordid details) the final nail into the impeachment attempt. The nature and repetition of the questions is such that there can be no other explanation. Despite what Kavanaugh calls Clinton’s “revolting behaviour”, the sexual acts he describes are hardly unusual (with the possible exception of the use of the cigar, which is certainly eccentric), and Lewinsky saw herself as being in love with him, so there is no implication of coercion, as has been the case with e.g. Weinstein (your example of the Hollywood producer and the prosecutor seems to suggest a coercive element which is wholly lacking here).
    So, in short (you wish!), I cannot see any way in which Kavanaugh’s vindictive, puritanical memo can be retroactively sanitised with the halo of the #metoo movement.

  517. Hmmm, bad mixed metaphor. “retroactively sanitised with the disinfectant of the #metoo movement” or “retroactively sanctified with the halo of the #metoo movement”, take your pick!

  518. “Or perhaps the first Prime Minister of the Republic of California.”
    Would that be before, or after, the establishment of the Californian colony on Mars?

  519. Hmmm, bad mixed metaphor. “retroactively sanitised with the disinfectant of the #metoo movement” or “retroactively sanctified with the halo of the #metoo movement”, take your pick!

  520. “Or perhaps the first Prime Minister of the Republic of California.”
    Would that be before, or after, the establishment of the Californian colony on Mars?

  521. Kamala Harris wants to be POTUS.
    Brett Kavanaugh wants to be SCOTUS.
    Any suggestion that one and only one of them was disingenuous at the hearing owing to ambition is laughable.
    –TP

  522. Kamala Harris wants to be POTUS.
    Brett Kavanaugh wants to be SCOTUS.
    Any suggestion that one and only one of them was disingenuous at the hearing owing to ambition is laughable.
    –TP

  523. in today’s #metoo environment
    25 years ago. No internet to speak of. No smartphones. No Twitter, no blogosphere. I’m sure there would be a lot of people who would have a difficult time in today’s #metoo environment, and I think that everyone here understands that it is a different environment. But pulling up Clinton seems to be more an exercise in argumentation. And if you are claiming that Kavanaugh was #metoo before it was cool, I really think you should rethink.

  524. in today’s #metoo environment
    25 years ago. No internet to speak of. No smartphones. No Twitter, no blogosphere. I’m sure there would be a lot of people who would have a difficult time in today’s #metoo environment, and I think that everyone here understands that it is a different environment. But pulling up Clinton seems to be more an exercise in argumentation. And if you are claiming that Kavanaugh was #metoo before it was cool, I really think you should rethink.

  525. I think pointing to the Clinton/Lewinsky case as an example of malfeasance is just hangover from when republicans thought they were the party of values. Long before Trump that was clearly fiction, but Trump eradicates any claim to values from the party. I recall being part of the anti-Clinton cabal and really thinking that the Commander In Chief should be held to the same standard as any Soldier when it came to infidelity. It just gets ingrained after a few decades.
    But Clinton did claim presidential immunity in that case. The facts of the case are insignificant, but Clinton’s defense IMO does muddy the waters as democrats claim higher ground now.

  526. I think pointing to the Clinton/Lewinsky case as an example of malfeasance is just hangover from when republicans thought they were the party of values. Long before Trump that was clearly fiction, but Trump eradicates any claim to values from the party. I recall being part of the anti-Clinton cabal and really thinking that the Commander In Chief should be held to the same standard as any Soldier when it came to infidelity. It just gets ingrained after a few decades.
    But Clinton did claim presidential immunity in that case. The facts of the case are insignificant, but Clinton’s defense IMO does muddy the waters as democrats claim higher ground now.

  527. Kamala Harris wants to be POTUS.
    Kamala Harris’s role at the hearing wasn’t to testify, it was to vet a nominee for a lifetime appointment, someone who not only will change the dynamics of the court to make progress hugely difficult, but who has questionable ethics, and is getting no scrutiny from Republicans. She did a wonderful job.
    Here’s a theory about what she was getting at in her questioning.
    The other Democrats also did a great job. Maybe they are all ambitious, who knows, but where Republicans were trying to hide over 90% of documents relating to Kavanaugh’s career (hmmm, I wonder why), I’m glad that they did their job, whatever their motivation.

  528. Kamala Harris wants to be POTUS.
    Kamala Harris’s role at the hearing wasn’t to testify, it was to vet a nominee for a lifetime appointment, someone who not only will change the dynamics of the court to make progress hugely difficult, but who has questionable ethics, and is getting no scrutiny from Republicans. She did a wonderful job.
    Here’s a theory about what she was getting at in her questioning.
    The other Democrats also did a great job. Maybe they are all ambitious, who knows, but where Republicans were trying to hide over 90% of documents relating to Kavanaugh’s career (hmmm, I wonder why), I’m glad that they did their job, whatever their motivation.

  529. GFTNC, I think there is s bit of presentism here. It is not surprising or particularly odd that those questions would be on the prosecutions list to drive the point home.
    The disrespect for the office and the salacious details would have been huge drivers of impeachment at the time, as now.

  530. GFTNC, I think there is s bit of presentism here. It is not surprising or particularly odd that those questions would be on the prosecutions list to drive the point home.
    The disrespect for the office and the salacious details would have been huge drivers of impeachment at the time, as now.

  531. He was a working lawyer
    Why do I say that trying to have a conversation with Marty about the substance of the objections to Kavanaugh’s nomination is not worth the candle?
    Because, when presented with examples of Kavanaugh acting, explicitly, as a partisan advocate, he replies as cited above.
    Fuck this noise. Not worth my time.
    What we expect from the SCOTUS is, minimally, an even-handed consideration of issues. We obviously understand that justices have a point of view. We prefer that they not have a partisan agenda.
    Kavanaugh’s career is an unending litany of partisan agenda.
    I appreciate lj’s desire for sensitivity, but I insist on something resembling good faith. Lacking that, it’s not the effort.
    Kavanaugh is not an appropriate nominee. He will, almost surely, be approved. And it will discredit the court, as Gorsuch’s appointment has done.
    At some point, various tables will turn. Conservatives will live to regret this bullshit.
    You are not the majority position in the country. Absent the advantages granted you by the electoral college and the senate, you would be a minority voice in national politics.
    It behooves you to not grab every fucking advantage you can, with both hands. While wearing a “fuck your feelings” t shirt.
    You are storing up a judgement for yourselves. Don’t.

  532. He was a working lawyer
    Why do I say that trying to have a conversation with Marty about the substance of the objections to Kavanaugh’s nomination is not worth the candle?
    Because, when presented with examples of Kavanaugh acting, explicitly, as a partisan advocate, he replies as cited above.
    Fuck this noise. Not worth my time.
    What we expect from the SCOTUS is, minimally, an even-handed consideration of issues. We obviously understand that justices have a point of view. We prefer that they not have a partisan agenda.
    Kavanaugh’s career is an unending litany of partisan agenda.
    I appreciate lj’s desire for sensitivity, but I insist on something resembling good faith. Lacking that, it’s not the effort.
    Kavanaugh is not an appropriate nominee. He will, almost surely, be approved. And it will discredit the court, as Gorsuch’s appointment has done.
    At some point, various tables will turn. Conservatives will live to regret this bullshit.
    You are not the majority position in the country. Absent the advantages granted you by the electoral college and the senate, you would be a minority voice in national politics.
    It behooves you to not grab every fucking advantage you can, with both hands. While wearing a “fuck your feelings” t shirt.
    You are storing up a judgement for yourselves. Don’t.

  533. But I would also note that he was dealing with a man that looked everyone in the country in the eye and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “it depends on what the meaning of is … is.”
    He lied.
    And, for lying, he was impeached and disbarred.
    At the time, a generation of people were horrified at having to explain oral sex to their young kids. There was, apparently, an upsurge in thrush among adolescent girls, who wanted to see what all this penis-in-mouth business was about.
    Who put the details of Clinton and lewinsky’s sexual life on the front page?
    Clinton? Lewinsky?
    I suspect they would have preferred to keep the details between themselves.
    Ken Starr and Brett Kavanaugh is your answer.
    the salacious details would have been huge drivers of impeachment
    What I take away from this is, yeah, they were freaking pornographers, but it was for a political end I approve of.
    So, thumbs up!
    It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue
    #metoo is about coercion. Was coercion alleged in the case of Clinton and Lewinsky?

  534. But I would also note that he was dealing with a man that looked everyone in the country in the eye and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “it depends on what the meaning of is … is.”
    He lied.
    And, for lying, he was impeached and disbarred.
    At the time, a generation of people were horrified at having to explain oral sex to their young kids. There was, apparently, an upsurge in thrush among adolescent girls, who wanted to see what all this penis-in-mouth business was about.
    Who put the details of Clinton and lewinsky’s sexual life on the front page?
    Clinton? Lewinsky?
    I suspect they would have preferred to keep the details between themselves.
    Ken Starr and Brett Kavanaugh is your answer.
    the salacious details would have been huge drivers of impeachment
    What I take away from this is, yeah, they were freaking pornographers, but it was for a political end I approve of.
    So, thumbs up!
    It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue
    #metoo is about coercion. Was coercion alleged in the case of Clinton and Lewinsky?

  535. I appreciate lj’s desire for sensitivity, but I insist on something resembling good faith. Lacking that, it’s [worth] not the effort.

    I should clarify. I don’t desire sensitivity, I just want to point out it is orthogonal to discussing the issue. bc bringing up his belief that people here were sensitive was mistaken, no one here was appalled when he used ‘democrat party’, they felt it reflected on him and his opinion. Likewise, while I haven’t followed the exact contours of this thread, people may be appalled by what seems like the selective sensitivity but I don’t think invoking sensitivity actually gets us any closer to understanding what is going on. I’m not going to judge whether it is true that Marty is deeply upset by Booker and Harris asking questions of Kavanaugh. I can’t control what they say, and they aren’t my words. If Marty gets sensitive about what I say, I can think about what it was and then determine if he had a reason to be sensitive. I might think yeah, I didn’t phrase that well or no, I don’t think he was understanding my point. But sensitivity over the whole of the US political scene for the past 30 years (with the invocation of Clinton) seems like one of those hooks people don’t have to bite.

  536. I appreciate lj’s desire for sensitivity, but I insist on something resembling good faith. Lacking that, it’s [worth] not the effort.

    I should clarify. I don’t desire sensitivity, I just want to point out it is orthogonal to discussing the issue. bc bringing up his belief that people here were sensitive was mistaken, no one here was appalled when he used ‘democrat party’, they felt it reflected on him and his opinion. Likewise, while I haven’t followed the exact contours of this thread, people may be appalled by what seems like the selective sensitivity but I don’t think invoking sensitivity actually gets us any closer to understanding what is going on. I’m not going to judge whether it is true that Marty is deeply upset by Booker and Harris asking questions of Kavanaugh. I can’t control what they say, and they aren’t my words. If Marty gets sensitive about what I say, I can think about what it was and then determine if he had a reason to be sensitive. I might think yeah, I didn’t phrase that well or no, I don’t think he was understanding my point. But sensitivity over the whole of the US political scene for the past 30 years (with the invocation of Clinton) seems like one of those hooks people don’t have to bite.

  537. ”It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue”
    #metoo is about coercion. Was coercion alleged in the case of Clinton and Lewinsky?
    A criminal case, as Marty fancifully posits, would be about coercion.
    #metoo is about rather more than that – power disparities, for example.
    I’m in agreement with the rest of your post – and the idea that Starr or Kavanaugh had any concern with power disparities in the Lewinsky case is utterly absurd – but Clinton acted comtemptibly whatever the mores of the time.

  538. ”It occurs to me that if Clinton had been a Hollywood producer and the memo writer a state prosecutor in today’s #metoo environment, the writer might be viewed differently on this issue”
    #metoo is about coercion. Was coercion alleged in the case of Clinton and Lewinsky?
    A criminal case, as Marty fancifully posits, would be about coercion.
    #metoo is about rather more than that – power disparities, for example.
    I’m in agreement with the rest of your post – and the idea that Starr or Kavanaugh had any concern with power disparities in the Lewinsky case is utterly absurd – but Clinton acted comtemptibly whatever the mores of the time.

  539. #metoo is about rather more than that – power disparities, for example.
    A very good point. I stand corrected.

  540. #metoo is about rather more than that – power disparities, for example.
    A very good point. I stand corrected.

  541. I am pretty sure that Starr and Kavanaugh were looking also to provide a report for purposes of impeachment.
    I’m certain that power disparities were at the core of the scandal, alongside just the whole mental image of the President, a cigar and an intern in the Oval office.
    But then, 50 Shades of Grey would have been rated X then also.

  542. I am pretty sure that Starr and Kavanaugh were looking also to provide a report for purposes of impeachment.
    I’m certain that power disparities were at the core of the scandal, alongside just the whole mental image of the President, a cigar and an intern in the Oval office.
    But then, 50 Shades of Grey would have been rated X then also.

  543. No problem; arguing standards across generations can get confusing (as today’s WaPo article on John Adams’ suppression of speech highlights).
    The interesting thing about Kavanaugh is that he does not seem ever to have evinced any change in his opinions from those days.
    Merely evasion and obfuscation – which is, whatever Marty might think, utterly inappropriate in a Supreme Court nominee.

  544. No problem; arguing standards across generations can get confusing (as today’s WaPo article on John Adams’ suppression of speech highlights).
    The interesting thing about Kavanaugh is that he does not seem ever to have evinced any change in his opinions from those days.
    Merely evasion and obfuscation – which is, whatever Marty might think, utterly inappropriate in a Supreme Court nominee.

  545. #metoo is about rather more than that – power disparities, for example.
    Clinton and Lewinsky were two adults, who at the time of their relationship, both believed that their affair was consensual.
    The idea of “power disparities” as some kind of general concept is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a relationship between two people of completely equal power. The farther back in history one goes, the more certain it is that any relationship between a man and a woman contained gross power disparities. In our time, any relationship between a wealthy and less wealthy person would contain huge power disparities. Whose job is it to make assumptions about that power disparity? How about race as a power disparity, or citizenship? Are we all going to point fingers at those seemingly consensual relationships too?
    People have relationships in the normal course of their lives, many of which are disappointing or don’t turn into long-term relationships or marriages. Young people commonly go through one or more ill-advised romantic experiences before “settling down.” Older people, and “settled” people are susceptible too. Literature and biographies are filled with these stories. The Clinton/Lewinsky affair was far from the first White House extramarital relationship. Among Clinton’s Congressional accusers was a pedophile and more than one philanderer. Lewinsky, who initiated the relationship, did not work for Clinton when the affair happened. It was a very bad idea for many reasons to have engaged in that relationship.
    Extra-marital affairs are assumed to be betrayals. But just as there are many varieties of power disparities, there are many varieties of betrayals.
    The #metoo movement is long overdue for calling out people who take advantage of their power to coerce unwilling people. It shouldn’t be confused with messy or unwise (or immoral, if people want to go there) consensual relationships.
    I’m a fan of Lewinsky, and what she is doing now, and her extremely dignified public presence. She has every right to any feelings she has. I do think that she would have been able to put it all behind her much more easily if it hadn’t been for Starr and his sidekick Kavanaugh.
    As for Clinton, he’s been held accountable. The fact that his most dogged detractors now support Trump, a personified offense against #metoo, speaks volumes about their own sincerity and integrity.

  546. #metoo is about rather more than that – power disparities, for example.
    Clinton and Lewinsky were two adults, who at the time of their relationship, both believed that their affair was consensual.
    The idea of “power disparities” as some kind of general concept is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a relationship between two people of completely equal power. The farther back in history one goes, the more certain it is that any relationship between a man and a woman contained gross power disparities. In our time, any relationship between a wealthy and less wealthy person would contain huge power disparities. Whose job is it to make assumptions about that power disparity? How about race as a power disparity, or citizenship? Are we all going to point fingers at those seemingly consensual relationships too?
    People have relationships in the normal course of their lives, many of which are disappointing or don’t turn into long-term relationships or marriages. Young people commonly go through one or more ill-advised romantic experiences before “settling down.” Older people, and “settled” people are susceptible too. Literature and biographies are filled with these stories. The Clinton/Lewinsky affair was far from the first White House extramarital relationship. Among Clinton’s Congressional accusers was a pedophile and more than one philanderer. Lewinsky, who initiated the relationship, did not work for Clinton when the affair happened. It was a very bad idea for many reasons to have engaged in that relationship.
    Extra-marital affairs are assumed to be betrayals. But just as there are many varieties of power disparities, there are many varieties of betrayals.
    The #metoo movement is long overdue for calling out people who take advantage of their power to coerce unwilling people. It shouldn’t be confused with messy or unwise (or immoral, if people want to go there) consensual relationships.
    I’m a fan of Lewinsky, and what she is doing now, and her extremely dignified public presence. She has every right to any feelings she has. I do think that she would have been able to put it all behind her much more easily if it hadn’t been for Starr and his sidekick Kavanaugh.
    As for Clinton, he’s been held accountable. The fact that his most dogged detractors now support Trump, a personified offense against #metoo, speaks volumes about their own sincerity and integrity.

  549. Nigel, as I said, she’s entitled to her feelings and to her own opinion about what transpired, and I don’t blame her. She acknowledges that it’s complicated. We can’t really know how she would be feeling now if her name hadn’t been turned into an epithet by the sensationalized investigation, 24/7 news coverage and massive bullying brought on by the Starr investigation.
    I’m sympathetic to her, but part of the “complication” is that powerful men are very attractive to young women, and sometimes relationships work out to both people’s advantage. The sexist term “trophy wife” comes to mind. Complicated.
    As to Clinton, I doubt he wanted the fallout to happen either. I hope that means that we should now hold our Presidents to a higher standard in terms of their reputation for chastity. How’s that working out?

  550. Nigel, as I said, she’s entitled to her feelings and to her own opinion about what transpired, and I don’t blame her. She acknowledges that it’s complicated. We can’t really know how she would be feeling now if her name hadn’t been turned into an epithet by the sensationalized investigation, 24/7 news coverage and massive bullying brought on by the Starr investigation.
    I’m sympathetic to her, but part of the “complication” is that powerful men are very attractive to young women, and sometimes relationships work out to both people’s advantage. The sexist term “trophy wife” comes to mind. Complicated.
    As to Clinton, I doubt he wanted the fallout to happen either. I hope that means that we should now hold our Presidents to a higher standard in terms of their reputation for chastity. How’s that working out?

  551. I am pretty sure that Starr and Kavanaugh were looking also to provide a report for purposes of impeachment.
    Absolutely. The so-called Starr “investigation” was nothing short of a tawdry attempt to gin up something, anything, to bring to the GOP controlled House to justify a vote to impeach Clinton.
    The stink of this stain on our politics has yet to dissipate.

  552. I am pretty sure that Starr and Kavanaugh were looking also to provide a report for purposes of impeachment.
    Absolutely. The so-called Starr “investigation” was nothing short of a tawdry attempt to gin up something, anything, to bring to the GOP controlled House to justify a vote to impeach Clinton.
    The stink of this stain on our politics has yet to dissipate.

  553. We prefer that they not have a partisan agenda.
    Supreme Court justices have always been selected on partisan criteria ranging from pure cronyism to ‘get this guy out of my hair’, but the gist of it is, “does this person agree (more or less) with my politics?”.
    Kavanaugh is a reactionary partisan hack of the highest order, holding opinions that would never make it through a Senate composed mostly of so-called ‘moderates’ much less liberals. Based on his outrageous judicial record he should be ‘Borked’ and soundly.

  554. We prefer that they not have a partisan agenda.
    Supreme Court justices have always been selected on partisan criteria ranging from pure cronyism to ‘get this guy out of my hair’, but the gist of it is, “does this person agree (more or less) with my politics?”.
    Kavanaugh is a reactionary partisan hack of the highest order, holding opinions that would never make it through a Senate composed mostly of so-called ‘moderates’ much less liberals. Based on his outrageous judicial record he should be ‘Borked’ and soundly.

  555. Let’s think about this.
    OK, I’ll bite.
    Imagine yourself a Republican Senator,
    Beyond my limits of imagination, but continue.
    especially one just (re)elected this year. You won’t face the voters again for 6 years – which is an eternity.
    That is not an eternity.
    By then, if someone is going to primary you, they will have more recent issues to use;
    Old issues are often hard issues and have a long shelf life.
    Trump, if he is gone,
    Hey, now. Cart. Horse!
    will be like a three years’ ago Super Bowl: even if there was a horrible call, it’s no longer a big motivator in conversations.
    It will be an open sore with his base…the base of the GOP.
    And he’s doing stuff that hurts/irritates lots of your constituents.
    THEY DON’T FUCKING CARE. You seem to have overlooked that such considerations are not their primary focus.

  556. Let’s think about this.
    OK, I’ll bite.
    Imagine yourself a Republican Senator,
    Beyond my limits of imagination, but continue.
    especially one just (re)elected this year. You won’t face the voters again for 6 years – which is an eternity.
    That is not an eternity.
    By then, if someone is going to primary you, they will have more recent issues to use;
    Old issues are often hard issues and have a long shelf life.
    Trump, if he is gone,
    Hey, now. Cart. Horse!
    will be like a three years’ ago Super Bowl: even if there was a horrible call, it’s no longer a big motivator in conversations.
    It will be an open sore with his base…the base of the GOP.
    And he’s doing stuff that hurts/irritates lots of your constituents.
    THEY DON’T FUCKING CARE. You seem to have overlooked that such considerations are not their primary focus.

  561. I am pretty sure that Starr and Kavanaugh were looking also to provide a report for purposes of impeachment.
    No doubt. (R)’s were determined to bring down clinton, even if they had to make us all sniff the dirty panties to do it.
    And Kavanaugh was right in the middle of it.
    Which is my point.

  562. I am pretty sure that Starr and Kavanaugh were looking also to provide a report for purposes of impeachment.
    No doubt. (R)’s were determined to bring down clinton, even if they had to make us all sniff the dirty panties to do it.
    And Kavanaugh was right in the middle of it.
    Which is my point.

  563. wj: And he’s doing stuff that hurts/irritates lots of your constituents.
    ….
    bobbyp: THEY DON’T FUCKING CARE. You seem to have overlooked that such considerations are not their primary focus.
    Say, rather, some of them don’t care. All they want is to lash out — and Trump accomplishes that. But they aren’t the whole base of the GOP.
    Rather more are people who, whether they are ready to acknowledge it yet or not, simply got conned. They got seriously conned by Trump. (Before that, they got conned by the whole “trickle-down” delusion.)
    If they start hurting, they will care. Trump’s trade wars are starting to do that (and Republican Senators from the Midwest are noticing). If the requirement to insure people with preexisting conditions gets successfully nullified, those constituents will notice that, too.

  564. wj: And he’s doing stuff that hurts/irritates lots of your constituents.
    ….
    bobbyp: THEY DON’T FUCKING CARE. You seem to have overlooked that such considerations are not their primary focus.
    Say, rather, some of them don’t care. All they want is to lash out — and Trump accomplishes that. But they aren’t the whole base of the GOP.
    Rather more are people who, whether they are ready to acknowledge it yet or not, simply got conned. They got seriously conned by Trump. (Before that, they got conned by the whole “trickle-down” delusion.)
    If they start hurting, they will care. Trump’s trade wars are starting to do that (and Republican Senators from the Midwest are noticing). If the requirement to insure people with preexisting conditions gets successfully nullified, those constituents will notice that, too.

  565. i get Frank’s point. but if he’d look at what Dems are actually running on, it’s pretty much what Frank says they should be running on. yeah, there’s a lot of talk about Trump, but it’s not coming from the elected Dems so much.

  566. i get Frank’s point. but if he’d look at what Dems are actually running on, it’s pretty much what Frank says they should be running on. yeah, there’s a lot of talk about Trump, but it’s not coming from the elected Dems so much.

  569. nothing about Kavanaugh is acceptable.
    but he’s going to be seated because the GOP, a cult, doesn’t care. they just want that seat filled before November.

  570. nothing about Kavanaugh is acceptable.
    but he’s going to be seated because the GOP, a cult, doesn’t care. they just want that seat filled before November.

  571. I can agree with both Lemieux and Frank and the Democratic Party could still fall short this Fall and mp could win a second term in 2020.
    Which tells me something much more ferociously radical is required to excise the republican/conservative mestastases from the body politic.

  572. I can agree with both Lemieux and Frank and the Democratic Party could still fall short this Fall and mp could win a second term in 2020.
    Which tells me something much more ferociously radical is required to excise the republican/conservative mestastases from the body politic.

  573. yeah, Trump could certainly win. the economy is rolling along pretty well. but, and i hate to even think it, the economy has been on the upswing since 2008, and that’s a pretty long run. historically long. can we keep it up another two years? (i hope so) but maybe not.

  574. yeah, Trump could certainly win. the economy is rolling along pretty well. but, and i hate to even think it, the economy has been on the upswing since 2008, and that’s a pretty long run. historically long. can we keep it up another two years? (i hope so) but maybe not.

  575. Part of the reason the economy is going so well is the deficit spending that’s going on. It’s funny how so many previously vocal defict hawks have suddenly become silent. At least the people who couldn’t give a sh*t about the environment are consistent. Our economy is essentially on steroids right now. Big and strong, but it might not have a functioning liver at some point in the future if it keeps going this way.

  576. Part of the reason the economy is going so well is the deficit spending that’s going on. It’s funny how so many previously vocal defict hawks have suddenly become silent. At least the people who couldn’t give a sh*t about the environment are consistent. Our economy is essentially on steroids right now. Big and strong, but it might not have a functioning liver at some point in the future if it keeps going this way.

  577. The economy is good, and maybe it will stay that way. Who knows. ‘
    Nobody seems to want to talk about it, but I’m quite worried about the fact that our election systems are still subject to being hacked, whether by the Russians or the Republicans, not that there’s necessarily a difference.
    Also, since troves of emails on RNC servers, which were supposed to have been on US government servers, were apparently hacked by Russians, I think the American people should get hold of some more of them, and not leave government transparency up to Chuck Grassley.
    Although it is extremely important to do whatever we can the old fashioned way, by getting out the vote, etc., I would like to see a little more energy by Democrats to contest the various illegalities that Republicans have been perpetrating on the country for the past twenty years (or so). This is an interesting twitter thread about the RNC server and what it contains.
    It seems that in 2008, because Obama won so solidly, people were lulled into some kind of stupor about the routine villainy of Republicans with regard to how they “win” elections. I think that’s a place where Democrats could improve their game. Of course, now that we’re losing the courts for good, it’s going to be a bit more difficult to do that in the usual way.

  578. The economy is good, and maybe it will stay that way. Who knows. ‘
    Nobody seems to want to talk about it, but I’m quite worried about the fact that our election systems are still subject to being hacked, whether by the Russians or the Republicans, not that there’s necessarily a difference.
    Also, since troves of emails on RNC servers, which were supposed to have been on US government servers, were apparently hacked by Russians, I think the American people should get hold of some more of them, and not leave government transparency up to Chuck Grassley.
    Although it is extremely important to do whatever we can the old fashioned way, by getting out the vote, etc., I would like to see a little more energy by Democrats to contest the various illegalities that Republicans have been perpetrating on the country for the past twenty years (or so). This is an interesting twitter thread about the RNC server and what it contains.
    It seems that in 2008, because Obama won so solidly, people were lulled into some kind of stupor about the routine villainy of Republicans with regard to how they “win” elections. I think that’s a place where Democrats could improve their game. Of course, now that we’re losing the courts for good, it’s going to be a bit more difficult to do that in the usual way.

  579. I think that’s a place where Democrats could improve their game
    don’tcha’ think? If the economy tanks, sure, we get most likely get back a good chunk of Trump voters (Hillary haters, but not the ideologues and not most of the racists-but some).
    That, however, is not a plan.
    We need turn out. We need to put a great big HUGE dent in the great mass that does not even bother to vote.
    We need to find out what, if anything, can motivate them.
    The “New Dem” message in that regard was a total failure (Clinton won thanks to Ross P.). Maybe the “let’s punch a few hippies” types of Dems need to get an ‘effing clue. I’m not saying that T. Frank is correct in all respects, but getting back to full throated and exuberant New Deal Liberalism (aka Sander’s “socialism”) might be worth a try.

  580. I think that’s a place where Democrats could improve their game
    don’tcha’ think? If the economy tanks, sure, we get most likely get back a good chunk of Trump voters (Hillary haters, but not the ideologues and not most of the racists-but some).
    That, however, is not a plan.
    We need turn out. We need to put a great big HUGE dent in the great mass that does not even bother to vote.
    We need to find out what, if anything, can motivate them.
    The “New Dem” message in that regard was a total failure (Clinton won thanks to Ross P.). Maybe the “let’s punch a few hippies” types of Dems need to get an ‘effing clue. I’m not saying that T. Frank is correct in all respects, but getting back to full throated and exuberant New Deal Liberalism (aka Sander’s “socialism”) might be worth a try.

  581. Obama won in 2008 because…
    1. The economy was in free fall
    2. George Bush was shown to be an absolutely awful president.
    3. Voters were pretty much evenly split, even when the tide ran against Dems (stolen election of 2000).
    4. We had a great candidate.
    No. 4 was the least important of these.

  582. Obama won in 2008 because…
    1. The economy was in free fall
    2. George Bush was shown to be an absolutely awful president.
    3. Voters were pretty much evenly split, even when the tide ran against Dems (stolen election of 2000).
    4. We had a great candidate.
    No. 4 was the least important of these.

  583. They got seriously conned by Trump. (Before that, they got conned by the whole “trickle-down” delusion.
    They will continue to be conned because they have demonstrated, over and over that they can be conned rather easily. Beyond seeing most of them standing in soup lines or selling apples on the street corner, I don’t see where anything a Dem candidate can say that will reach them.

  584. They got seriously conned by Trump. (Before that, they got conned by the whole “trickle-down” delusion.
    They will continue to be conned because they have demonstrated, over and over that they can be conned rather easily. Beyond seeing most of them standing in soup lines or selling apples on the street corner, I don’t see where anything a Dem candidate can say that will reach them.

  585. As with 9/11, Clinton/Lewinsky was the stuff of republican/conservative partisan political wetdreams and chugging keggers a la Paul Ryan’s murderous fratboy aspirations to defund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and mp’s noting how much more erect and engorged the downtown mp tower seemed with the WTC turned into carcinogenic dust.
    That Democrats should not ask questions of Kavanugh the latter might not answer and/or obfuscate is just so much elitist, smarmy shite.
    The judgement being stored up against the malicious, malignant conservative/republican movement has the pressure of a thousand Yellowstone lava domes behind it.
    Don’t expect to live through it when it goes. Courts, Schmourts. They now exist to protect the lives and property of only several percent of the American population.
    Fuck the Courts.
    The republican species will face extinction.

  586. As with 9/11, Clinton/Lewinsky was the stuff of republican/conservative partisan political wetdreams and chugging keggers a la Paul Ryan’s murderous fratboy aspirations to defund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and mp’s noting how much more erect and engorged the downtown mp tower seemed with the WTC turned into carcinogenic dust.
    That Democrats should not ask questions of Kavanugh the latter might not answer and/or obfuscate is just so much elitist, smarmy shite.
    The judgement being stored up against the malicious, malignant conservative/republican movement has the pressure of a thousand Yellowstone lava domes behind it.
    Don’t expect to live through it when it goes. Courts, Schmourts. They now exist to protect the lives and property of only several percent of the American population.
    Fuck the Courts.
    The republican species will face extinction.

  587. We need to find out what, if anything, can motivate them.
    There was an excellent start in VA last year. GOP shenanigans, of course, killed a House of Delegates majority, but we did really well.
    As to hippy punching, it depends on the hippy. Bernie’s tax returns and innumeracy were a huge red flag. We need a trustworthy candidate who will win. Bernie is not it.

  588. We need to find out what, if anything, can motivate them.
    There was an excellent start in VA last year. GOP shenanigans, of course, killed a House of Delegates majority, but we did really well.
    As to hippy punching, it depends on the hippy. Bernie’s tax returns and innumeracy were a huge red flag. We need a trustworthy candidate who will win. Bernie is not it.

  589. I’m puzzled. Marty tells us that Kavanaugh might be “a decent family man”. Why should I care about that? Kavanaugh, all those years ago, wrote that he thought Bill Clinton’s sexual goings on “disgusting”. (He makes a show of concern for Lewinski, but that’s an obvious lie because if he cared he wouldn’t be so keen to drag her through the mud.) Why does he think it matters what he thinks disgusting, if it’s been done in private?
    Why all this concern about people’s private lives? Not everyone shares my sense of sexual morality, or my sexual tastes. Few people make good presidents, or good Supreme Court judges. What have these things got to do with each other?

  590. I’m puzzled. Marty tells us that Kavanaugh might be “a decent family man”. Why should I care about that? Kavanaugh, all those years ago, wrote that he thought Bill Clinton’s sexual goings on “disgusting”. (He makes a show of concern for Lewinski, but that’s an obvious lie because if he cared he wouldn’t be so keen to drag her through the mud.) Why does he think it matters what he thinks disgusting, if it’s been done in private?
    Why all this concern about people’s private lives? Not everyone shares my sense of sexual morality, or my sexual tastes. Few people make good presidents, or good Supreme Court judges. What have these things got to do with each other?

  591. As I continue my odyssey trying to turn a purple state blue, I was talking to another soccer dad who also just moved here. He also abandoned the republican party, and will only ‘vote his values.’ He is educated, a war veteran, father and husband with a working wife and several kids.
    He is a religious voter, and while concerned about the amorality of the administration, would be a hard sell on gender neutral bathrooms. I could sell him on legal marijuana, and gay wedding cakes, I think. We talked about guns for a while. Not rules, but about the cool rifle he just bought (and I generally address that issue with it being a cool gun, but there is no way my kid should be able to buy it: Do you want him to have it in your neighborhood? Some rules similar to buying beer seems a minimum requirement.)
    He is a reachable voter, but is definitely the kind of guy that will be lost with some of the more progressive issues.
    Smart, educated, hardworking, nice wife and kids. LDS.
    I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple. I know that is the age old question, and having momentum and energy matters, but on the ground, it makes the job harder.
    The Republicans seemed to do a good job of being united until after they won power. Then they ceded all decisions to the far right, so I don’t support following that model, but I do think that celebrating primary wins against safe seats is a mistake that will make actually winning power harder.

  592. As I continue my odyssey trying to turn a purple state blue, I was talking to another soccer dad who also just moved here. He also abandoned the republican party, and will only ‘vote his values.’ He is educated, a war veteran, father and husband with a working wife and several kids.
    He is a religious voter, and while concerned about the amorality of the administration, would be a hard sell on gender neutral bathrooms. I could sell him on legal marijuana, and gay wedding cakes, I think. We talked about guns for a while. Not rules, but about the cool rifle he just bought (and I generally address that issue with it being a cool gun, but there is no way my kid should be able to buy it: Do you want him to have it in your neighborhood? Some rules similar to buying beer seems a minimum requirement.)
    He is a reachable voter, but is definitely the kind of guy that will be lost with some of the more progressive issues.
    Smart, educated, hardworking, nice wife and kids. LDS.
    I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple. I know that is the age old question, and having momentum and energy matters, but on the ground, it makes the job harder.
    The Republicans seemed to do a good job of being united until after they won power. Then they ceded all decisions to the far right, so I don’t support following that model, but I do think that celebrating primary wins against safe seats is a mistake that will make actually winning power harder.

  593. To give a specific (and not partisan!) example, Jimmy Carter is a far better human being than Bill Clinton (IMHO). But Clinton was a much better President.

  594. To give a specific (and not partisan!) example, Jimmy Carter is a far better human being than Bill Clinton (IMHO). But Clinton was a much better President.

  595. jrudkis, I hear you, but am not sure of the answer. What state are you in? (Sorry, I should remember, but I don’t.)

  596. jrudkis, I hear you, but am not sure of the answer. What state are you in? (Sorry, I should remember, but I don’t.)

  601. I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple. I know that is the age old question, and having momentum and energy matters, but on the ground, it makes the job harder.
    What if a given district in NY is in fact majority dark blue? Saying those people should have representation too isn’t the same as saying they should be in charge. There’s a difference between a party that embodies the common-enough ground between a range of views, and a party like the one the Rs have become, where the tail wags the dog. Maybe the Ds are becoming dangerously more like the Rs in this respect, or maybe not. Maybe it’s okay to have some dark blue districts in NY, MA, and CA, and some bluish-purple ones in other parts of the country.
    We seem to have forgotten, at various levels and in various contexts, how to make collective decisions together despite our differences. If the extremes run the show much longer, will the more moderate middle eventually do something about it?

  602. I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple. I know that is the age old question, and having momentum and energy matters, but on the ground, it makes the job harder.
    What if a given district in NY is in fact majority dark blue? Saying those people should have representation too isn’t the same as saying they should be in charge. There’s a difference between a party that embodies the common-enough ground between a range of views, and a party like the one the Rs have become, where the tail wags the dog. Maybe the Ds are becoming dangerously more like the Rs in this respect, or maybe not. Maybe it’s okay to have some dark blue districts in NY, MA, and CA, and some bluish-purple ones in other parts of the country.
    We seem to have forgotten, at various levels and in various contexts, how to make collective decisions together despite our differences. If the extremes run the show much longer, will the more moderate middle eventually do something about it?

  603. It is awesome. Democratic governor, split senators, lunatic right representative (only 1). Zinke represents a lot of people here, and in the truly rural areas, you can see how even universal health care doesn’t matter since there is not a grocery store or gas station, let alone a hospital. Insurance isn’t super when you are 4 hours from anything.

  604. It is awesome. Democratic governor, split senators, lunatic right representative (only 1). Zinke represents a lot of people here, and in the truly rural areas, you can see how even universal health care doesn’t matter since there is not a grocery store or gas station, let alone a hospital. Insurance isn’t super when you are 4 hours from anything.

  605. I agree, JanieM. We can have representatives who actually represent us, who then come together in a larger body and make policy, compromising in some ways, but plugging in some of our preferences, so that we all get a voice.
    Seems like some fantasy that I learned in school, but possible to actually do?

  606. I agree, JanieM. We can have representatives who actually represent us, who then come together in a larger body and make policy, compromising in some ways, but plugging in some of our preferences, so that we all get a voice.
    Seems like some fantasy that I learned in school, but possible to actually do?

  607. Gentle reader,
    Everything has been said. Everybody has said it. Enough is enough. Except this:
    If you vote for ANY Republican, at ANY level, this November, you lose my respect, my compassion, and my friendship. You declare yourself my enemy, and you can expect me to treat you as such.
    I speak only for myself. I am not “the American People”. I am not “the Democrats”. I am not “the liberal coastal elites”. And I am not anyone who is likely to ever be in a position to lend you money, hire you for a job, or help you fix a flat on the side of a dark road. You won’t have to give my enmity a second thought in what is laughingly called “real life”.
    But: vote for ANY Republican, at ANY level, in November 2018, and you will be aiding and abetting a party which has made deliberate cruelty toward immigrants inseparable from tax cuts for the rich. You really can’t expect me to hold you in anything but contempt.
    FWIW: how you plan to vote beyond this November makes no difference to me either way.
    –TP

  608. Gentle reader,
    Everything has been said. Everybody has said it. Enough is enough. Except this:
    If you vote for ANY Republican, at ANY level, this November, you lose my respect, my compassion, and my friendship. You declare yourself my enemy, and you can expect me to treat you as such.
    I speak only for myself. I am not “the American People”. I am not “the Democrats”. I am not “the liberal coastal elites”. And I am not anyone who is likely to ever be in a position to lend you money, hire you for a job, or help you fix a flat on the side of a dark road. You won’t have to give my enmity a second thought in what is laughingly called “real life”.
    But: vote for ANY Republican, at ANY level, in November 2018, and you will be aiding and abetting a party which has made deliberate cruelty toward immigrants inseparable from tax cuts for the rich. You really can’t expect me to hold you in anything but contempt.
    FWIW: how you plan to vote beyond this November makes no difference to me either way.
    –TP

  609. Sorry, jrudkis. Commented without looking at what you wrote.
    I really would like to see what Montana is like, but just to visit. I’m assuming that Helena or Missoula are in touch with civilization? Internet access?
    I like the idea of being in the wilderness for a vacation. But I need the pulse of a city (or even a suburb) day to day. Obviously, being without social services such as hospitals becomes more dangerous as we get older.

  610. Sorry, jrudkis. Commented without looking at what you wrote.
    I really would like to see what Montana is like, but just to visit. I’m assuming that Helena or Missoula are in touch with civilization? Internet access?
    I like the idea of being in the wilderness for a vacation. But I need the pulse of a city (or even a suburb) day to day. Obviously, being without social services such as hospitals becomes more dangerous as we get older.

  613. Janiem,
    It is the whole 2 party conundrum. You may be a pink republican, but if your existence supports McConnell as leader, you are unacceptable to me.
    I do paint all republicans with the far right, since they control government, regardless what Maine thinks.

  614. Janiem,
    It is the whole 2 party conundrum. You may be a pink republican, but if your existence supports McConnell as leader, you are unacceptable to me.
    I do paint all republicans with the far right, since they control government, regardless what Maine thinks.

  617. sapient,
    Yes, I have better internet at my new house than I could get in Seattle, and don’t have to subsidize century link or spectrum to get get it. Cell phone sucks a bit.
    Hospitals and universities are great. The vast stretches between them and the people who live there is the problem. The joke is it takes 4 hours to get anywhere. If you are in a place with a hospital, no problem, but if not, it takes a while to get there.
    Try Kalispell or Bozeman. Beautiful and rational.

  618. sapient,
    Yes, I have better internet at my new house than I could get in Seattle, and don’t have to subsidize century link or spectrum to get get it. Cell phone sucks a bit.
    Hospitals and universities are great. The vast stretches between them and the people who live there is the problem. The joke is it takes 4 hours to get anywhere. If you are in a place with a hospital, no problem, but if not, it takes a while to get there.
    Try Kalispell or Bozeman. Beautiful and rational.

  621. But: vote for ANY Republican, at ANY level, in November 2018, and you will be aiding and abetting a party which has made deliberate cruelty toward immigrants inseparable from tax cuts for the rich.
    IF every Republican, at every level, believed those things you might have a point, Tony. But they don’t. And the ones who don’t are working to return the GOP to the sane and compassionate party it once was.
    Will we succeed? Too early to tell. But would we really be better off if we just conceded total control to the crazies? I know they think they should have total control, and permanently. But do you really want to support them in this? Because that’s what you are advocating.
    Now if you want to argue that Republicans who are not totally beyond the pale are thin on the groung, fine. But saying that isn’t the same as your absolutism. Which, IMO, sounds very much like what the “compromise is treason” far right spouts.

  622. But: vote for ANY Republican, at ANY level, in November 2018, and you will be aiding and abetting a party which has made deliberate cruelty toward immigrants inseparable from tax cuts for the rich.
    IF every Republican, at every level, believed those things you might have a point, Tony. But they don’t. And the ones who don’t are working to return the GOP to the sane and compassionate party it once was.
    Will we succeed? Too early to tell. But would we really be better off if we just conceded total control to the crazies? I know they think they should have total control, and permanently. But do you really want to support them in this? Because that’s what you are advocating.
    Now if you want to argue that Republicans who are not totally beyond the pale are thin on the groung, fine. But saying that isn’t the same as your absolutism. Which, IMO, sounds very much like what the “compromise is treason” far right spouts.

  623. jrudkis, how do we get to the point where scum like McConnell don’t hold power? As far as I can see, it requires both pushing the Republicans into the minority in the legislature AND then electing the kind of Republicans who view him with the same disgust that we do.
    If you’re voting for a member of Congress, agreed you vote for the Democrat in order to achieve the first step. But if you are looking at a state legislature or other office where Republicans are not in control, then you need to vote for Republicans who represent where you want the GOP to go — to the extent you can find them.
    The alternative is a totally awful Republican party, top to bottom. Which, eventually, will regain power — and you know it will, no matter how awful it is. You’ve got to act now to keep that from happening.

  624. jrudkis, how do we get to the point where scum like McConnell don’t hold power? As far as I can see, it requires both pushing the Republicans into the minority in the legislature AND then electing the kind of Republicans who view him with the same disgust that we do.
    If you’re voting for a member of Congress, agreed you vote for the Democrat in order to achieve the first step. But if you are looking at a state legislature or other office where Republicans are not in control, then you need to vote for Republicans who represent where you want the GOP to go — to the extent you can find them.
    The alternative is a totally awful Republican party, top to bottom. Which, eventually, will regain power — and you know it will, no matter how awful it is. You’ve got to act now to keep that from happening.

  625. wj,
    After redistricting from the 2020 census, it may be okay for remedial GOP. State legislatures control generally the federal gerrymandering. In a safe legislature, against a corrupt democrat, maybe.
    Until then, I can’t imagine voting for anyone with an R.

  626. wj,
    After redistricting from the 2020 census, it may be okay for remedial GOP. State legislatures control generally the federal gerrymandering. In a safe legislature, against a corrupt democrat, maybe.
    Until then, I can’t imagine voting for anyone with an R.

  627. wj,
    My “absolutism” is explicitly confined to THIS NOVEMBER.
    You think you can rebuild the Republican Party into something decent people need not be ashamed of? More power to you. You think you stand a chance to do that if the current GOP keeps the House? You’re nuts.
    –TP

  628. wj,
    My “absolutism” is explicitly confined to THIS NOVEMBER.
    You think you can rebuild the Republican Party into something decent people need not be ashamed of? More power to you. You think you stand a chance to do that if the current GOP keeps the House? You’re nuts.
    –TP

  629. No doubt my view is colored by where I am. California’s legislature is going to have a Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. (Not to mention that the legislature doesn’t do redistricting here.) So “never vote for any Republican at any level” just doesn’t make sense to me.
    I can see that there are places where it does, today. No argument. But nationwide, without exception? No.

  630. No doubt my view is colored by where I am. California’s legislature is going to have a Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. (Not to mention that the legislature doesn’t do redistricting here.) So “never vote for any Republican at any level” just doesn’t make sense to me.
    I can see that there are places where it does, today. No argument. But nationwide, without exception? No.

  631. Tony, I absolutely agree with you about this November with regard to the House. (And the Senate, for that matter.) My disagreement was with the “anywhere, at any level” part.

  632. Tony, I absolutely agree with you about this November with regard to the House. (And the Senate, for that matter.) My disagreement was with the “anywhere, at any level” part.

  633. wj,
    I assume CA has age requirements for political office at every level. So anybody running for city council or school board or dog catcher as a Republican is a grown-up who deliberately accepts the party label of Mitch McConnell, David Nunes, and of course He, Trump. Presumably, for a reason. Okay: what reason?
    –TP

  634. wj,
    I assume CA has age requirements for political office at every level. So anybody running for city council or school board or dog catcher as a Republican is a grown-up who deliberately accepts the party label of Mitch McConnell, David Nunes, and of course He, Trump. Presumably, for a reason. Okay: what reason?
    –TP

  635. Time was, anyone who was a Democrat deliberately accepted the party label of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Orval Faubus and Robert Byrd. Did that make them supporters of the KKK?
    What I’m saying is, there’s more to any party than just its highest profile scum. And there are some of us who would like to see our party once again characterized by Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.

  636. Time was, anyone who was a Democrat deliberately accepted the party label of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Orval Faubus and Robert Byrd. Did that make them supporters of the KKK?
    What I’m saying is, there’s more to any party than just its highest profile scum. And there are some of us who would like to see our party once again characterized by Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.

  637. Time was, anyone who was a Democrat deliberately accepted the party label of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Orval Faubus and Robert Byrd. Did that make them supporters of the KKK?
    Had any of them been in the White House, absolutely.

  638. Time was, anyone who was a Democrat deliberately accepted the party label of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Orval Faubus and Robert Byrd. Did that make them supporters of the KKK?
    Had any of them been in the White House, absolutely.

  639. I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple
    Jane beat me to it – the preferences of voters in Queens and the Bronx should really not matter to your purple guy.
    I don’t expect everyone in the country to be dark blue, or blue at all. I don’t expect everyone on my block to be dark blue, and they are not. I, personally, am not “dark blue” on all topics and issues.
    I’m aware that there are places that are so rural that the concerns of urban areas simply don’t register. Those places have their own issues. Insurance don’t mean much if you don’t even have a doctor, right.
    What I would suggest is that places like that would benefit from both a doctor and insurance, and that the magic of the invisible hand is not likely to make that happen, and that therefore it might be a useful place for the public sector to step in.
    I don’t have any great urge to force that on anyone. If it’s really important to your town or county to not have a doctor or insurance, so be it.
    If it’s important for some individual to have neither, however, it seems wrong – to me – for that person to prevent others from having it.

  640. I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple
    Jane beat me to it – the preferences of voters in Queens and the Bronx should really not matter to your purple guy.
    I don’t expect everyone in the country to be dark blue, or blue at all. I don’t expect everyone on my block to be dark blue, and they are not. I, personally, am not “dark blue” on all topics and issues.
    I’m aware that there are places that are so rural that the concerns of urban areas simply don’t register. Those places have their own issues. Insurance don’t mean much if you don’t even have a doctor, right.
    What I would suggest is that places like that would benefit from both a doctor and insurance, and that the magic of the invisible hand is not likely to make that happen, and that therefore it might be a useful place for the public sector to step in.
    I don’t have any great urge to force that on anyone. If it’s really important to your town or county to not have a doctor or insurance, so be it.
    If it’s important for some individual to have neither, however, it seems wrong – to me – for that person to prevent others from having it.

  641. I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple.
    Not picking on jrudkis, but it’s interesting that you never hear the concern expressed over letting a state go to deep red cause it might push people over to blue.

  642. I wonder if turning light blue to dark blue in New York is worth losing this voter in purple.
    Not picking on jrudkis, but it’s interesting that you never hear the concern expressed over letting a state go to deep red cause it might push people over to blue.

  643. One for Marty….
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-donald-trump.html?
    “Judge, you’ve spoken about the president’s unlimited prosecutorial discretion,” Harris noted. “Does that discretion allow him to target his political enemies for prosecution and spare his friends?”
    Kavanaugh began droning on about how the limits of prosecutorial discretion require further study before Harris cut him off, repeating a version of the simple yes-no question. “Do you agree with the principle that a sitting president should not politicize the Justice Department?” she asked. Kavanaugh said he couldn’t answer. “That is asking me to weigh in on the political arena,” he offered.

  644. One for Marty….
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-donald-trump.html?
    “Judge, you’ve spoken about the president’s unlimited prosecutorial discretion,” Harris noted. “Does that discretion allow him to target his political enemies for prosecution and spare his friends?”
    Kavanaugh began droning on about how the limits of prosecutorial discretion require further study before Harris cut him off, repeating a version of the simple yes-no question. “Do you agree with the principle that a sitting president should not politicize the Justice Department?” she asked. Kavanaugh said he couldn’t answer. “That is asking me to weigh in on the political arena,” he offered.

  645. Not picking on jrudkis, but it’s interesting that you never hear the concern expressed over letting a state go to deep red cause it might push people over to blue.
    Indeed. Remember, only Democrats have agency.
    🙂

  646. Not picking on jrudkis, but it’s interesting that you never hear the concern expressed over letting a state go to deep red cause it might push people over to blue.
    Indeed. Remember, only Democrats have agency.
    🙂

  647. you never hear the concern expressed over letting a state go to deep red cause it might push people over to blue.
    I disagree. The Freedom Caucus and the Hastert Rule combined makes the Dark Red pockets significantly impact any chance I could vote for any Republican. I suppose if the Democrats don’t apply the Hastert rule, it would be of less significance to have far left candidate insurgencies/primary challenges. It is having to choose between the extremes that makes it a difficult choice for many, especially when you are trying to recruit them away from the party they have always supported.

  648. you never hear the concern expressed over letting a state go to deep red cause it might push people over to blue.
    I disagree. The Freedom Caucus and the Hastert Rule combined makes the Dark Red pockets significantly impact any chance I could vote for any Republican. I suppose if the Democrats don’t apply the Hastert rule, it would be of less significance to have far left candidate insurgencies/primary challenges. It is having to choose between the extremes that makes it a difficult choice for many, especially when you are trying to recruit them away from the party they have always supported.

  649. In some ways, I agree with wj.
    Democrats should *massively* shift their registration to R, so that they can vote in GOP primaries*, and punish the nutjobs.
    Then go ahead and vote D in the general election.
    (*offer does not apply in CA, or wherever there are ‘jungle primaries’)

  650. In some ways, I agree with wj.
    Democrats should *massively* shift their registration to R, so that they can vote in GOP primaries*, and punish the nutjobs.
    Then go ahead and vote D in the general election.
    (*offer does not apply in CA, or wherever there are ‘jungle primaries’)

  653. What does everyone think of Obama’s re-entry into politics? I’m kind of torn on this one. Does his public presence energize more Democrats who like him or Republicans who hate him?
    I’d rub my chin if I weren’t so busy scratching my head over this one.

  654. What does everyone think of Obama’s re-entry into politics? I’m kind of torn on this one. Does his public presence energize more Democrats who like him or Republicans who hate him?
    I’d rub my chin if I weren’t so busy scratching my head over this one.

  655. jrudkis: It is having to choose between the extremes that makes it a difficult choice for many, especially when you are trying to recruit them away from the party they have always supported.
    This is one of those difficulties that’s built in to politics and human nature, as you sort of said in the comment that started this topic thread. I’m not much of an activist, but as soon as I became a more visible one — in 1995, during the first of Maine’s many gay-related statewide referenda — I started getting frustrated that lots of activists were doing it wrong. That is, I had a notion of how best to change the world by changing people’s minds, and I thought that if everyone would do it my way, we’d get there faster and with a lot less backlash and resistance.
    Maybe, maybe not, and we’ll never know! We got there the way we got there, with modes of activism ranging from in your face ACT UP actions to quiet, non-confrontational conversations like the one you describe with the soccer dad.
    There’s a sort of Buddhist (any real Buddhists here feel free to squash me if appropriate) detachment from outcomes that comes in handy if we’re hoping to change people’s minds. It’s a mysterious, tricky process and sometimes it’s only possible to plant a seed and hope it sprouts someday. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. It feels like we’re in an emergency in this country right now, and I think we are, but unfortunately bopping people over the head to make them come to their senses faster doesn’t work.
    Finally — if a district is heavily deep blue, it seems likely that at least some of the deeper blue people might stay home in the general, if they perennially get only centrist candidates to vote for. That’s another tricky part of the big picture process. What you think is optimum for gaining a vote from a formerly red person turning pink->purple-light-blue etc., might well knock off some of the deeper blue voters.
    Finally — has a Democratic speaker ever invoked the Hastert rule? Quick wiki search suggests Pelosi explicitly rejected it. But I’m traveling and out of time.
    Help us to be the always hopeful
    gardeners of the spirit
    who know that without darkness
    nothing comes to birth
    as without light
    nothing flowers.
    — May Sarton

  656. jrudkis: It is having to choose between the extremes that makes it a difficult choice for many, especially when you are trying to recruit them away from the party they have always supported.
    This is one of those difficulties that’s built in to politics and human nature, as you sort of said in the comment that started this topic thread. I’m not much of an activist, but as soon as I became a more visible one — in 1995, during the first of Maine’s many gay-related statewide referenda — I started getting frustrated that lots of activists were doing it wrong. That is, I had a notion of how best to change the world by changing people’s minds, and I thought that if everyone would do it my way, we’d get there faster and with a lot less backlash and resistance.
    Maybe, maybe not, and we’ll never know! We got there the way we got there, with modes of activism ranging from in your face ACT UP actions to quiet, non-confrontational conversations like the one you describe with the soccer dad.
    There’s a sort of Buddhist (any real Buddhists here feel free to squash me if appropriate) detachment from outcomes that comes in handy if we’re hoping to change people’s minds. It’s a mysterious, tricky process and sometimes it’s only possible to plant a seed and hope it sprouts someday. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. It feels like we’re in an emergency in this country right now, and I think we are, but unfortunately bopping people over the head to make them come to their senses faster doesn’t work.
    Finally — if a district is heavily deep blue, it seems likely that at least some of the deeper blue people might stay home in the general, if they perennially get only centrist candidates to vote for. That’s another tricky part of the big picture process. What you think is optimum for gaining a vote from a formerly red person turning pink->purple-light-blue etc., might well knock off some of the deeper blue voters.
    Finally — has a Democratic speaker ever invoked the Hastert rule? Quick wiki search suggests Pelosi explicitly rejected it. But I’m traveling and out of time.
    Help us to be the always hopeful
    gardeners of the spirit
    who know that without darkness
    nothing comes to birth
    as without light
    nothing flowers.
    — May Sarton

  659. From Wikipedia on the Hastert Rule:

    Nancy Pelosi (2007–2011): In 2003 Pelosi, then the Minority Leader under Speaker Hastert, decried the Hastert Rule as a partisan attempt to marginalize elected members of the Democratic Party in Congress.[4] In May 2007 Pelosi said, “I’m the Speaker of the House…I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus.”[16] She also said at that time, “I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say ‘the majority of the majority does this or that.’ We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together.”[16] Pelosi’s former chief of staff, George Crawford, expanded upon this saying, “On the larger issue of the ‘majority of the majority,’ she has talked about that for a quite a while. She does want the minority party to engage in the legislative process… That’s the kind of Speakership she wants.”[16] She violated the majority-of-the-majority rule seven times during her four-year speakership.[17]

    Republicans have mostly followed it, but the biggest exception, surprisingly (to me, at least), was Boehner:

    Speaker John Boehner violated the Hastert Rule at least six times.John Boehner (2011–2015): In December 2012 Boehner told his caucus in a conference call, “I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes” and that did not have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.[18][19] Nonetheless, Boehner allowed a vote on January 1, 2013 on the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as the “fiscal cliff bill”) with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor (a support level of only 35%) and the bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).[20][21] The bill’s passage marked the first time in more than ten years that a measure passed a Republican-controlled House when opposed by a majority of House Republicans.[22] In response, former House Speaker Hastert criticized Boehner for not adhering to the “majority of the majority” governing principle by saying, “Maybe you can do it once, maybe you can do it twice, but when you start making deals when you have to get Democrats to pass the legislation, you are not in power anymore.”[23][24]
    Two weeks later, on January 15, 2013, Boehner allowed a vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy to take place without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus.[1] The vote passed with 241 votes, but only 49 of the votes were from Republicans or a mere 21% of the majority.[25] Since then some notable Republicans have publicly questioned whether the “majority of the majority” rule is still viable or have proposed jettisoning it altogether.[25][26][27]
    In spite of all the criticism, on February 28, 2013 Boehner brought a third bill for a vote on the floor of the house which did not have support of majority of Republicans. The bill, an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, received the vote of only 38% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.[28]
    On April 9, 2013, the “rule” was violated a fourth time, on a bill about federal acquisition of historic sites. The bill was passed with more than two thirds of the House vote but without a majority of the GOP caucus.[29] Shortly thereafter, Boehner said, “Listen: It was never a rule to begin with. And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”[30]
    On October 16, 2013, Boehner again violated the rule by allowing a floor vote to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. The House voted 285 to 144 less than three hours after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. The “yea” votes consisted of 198 Democrats and only 87 Republicans, less than 40% of the conference.[31]
    On February 11, 2014, Boehner broke the rule by allowing a floor vote on a “clean” debt ceiling bill. The bill passed the house 221-201, with only 28 Republicans voting “yea” along with 193 Democrats.[32]

  660. From Wikipedia on the Hastert Rule:

    Nancy Pelosi (2007–2011): In 2003 Pelosi, then the Minority Leader under Speaker Hastert, decried the Hastert Rule as a partisan attempt to marginalize elected members of the Democratic Party in Congress.[4] In May 2007 Pelosi said, “I’m the Speaker of the House…I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus.”[16] She also said at that time, “I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say ‘the majority of the majority does this or that.’ We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together.”[16] Pelosi’s former chief of staff, George Crawford, expanded upon this saying, “On the larger issue of the ‘majority of the majority,’ she has talked about that for a quite a while. She does want the minority party to engage in the legislative process… That’s the kind of Speakership she wants.”[16] She violated the majority-of-the-majority rule seven times during her four-year speakership.[17]

    Republicans have mostly followed it, but the biggest exception, surprisingly (to me, at least), was Boehner:

    Speaker John Boehner violated the Hastert Rule at least six times.John Boehner (2011–2015): In December 2012 Boehner told his caucus in a conference call, “I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes” and that did not have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.[18][19] Nonetheless, Boehner allowed a vote on January 1, 2013 on the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as the “fiscal cliff bill”) with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor (a support level of only 35%) and the bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).[20][21] The bill’s passage marked the first time in more than ten years that a measure passed a Republican-controlled House when opposed by a majority of House Republicans.[22] In response, former House Speaker Hastert criticized Boehner for not adhering to the “majority of the majority” governing principle by saying, “Maybe you can do it once, maybe you can do it twice, but when you start making deals when you have to get Democrats to pass the legislation, you are not in power anymore.”[23][24]
    Two weeks later, on January 15, 2013, Boehner allowed a vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy to take place without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus.[1] The vote passed with 241 votes, but only 49 of the votes were from Republicans or a mere 21% of the majority.[25] Since then some notable Republicans have publicly questioned whether the “majority of the majority” rule is still viable or have proposed jettisoning it altogether.[25][26][27]
    In spite of all the criticism, on February 28, 2013 Boehner brought a third bill for a vote on the floor of the house which did not have support of majority of Republicans. The bill, an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, received the vote of only 38% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.[28]
    On April 9, 2013, the “rule” was violated a fourth time, on a bill about federal acquisition of historic sites. The bill was passed with more than two thirds of the House vote but without a majority of the GOP caucus.[29] Shortly thereafter, Boehner said, “Listen: It was never a rule to begin with. And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”[30]
    On October 16, 2013, Boehner again violated the rule by allowing a floor vote to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. The House voted 285 to 144 less than three hours after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. The “yea” votes consisted of 198 Democrats and only 87 Republicans, less than 40% of the conference.[31]
    On February 11, 2014, Boehner broke the rule by allowing a floor vote on a “clean” debt ceiling bill. The bill passed the house 221-201, with only 28 Republicans voting “yea” along with 193 Democrats.[32]

  661. if a district is heavily deep blue, it seems likely that at least some of the deeper blue people might stay home in the general
    likewise, if a district is deep red at least some of the deeper blue people will stay home because their votes are not going to matter.

  662. if a district is heavily deep blue, it seems likely that at least some of the deeper blue people might stay home in the general
    likewise, if a district is deep red at least some of the deeper blue people will stay home because their votes are not going to matter.

  663. I’m trying to figure out what districts are going “deeper blue”.
    Ocasio Cortez defeated Joe Crowley. Who is now running on the Working Families ticket. She’s younger, a woman, and Latina, which is probably a better reflection of her district these days than Crowley’s Irish roots.
    Ayanna Pressley defeated Mike Capuano in MA 7. There is hardly any difference between them on policy. She’s younger, a woman, and black, which is probably a better reflection of her district these days than Capuano.
    Deeper blue? No, not really.

  664. I’m trying to figure out what districts are going “deeper blue”.
    Ocasio Cortez defeated Joe Crowley. Who is now running on the Working Families ticket. She’s younger, a woman, and Latina, which is probably a better reflection of her district these days than Crowley’s Irish roots.
    Ayanna Pressley defeated Mike Capuano in MA 7. There is hardly any difference between them on policy. She’s younger, a woman, and black, which is probably a better reflection of her district these days than Capuano.
    Deeper blue? No, not really.

  665. There’s a sort of Buddhist … detachment from outcomes that comes in handy if we’re hoping to change people’s minds.
    Amen.

  666. There’s a sort of Buddhist … detachment from outcomes that comes in handy if we’re hoping to change people’s minds.
    Amen.

  667. What does everyone think of Obama’s re-entry into politics? I’m kind of torn on this one. Does his public presence energize more Democrats who like him or Republicans who hate him?
    I’d say the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The Republicans who hate him aren’t going to be motivated any more than they already are. And if anything, he might help move the Republicans who voted for him, but get twitchy about Pelosi.

  668. What does everyone think of Obama’s re-entry into politics? I’m kind of torn on this one. Does his public presence energize more Democrats who like him or Republicans who hate him?
    I’d say the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The Republicans who hate him aren’t going to be motivated any more than they already are. And if anything, he might help move the Republicans who voted for him, but get twitchy about Pelosi.

  671. The money shot ain’t worth what it once was
    Our precious bodily fluids have been sapped and impurified!!
    I blame Obama.

  672. The money shot ain’t worth what it once was
    Our precious bodily fluids have been sapped and impurified!!
    I blame Obama.

  673. Actually, it’s just another piece of the war on white men. Because if everybody’s sperm counts go to zero, there won’t be anything (i.e. negative consequences like pregnancy) to keep white women from all flocking to black men. Oh, the horror! 😉

  674. Actually, it’s just another piece of the war on white men. Because if everybody’s sperm counts go to zero, there won’t be anything (i.e. negative consequences like pregnancy) to keep white women from all flocking to black men. Oh, the horror! 😉

  675. Pelosi and Boener kept to the Hastert rule roughly the same amount. The difference is Pelosi didn’t have a 40 vote group holding her hostage. And Boener lost his dealership over it.
    To Russell’s question, I think the abolish ICE talk kills Democrats here. Reforming ICE is palatable. That is a large part of the attack ads I here.

  676. Pelosi and Boener kept to the Hastert rule roughly the same amount. The difference is Pelosi didn’t have a 40 vote group holding her hostage. And Boener lost his dealership over it.
    To Russell’s question, I think the abolish ICE talk kills Democrats here. Reforming ICE is palatable. That is a large part of the attack ads I here.

  679. I think the abolish ICE talk kills Democrats here.
    As of today, 2 out of 100 Senators and 8 out of 435 members of the House have expressed support for “abolishing ICE”.
    I recognize that optics are important, and that folks will make attack ads about any damned thing they can find. But I also think that people – voters – really do bear some responsibility for weeding out reality from the BS.
    I’m no dismissing your point, I’m just saying that there is a limit to what the (D)’s can do to court the votes of the “reachable” folks. Folks who will simply accept what attack ads say without doing a tiny bit of homework of their own may not actually be all that reachable, in the end.
    The (D)’s might do better by spending their time and effort on getting their folks to the polls.
    As an aside, in contrast to the grand total of 10 congressional (D)’s, 19 ICE agents have asked Secretary Nielsen to split the organization in two, so that the folks who are responsible for dealing with fraud, drugs, gangs, and human trafficking can do their job without having to deal with the controversies generated by the enforcement and removal folks.

  680. I think the abolish ICE talk kills Democrats here.
    As of today, 2 out of 100 Senators and 8 out of 435 members of the House have expressed support for “abolishing ICE”.
    I recognize that optics are important, and that folks will make attack ads about any damned thing they can find. But I also think that people – voters – really do bear some responsibility for weeding out reality from the BS.
    I’m no dismissing your point, I’m just saying that there is a limit to what the (D)’s can do to court the votes of the “reachable” folks. Folks who will simply accept what attack ads say without doing a tiny bit of homework of their own may not actually be all that reachable, in the end.
    The (D)’s might do better by spending their time and effort on getting their folks to the polls.
    As an aside, in contrast to the grand total of 10 congressional (D)’s, 19 ICE agents have asked Secretary Nielsen to split the organization in two, so that the folks who are responsible for dealing with fraud, drugs, gangs, and human trafficking can do their job without having to deal with the controversies generated by the enforcement and removal folks.

  681. ads in my town are all about promoting Real Conservatives who will stop the “Pelosi Tax Hikes”.
    it’s like our politics have become blended with those from a parallel universe where Nancy Pelosi is in charge of more than the House minority.

  682. ads in my town are all about promoting Real Conservatives who will stop the “Pelosi Tax Hikes”.
    it’s like our politics have become blended with those from a parallel universe where Nancy Pelosi is in charge of more than the House minority.

  683. …, so that the folks who are responsible for dealing with fraud, drugs, gangs, and human trafficking can do their job without having to deal with the controversies generated by the enforcement and removal folks.
    One group of people’s rights abusers don’t want to be associated with that other group of people’s rights abusers.

  684. …, so that the folks who are responsible for dealing with fraud, drugs, gangs, and human trafficking can do their job without having to deal with the controversies generated by the enforcement and removal folks.
    One group of people’s rights abusers don’t want to be associated with that other group of people’s rights abusers.

  685. just like the Dems are going to pack the court according to zero Congressional Dems, they’re going to abolish ICE according to zero Congressional Dems.
    and just think, without ICE, the borders will be WIDE OPEN!
    [no, it doesn’t matter that ICE isn’t responsible for border crossing, hippy]

  686. just like the Dems are going to pack the court according to zero Congressional Dems, they’re going to abolish ICE according to zero Congressional Dems.
    and just think, without ICE, the borders will be WIDE OPEN!
    [no, it doesn’t matter that ICE isn’t responsible for border crossing, hippy]

  687. “One group of people’s rights abusers don’t want to be associated with that other group of people’s rights abusers.”
    Yeah, those SS dudes are giving the other Nazis a bad name.

  688. “One group of people’s rights abusers don’t want to be associated with that other group of people’s rights abusers.”
    Yeah, those SS dudes are giving the other Nazis a bad name.

  689. Can I get a ruling on whether I’m a “hippy” or a “hippie”?
    As a portly sort of liberal, I suppose I could be a hippy hippie.
    –TP

  690. Can I get a ruling on whether I’m a “hippy” or a “hippie”?
    As a portly sort of liberal, I suppose I could be a hippy hippie.
    –TP

  693. One group of people’s rights abusers don’t want to be associated with that other group of people’s rights abusers.
    Someone help me out here. How is someone trying to stop human trafficing (which I take to mean sex slavery, because obviously dealing with illegal immigration, i.e. coyotes, is the other side) a human rights abuser? Or fraud? Unless you want to argue that any and all law enforcement is human rights abuse by definition…

  694. One group of people’s rights abusers don’t want to be associated with that other group of people’s rights abusers.
    Someone help me out here. How is someone trying to stop human trafficing (which I take to mean sex slavery, because obviously dealing with illegal immigration, i.e. coyotes, is the other side) a human rights abuser? Or fraud? Unless you want to argue that any and all law enforcement is human rights abuse by definition…

  697. How is someone trying to stop human trafficing (which I take to mean sex slavery, because obviously dealing with illegal immigration, i.e. coyotes, is the other side) a human rights abuser
    There’s not much real human trafficking in the US or law enforcement is very bad at finding it. Even with nationwide crackdowns, about all they can come up with are consensual sex workers, their associates, and customers.

  698. How is someone trying to stop human trafficing (which I take to mean sex slavery, because obviously dealing with illegal immigration, i.e. coyotes, is the other side) a human rights abuser
    There’s not much real human trafficking in the US or law enforcement is very bad at finding it. Even with nationwide crackdowns, about all they can come up with are consensual sex workers, their associates, and customers.

  703. So which parts of dealing with “fraud, drugs, gangs, and human trafficking” do you consider rife with human rights abuse?

  704. So which parts of dealing with “fraud, drugs, gangs, and human trafficking” do you consider rife with human rights abuse?

  713. Russell,
    I don’t disagree about there only being so much you can or even should do with nation wide optics entering local races. And regardless of the truth, attack ads will simply lie if there is no facts to work with.
    As an aside, I wish the Twitter and Facebook leaders told Congress that if social media companies have to regulate truth, none of their ads could air.
    My local race pits Gianforte (the thug who pled guilty to attacking a reporter) against Kathleen williams, expert in water conservation and the environment. She leads some polls. The ads against her on our Sinclair stations tie her to all the usual tropes.
    People do have responsibility to see through that stuff, but I can tell you positive information about her requires effort to find. I donated to her, and had to Google to remember her name for this post. I am in a bar, so that may effect memory.
    She could win, though. Gianforte is an outsider who won a close special election against a country/folk singer to replace Zinke.
    What she needs is money for ads, and less news about socialists winning primaries in her party. Even though my entire state is on welfare (more fed funds come in than go out), they don’t like that term.

  714. Russell,
    I don’t disagree about there only being so much you can or even should do with nation wide optics entering local races. And regardless of the truth, attack ads will simply lie if there is no facts to work with.
    As an aside, I wish the Twitter and Facebook leaders told Congress that if social media companies have to regulate truth, none of their ads could air.
    My local race pits Gianforte (the thug who pled guilty to attacking a reporter) against Kathleen williams, expert in water conservation and the environment. She leads some polls. The ads against her on our Sinclair stations tie her to all the usual tropes.
    People do have responsibility to see through that stuff, but I can tell you positive information about her requires effort to find. I donated to her, and had to Google to remember her name for this post. I am in a bar, so that may effect memory.
    She could win, though. Gianforte is an outsider who won a close special election against a country/folk singer to replace Zinke.
    What she needs is money for ads, and less news about socialists winning primaries in her party. Even though my entire state is on welfare (more fed funds come in than go out), they don’t like that term.

  715. If Charles wants to argue that the drug laws are bad laws, fine. I probably agree with at least part of that.
    But the fact that something is a bad law doesn’t make enforcing it human rights abuse. That is about how the enforcement is done. And note that ICE’s part in that enforcement is when stuff is coming over the border. If you dislike what DEA does, that’s a different group of people.

  716. If Charles wants to argue that the drug laws are bad laws, fine. I probably agree with at least part of that.
    But the fact that something is a bad law doesn’t make enforcing it human rights abuse. That is about how the enforcement is done. And note that ICE’s part in that enforcement is when stuff is coming over the border. If you dislike what DEA does, that’s a different group of people.

  717. CWT, trafficking is an issue. I’m in trafficking related litigation right now. Brutal stuff.
    Yes, it exists and is a serious issue. But it doesn’t justify the hysteria surrounding it. Government loves moral panics as cover for cracking down on people it doesn’t approve of.

  718. CWT, trafficking is an issue. I’m in trafficking related litigation right now. Brutal stuff.
    Yes, it exists and is a serious issue. But it doesn’t justify the hysteria surrounding it. Government loves moral panics as cover for cracking down on people it doesn’t approve of.

  719. What I would love to see is analysis of what the trump tax cuts saved Montana vs what his cuts cost the state. The ads praise the cuts as saving Montana’s money, but the vast majority simply don’t earn enough for federal tax cuts to matter. Why doesn’t the DNC simply show cost benefit analysis by district so it is obvious this is bad for most red states ( though avoid that in my old blue district, where we made out like bandits).

  720. What I would love to see is analysis of what the trump tax cuts saved Montana vs what his cuts cost the state. The ads praise the cuts as saving Montana’s money, but the vast majority simply don’t earn enough for federal tax cuts to matter. Why doesn’t the DNC simply show cost benefit analysis by district so it is obvious this is bad for most red states ( though avoid that in my old blue district, where we made out like bandits).

  721. What she needs is money for ads
    Done.
    FWIW, I’ve also contributed to Tester’s campaigns.
    If anyone else knows of districts where there’s a fair chance of flipping (R) to (D), let me know. I sent $500 to SwingLeft, who are focused on flipping the House, but Williams didn’t show up, so I sent her $50.
    My profligate funding of (D) campaigns is brought to you by the Trump tax cut.

  722. What she needs is money for ads
    Done.
    FWIW, I’ve also contributed to Tester’s campaigns.
    If anyone else knows of districts where there’s a fair chance of flipping (R) to (D), let me know. I sent $500 to SwingLeft, who are focused on flipping the House, but Williams didn’t show up, so I sent her $50.
    My profligate funding of (D) campaigns is brought to you by the Trump tax cut.

  723. “I am in a bar at the moment, so that may affect memory.”
    Enhances and embroiders it, I’ve found.
    Excuse me, bartender, do you remember who I am?

  724. “I am in a bar at the moment, so that may affect memory.”
    Enhances and embroiders it, I’ve found.
    Excuse me, bartender, do you remember who I am?

  725. Even though my entire state is on welfare (more fed funds come in than go out), they don’t like that term.
    I don’t know the details in Montana, but calculating the net tax donor/recipient stuff gets tricky in Western states. Eg, more Interstate Highway miles (and so support dollars) per capita; national labs budgets; federal mineral royalties; federal payments in lieu of taxes due to federal land holdings and tribal reservations; military bases with big budgets; etc. New Mexico always looks terrible. But the federal expenditures include $1,000 per capita for Sandia National Lab, and $1,000 per capita for the White Sands missile range, and $150 per capita for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant — none of which are things other states are clamoring for.

  726. Even though my entire state is on welfare (more fed funds come in than go out), they don’t like that term.
    I don’t know the details in Montana, but calculating the net tax donor/recipient stuff gets tricky in Western states. Eg, more Interstate Highway miles (and so support dollars) per capita; national labs budgets; federal mineral royalties; federal payments in lieu of taxes due to federal land holdings and tribal reservations; military bases with big budgets; etc. New Mexico always looks terrible. But the federal expenditures include $1,000 per capita for Sandia National Lab, and $1,000 per capita for the White Sands missile range, and $150 per capita for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant — none of which are things other states are clamoring for.

  727. Russell, sincere thanks. You and many others ( hilzoy especially, but many others like Sapient above…pretty much everyone but hairshirt) on obwi helped me transition. Even the still conservative members help keep me on the transition.

  728. Russell, sincere thanks. You and many others ( hilzoy especially, but many others like Sapient above…pretty much everyone but hairshirt) on obwi helped me transition. Even the still conservative members help keep me on the transition.

  729. And if that isn’t a reason to keep trying to talk to conservatives/Republicans, I don’t know what is. I’d love to know why hsh is specifically excluded, though….

  730. And if that isn’t a reason to keep trying to talk to conservatives/Republicans, I don’t know what is. I’d love to know why hsh is specifically excluded, though….

  731. Don’t pay attention to jrudkis when he writes anything about me. It’s all shenanigans, based on his overestimation of his sense of humor.

  732. Don’t pay attention to jrudkis when he writes anything about me. It’s all shenanigans, based on his overestimation of his sense of humor.

  735. Thanks, jrudkis. What you said means a lot. If you’re on twitter, and miss Hilzoy, you can get a fix there (@hilzoy). She tweets quite a bit, and mostly news we can use.
    Back to the hurricane thread.

  736. Thanks, jrudkis. What you said means a lot. If you’re on twitter, and miss Hilzoy, you can get a fix there (@hilzoy). She tweets quite a bit, and mostly news we can use.
    Back to the hurricane thread.

Comments are closed.