The Carpentariat

Trump's one route to victory

Pollster John McLaughlin, of the Trump campaign, sent Politico this text:

"Although our own early published polls and internal polls discounted Elizabeth Warren, her recent momentum in May and June in national and early caucus and primary states into a strong second place to a flat Joe Biden is a cause for our campaign’s attention.

"Sen. Warren’s attacks on President Trump’s policies need to be rebutted. We can’t just allow her to continue to attack the President in key states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and elsewhere."

Other than polling on the Democratic side, what got their attention? Reportedly, the Trump campaign was "startled" when Fox News' Tucker Carlson, about 10 days ago, "heap[ed] praise on the liberal senator," applauding Warren’s economic nationalism. She "sounds like Donald Trump at his best," said Carlson.

Yes, she does, in some ways; or even more frightening, Warren sounds like a Bernie Sanders — after extensive schooling.

Her fans detest the comparison. She sounds nothing at all like Sanders, they say. For starters, she's a believer in capitalism while he's a democratic socialist — an unbridgeable difference, they insist.

But their policy proposals are strikingly similar. "They both support Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, a $15 minimum wage, and other ambitious national proposals to tilt a 'rigged' economy toward working-class Americans, funded through higher taxes on the wealthy," concedes the radical magazine Jacobin. "At the end of the day," however, "Sanders is a more consistently left candidate," contends the socialist magazine, which mostly adores the difference in the duo's differing, self-identifying labels — which are insignificant, it seems to me, when one ponders the similarity in their platforms.

And that similarity is precisely what has the Trump campaign licking its chops. "We have to make sure voters know about her proposals for government takeover of health care, free health care for illegal immigrants, radical environmental restrictions, and increased taxes — all proposals that will devastate this country," says a Trump campaign spokesman.

If the Dems run a hard leftie in the person of Elizabeth Warren, the 2020 presidential contest could be a bloodbath. Such a candidate for a Republican nominee is the ideal foil, in view of swing voters' fundamental centrism.

As it stands, the 2020 presidential race is Democrats' to lose. Trump is spectacularly unpopular, but he has a route to win: only, though, if Democrats cede the middle.

Those hip Republicans are down with deficits

"On Wednesday, data from the Treasury Department showed the deficit grew 42% from a year earlier," reports Business Insider. "The annual deficit is expected to come in at about $1 trillion by 2022 and remain above that level annually for at least seven years."

You may recall that candidate Trump repeatedly vowed to balance, within eight years, the federal budget, which brought roars of approval from his rallying groupies. Why was his pledge such a base-pleaser? Because for eight years Republicans had bashed President Obama for the deficits he ran (which were by huge margins the result of George W. Bush's wars and tax cuts). Trump would make it all better — somehow.

What he actually did was add to the national debt — through his own massive tax cuts — to the tune of nearly $2 trillion over the next decade.

So here is the new version of Republican outrage over debt and deficits:

"I don't think we're at a crisis point now," said White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow. "It doesn't bother me right now."

But not to worry, hypocrisy fans. "Real" Republican outrage over deficits is scheduled to return on 20 January 2021, when a Democratic president is sworn in.

This week, Trump confessed to (past) collusion

"[Democrats] just can't let it go. I said weeks ago, case closed. We got the Mueller report, the only objective evaluation that will be conducted. They are trying to keep the 2016 election alive and the investigation alive when the American people have heard enough."

Thus spoke Mitch McConnell on Fox News last night, casually dismissing our scatological president's admission that he would gladly embrace any foreign droppings on his 2020 opponent.

McConnell was of course correct when he said Democrats can't let it go — because they shouldn't — but farcically wrong when he added that the Mueller report closed the case.

Indeed, what Trump told George Stephanopoulos this week has resurrected the Mueller report in a big way — which seems to be getting little or no coverage in the media.

By that I mean I've neither read nor heard that Trump's admission was not only what he would do in 2020, but what he was doing in 2016. That is, he essentially corroborated what Mueller was unable to confirm: that three years ago, the next president of the United States, with 140 known instances of Russian engagement, was swimming in a cesspool of collusion.

When Trump said "there isn't anything wrong with listening; if somebody called from a country, [Russia, China, Ukraine], [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' — oh, I think I'd want to hear it," he was advertising more than his intention to collude in 2020. He was, effectively, confessing his impeachable malfeasances of 2016. It is beyond belief that Trump's collusive sentiments are merely recent.

And yet the media is focusing exclusively on the present and future. I'm at a loss as to why Trump's remarks are not bundled by the political media as a whole — 2016-2019. Perhaps some outlets have and I've just missed them. But it seems to me that every report's chronology should be treated comprehensively.

Bad news for Kamala Harris

Wretched news for presidential candidate Kamala Harris, U.S. senator from California.

In the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies' recent poll of California's likely Democratic primary voters, the state's senator placed — fourth.

Rather brutally, no favorite sons or daughters for Golden State folks, which, for now at least, upends Harris' grand strategy: to win big in the nation's most populous state — her own, for heaven's sake.

The Berkley Institute found support for Joe Biden at 22 percent, support for Warren at 18 percent, for Sanders at 17 percent, and for Harris at 13 percent. At 10 percent, Pete Buttigieg was the only remaining candidate to score in double digits. All other candidates fell below 3 percent.

But Harris' news is even worse than that for the 3 percenters. For a U.S. senator and major presidential contender to rank fourth in her home state is, to state the obvious, a dreadful sign.

Sarah Huckabyebye Sanders

"I’m going to continue to be one of the most outspoken and loyal defenders of the president," said Sarah Huckabee Sanders yesterday afternoon, while nearly on her adventurous way out the White House door. (Trump wants her to run for governor of Arkansas.) The whimsical lassie is leaving her post as WH press secretary, and I've no doubt she'll persist as an "outspoken and loyal defender" of the only American who lies more than she has.

To all those who cherish the truth over lies, and personal honor over official dishonor, Sanders' departing status has sparked an interesting debate: Was she the worst reigning queen of prevaricating toads among the historical legion of press secretaries, or, somewhat gentler, was she merely the "least-believed"? Lucky for us, this exact debate took place on Twitter yesterday between the Atlantic's James Fallows and the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin. Responding to Rubin, who had written "Thank God…. She leaves as a proven liar and the worst press secretary in history," Fallows proffered that "I do think that as an objective matter she is the least-believed press sec in history," to which Rubin retorted, "Least believed might be different than worst," to which, having realized the potential eternity of frivolous squabbling that lay before him, Fallows responded, "True. Could be both crowns; the one I’m sure of is least-believed."

A bit of a tie, I'd say: Sarah Sanders was the least-believed of all the lowest, lying WH apparatchiks.

But do you know who now knows this more vividly than anyone? Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who called Ms. Sanders before his investigators. And this is what they wrote, in the Mueller report (bold mine):

In the afternoon of May 10, 2017, deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders spoke to the President about his decision to fire [FBI Director] Comey and then spoke to reporters in a televised press conference. Sanders told reporters that the President, the Department of Justice, and bipartisan members of Congress had lost confidence in Comey, "[a]nd most importantly, the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director"…. When a reporter indicated that the "vast majority" of FBI agents supported Comey, Sanders said, "Look, we've heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things." Following the press conference, Sanders spoke to the President, who told her she did a good job and did not point out any inaccuracies in her comments. Sanders told this Office that her reference to hearing from "countless members of the FBI" was a "slip of the tongue." She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made "in the heat of the moment" that was not founded on anything.

In other words, Ms. Sanders felt free to lie to all of America on virtually a daily basis, but when her lies faced possibly harsh consequences from a handful of law-enforcement authorities, Sanders loosened her tongue as willingly as a $1,000 hooker.

What manner of earthling is this? — someone who can stand before the national press each day and knowingly lie like a Baghdad Bob? As is true for nearly all us creatures, I probably have my price. I haven't the vaguest idea of what the precise amount would be, but it would have to be at least in the seven figures — with a Pacific island thrown in — before I'd do what Sanders did for two years plus. Because as Mark said, "For what shall it profit a man …"

The FEC talks to Trump as though he's a child (which he is)

Adds Ms. Weintraub: "I would not have thought that I needed to say this." (Sorry for the small print. A larger version just wouldn't fit; you may, however, click here to view one.)

House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and his boundless political cowardice

Note: A reader has let me know that comments are not appearing in the comment section. I have alerted Typepad. The comment section is back up and working fine.

***

In his morning press conference, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy was confronted by several reporters inquiring into his opinion of Trump's scandalous admission that he would gleefully accept whatever campaign assistance a foreign power might provide. In his responses, McCarthy, a towering monument to political cowardice — but that's understandable, he's a Republican — danced frenetically hither and yon.

His first reply was "[You're] talking about a hypothetical" — no we are not: Trump explicitly said he would welcome foreign shenanigans — "but we do not want foreign interference in our elections. Next Question." Well the president does, and you, Mr. McCarthy, were asked for your opinion on that. Then a diversion: "This president has been tougher on Russia then any other president." Then another: The Mueller report found no collusion. Then, a real puzzler: "I've watched this president; he does not want foreign interference in our elections." Then, a puzzler squared: "He will not allow any foreign interference." Then, an observation that from sea to shining sea most certainly provoked thundering laughter: "The president will always do the right thing."

And in a pitiable display of rank political amateurism, McCarthy repeatedly hammered this downright silly talking point: In the last election, it was the Democrats who engaged in foreign corruption — not Republican Trump.

You may lay a shroud on the Republican Party. This unwavering degree of political cowardice and its tolerance of presidential lawlessness, immorality and overt harm to national security cannot be sustained. The party has sold its soul to Donald J. Trump — who has always destroyed his partners.

Through his own words, the walls are closing in on Trump

The unforgettable Dorothy Parker (1893-1967) is reputed to have said, each time her doorbell rang, "What fresh hell can this be?" The doorbell is now the daily news.

As I'm sure you know by now, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos recently interviewed Trump, and asked him if he would still accept a foreign nation's interference in our elections by offering surreptitious information harmful to an opponent — even though the president has spent the last two years under investigation for having done precisely that.

Replied Trump, in his characteristically oblivious manner: "I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' — oh, I think I'd want to hear it." (I heard on MSNBC that even Laura Ingraham conceded on her show last night that she was "baffled" by Trump's remarks.) 

Norway is rather unlikely to start hacking into Democratic email accounts. But if it did, and it then shared the purloined information with Trump, that would be just as conspiratorially collusive as what Russia did with our criminal president. And of course "Norway" was but a benign substitute for the abysmal country that Trump actually had in mind.

"It's not an interference, they have information — I think I'd take it," continued Trump. "If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong."

Yet what could be wrong, in Trump's mind, with ill-gained dirt on a Trump opponent?

"When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman," proceeded Trump, "they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research."

I once worked in congressional campaign and I did oppo research, and not once did I hear trash-talk with a foreign accent about our opponent.

Stephanopoulos reminded Trump that the FBI director, Christopher Wray, testified to Congress last month that all foreign interference should be reported to the Bureau.

But Trump knows better. "The FBI director is wrong," he said.

This president is now utterly, insanely off the rails. Within merely the last two days he has openly invited foreign interventions into our democratic process — which is already, as I noted earlier this morning, a feral circus; and he has proclaimed before the Supreme Court that he's above the law and thus Congress has no constitutional right to investigate the executive branch.

That, after 10 obstructions of justice, 10,000 lies and countless abuses of power. If not overdue — I'm beginning to think — the allotted time for impeachment proceedings is at least narrowing. If the Democratic Party is to retain an adherence to the rule of law and proper constitutionalism and any respect from an increasingly outraged electorate, the option of indefinitely postponing the upright act of submitting formal charges against this wildly corrupt president is fading. Fast.

The Trump administration goes full authoritarian

Reading Heath's USA Today reporting on Twitter reveals just how utterly meshuga the Trump administration has become. Heath's complete, concise thread is here.

Trump's lawyers argue in a new D.C. Cir. brief that Congress does not have the power to investigate whether the president broke the law. They say only the executive branch - the people who work for the president - is allowed to determine whether the president broke the law. pic.twitter.com/gVazwHUt86

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) June 10, 2019

Naturally, congressional Republicans will defend Trump's argument, after having devoted eight years to investigating the last Democratic administration and another eight years, Bill Clinton's. Just as naturally, they'll devote yet more years to investigating the next Democratic president, beginning in 2021. And they won't break a sweat in their hypocrisy, for it seems the more-brazen-the-act-the-better is simply the Republican way of doing things these days.

But consider the ramifications of the Trump administration's court argument — namely, the roughshod overturning of the U.S. Constitution. As NY lawyer George Conway III and Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal counterargue, "to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it…. Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law." (Conway and Katyal further argue, with no little indignation, that "Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.")

This is also when Justice Brett Kavanaugh will, or might very well, earn his keep. SCOTUS-watchers have already noted that the (Republican) Court "seems ready to uphold [the] citizenship question on 2020 census," notwithstanding that the administration's case is riddled with demonstrable falsehoods and corruption. And if the Court can find for the administration in such a profane case, no longer is it inconceivable that the Court could find that the president of the United States is above the law — until a Democrat becomes the chief executive, at which point the Court would reverse itself.

We can only hope that Chief Justice John Roberts earns his keep by joining the minority justices, as he did in the ACA case.

A deficit of reason; an abundance of inanity

In 1979, English professor Richard Mitchell, in the foreword to his Less Than Words Can Say — a brilliant examination of the use and misuse of the English language, of Reason gone bad, of clarity replaced by gibberish — portentously saw the perilous rise of Trumpism:

"Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot remain reasonable. Irrationality, like buried chemical waste, sooner or later must seep into all the tissues of thought."

Mitchell's studied analysis was also an unwitting comment on the modern deterioration of representative democracy. That an American electorate could elevate an inane, inarticulate, vacuous blockhead such as Donald Trump to the highest office in the land — even if through the antiquated loophole of the Electoral College — should give pause to any full-throated believer in our democratic process: the feral circus that has become the presidential election cycle.

At least officially, but most certainly to other countries of the world, America has devolved into a nation of nincompoops whose reasoning power is, it follows, as deficient as their listening skills. As president, Trump has yet to utter a sentence — let alone entire, transcripted paragraphs — of high reasoning combined with anything resembling deep or even passable thought. Only wholesale nincompoopism could have got him where he is.

He's not only an embarrassment to the larger electorate who cannot stomach his reams of non sequiturs, contradictions and assorted rhetorical buffooneries; he's an anti-intellectual danger to traditional American values and our national institutions, and thus to the very population he's supposed to represent.

How did America transmogrify to such a low and miserable state? Only a large tome could approach a serious, competent answer to that. But most of us already know one thing: We had better change course damn quickly, or — to put it in reasoned words that even Trumpeteers can understand — we're fucked.

The DNC's asinine exclusion of Gov. Bullock in the upcoming debates

Once again, this is insane.

Politico: "Montana Gov. Steve Bullock is still on the outside looking in on the first Democratic presidential primary debate…. Bullock, who touts his success in a red state as a playbook for defeating President Donald Trump next year, failed to earn 1 percent in a poll of likely Nevada caucus-goers released Wednesday by Monmouth University." (The top achievers in that poll were Joe Biden, with 36 percent, Elizabeth Warren, 19 percent, and Bernie Sanders, 13 percent.)

Bullock would be the 21st contender in the July 26 and 27 debates in Miami, to be aired on MSNBC, Telemundo, and primetime-preempted NBC stations. But the Democratic National Committee has arbitrarily limited the number of contenders to 20. So no Bullock, who otherwise would have been an interesting inclusion as a Medicaid-securing, campaign-finance-reforming, rural-state governor with a net approval rating of +26 percent.

Replacing Bullock at the debates will be any one of these political phenomena of real national notoriety: Tulsi Gabbard — "When FiveThirtyEight asked 60 Democratic Party activists whom they didn’t want to win, [she] came in first out of 17 candidates" — Marianne Williamson — "spiritual counselor to Oprah Winfrey, guru to Cher" — and Andrew Yang, "who has said he hopes to campaign via hologram in some states."

Each of the above has his or her supporters, of course, and those supporters defend their candidate's inclusion as a "Why not let the voters decide?" proposition. That's fine. But in that case, Gov. Bullock would also be included.

Logical lapses and political conclusions

Write political science researchers at Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, from a poll: "About 19 percent of Republicans [hold] economic policy positions closer to the average Democrat than the average Republican, placing them on the 'economic left.'"

That finding is rather consistent and unsurprising; most if not all of the nearly one-fifth of those surveyed are solid Trump supporters; "lower income Republicans" who routinely vote against their own economic interests.

Of these voters, the Times' David Leonhardt observes: "[They] are socially conservative. They’re religious, and they are either conservative or moderate on abortion, immigration and other issues. When political campaigns focus on social issues, these voters are primed to vote Republican. Yet when campaigns focus on economics and on fairness, these same voters suddenly have reason to vote Democratic. And if even a small percentage of Republicans or independents defect, it can decide an election."

You can easily see the internal fallacy of Leonhardt's reasoning. In the modern era, Democrats have always focused on economics and fairness, yet the GOP unremittingly concentrates on culturally divisive, emotionally energizing social issues, such as abortion and immigration. Hence socially conservative, lower-income Republicans are always "primed to vote Republican." The GOP learned this scam decades ago, and it's been phenomenally successful.

Even Leonhardt lacks belief in his own observation, however, for at last he writes that "Winning these voters won’t be easy." But then he alters his demographic attention: "Barack Obama did better with swing voters than Hillary Clinton in part because he ran a more populist, economically focused campaign. It really is possible."

Whoa. Swing voters are not low-income Republicans. So with that, Leonhardt blew away his own thesis.

When writing a post, Mr. Leonhardt, I've often found it helpful to quickly review what I've already written, just to make sure that my conclusion is in harmony with the main body — which yours isn't.

The existential threat of ontological pomposity

Roll Call and the Guardian's Walter Shapiro:

"Someone will build a drinking game around how often the candidates … use the word 'existential' on the Miami debate stage."

It's everywhere these days, this "existential" thing, most recently (and rather regrettably) in Joe Biden's otherwise thoughtful speech yesterday. After all, even if Trump were to win in 2020, the "existence" of the United States would not vanish.

But I have a better one for presidential hopefuls. If they really wish to sound deep, profound, endlessly well studied and act the winner of the Smartest Kid in the Class contest, they should incorporate ontological into their rehearsed remarks.

When I was in grad school, ontological was omnipresent in the required literature. It instantly elevated any academic writing and left the reader feeling intellectually inadequate — which of course is the entire point of using the word in the first place. And it's so versatile, defined, as it is, as "relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being."

Just what, I beseech you, is excluded in this real world from the "nature of being"? Not a damn thing, really, which is why one can toss the adjective ontological before just about any noun, and it will fit. Thus its popularity in academic writing, when one is stuck for an impressive descriptor. 

So come on, you hopefuls. Kick it up a notch.

Polling: Biden is trouncing Trump

According to a Quinnipiac University poll (FiveThirtyEight: "A-") released yesterday, in its "first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups," Joe Biden singularly leads Trump by double digits, 53-40 percent.

For Trump, as WaPo's Aaron Blake notes, the polling is "brutal." Quinnipiac: "Women back Biden 60-34 percent, as men are divided with 47 percent for Biden and 46 percent for Trump. White voters are divided with 47 percent for Trump and 46 percent for Biden. The Democrat leads 85-12 percent among black voters and 58-33 percent among Hispanic voters." In short, Biden breaks even with whites and men, while annihilating Trump in all other demographic categories.

Biden also leads in the independent column by a remarkable 30 points (58-28). In 2016, Trump won independents by 4 points.

Trump has "told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win," as the Times recently reported, but Trump is waging a losing public information war. His lies are solely for the Fox News crowd, which will help him — which will expand his base — by not one vote.

Other Dems beating Trump in Quinnipiac's poll are Bernie Sanders, 51-42 percent; Kamala Harris, 49-41 percent; Elizabeth Warren, 49-42 percent; Pete Buttigieg, 47-42 percent; and Cory Booker, 47-42 percent.

One housekeeping note about press reports on contemporary polling. Also writes Aaron Blake: "As with all polling at this early a juncture, [Quinnipiac's poll] should not be used to predict any outcomes. Things can and will change. Biden, most notably, remains very popular from his time as vice president, and few analysts expect he’ll be able to maintain that for an entire campaign." My housekeeping note is this: For God's sake we know that. Must we have this universally known axiom drilled into our heads with jackhammer-like regularity? Cannot a poll be simply reported on, absent the needless reminders that the election is still months away? — and "things can and will change"? What doesn't?

Hey Donald, we've seen this before

I have here in my hand a list of 205 super-secret immigration stipulations — or 81, or 57, or maybe just 10 — that were agreed to by Mexico and, in the United States, made known to me only.

Trump's most poisonous routine

.....The Fake (Corrupt) News Media said they had a leak into polling done by my campaign which, by the way and despite the phony and never ending Witch Hunt, are the best numbers WE have ever had. They reported Fake numbers that they made up & don’t even exist. WE WILL WIN AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2019

Never doubt that Trump's "Fake News" and "The press is the enemy of the people" shticks have taken their vicious toll. The graphic below is from a Columbia Journalism Review poll conducted in December by Ipsos (rated "B+" by FiveThirtyEight).

When only Congress lies beneath you in a ranking of trusted institutions, you know, unlike Congress, that the fault couldn't possibly be all your own. Not to sound conspiratorial, but outside forces must be in play — and the leading, corrupting force in anti-"pressism" is of course Donald J. Trump.

Today's major press organs — the "Failing" NY Times and the "Amazon" Washington Post — are among what's been called Journalism's New Golden Age. (I'm writing about the actual press here, not cable or network news.) In tracking and reporting on Trump's many crimes, distortions and outright lies, these two papers have been responsible for the mother lode of investigative journalism.

Without them, I'd have a much sparser website, and Chris Hayes would have much less to say every weekday evening — both of us being dependent, as so many others are, on the reporting that comes from the Old Gray Lady and WaPo.

Also, without them, the non-pixilated electorate would not have rightly turned on Trump to the extent it has. We've a booming economy (Obama's, actually) and yet the sitting president is still trying to break a low-40s approval rating. That's unprecedented. Most of that is also Trump's doing, but not entirely.

For that, we can — should — thank the press. But by and large, we don't. And that — you guessed it — is … Sad!

In Colorado, the Dems cleverly battled GOP prepubescence

Remember, one must be at least 25 years of age to be elected to the Colorado state legislature, but you'd never know it based on the infantile demands of the state's GOP reps and senators.

"In Colorado, where Democrats dominate in the capital, Republicans were so upset about the stream of new laws being passed that they demanded each bill be read aloud to slow the pace. Democrats responded by having five computers simultaneously 'read' bills. The computers were able to whip through hundreds of pages in minutes."

The Times reports that the result was "gibberish," but I rather like it. To hear a Centennial State bill being read, skip to 3:25:00.

p.s.: "Colorado Republicans promptly sued. They won in court, but Democrats went on — at a moderated pace — to pass legislation that many Republicans opposed, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, banning gay conversion therapy for minors and creating a reinsurance program to lower health care costs" — the blackguards. 

"Make America America Again"

Without promising utopian, cost-free goodies for everyone, Joe Biden delivered his "Trump is an existential threat" speech from Ottumwa, Iowa, this afternoon in a thoughtful, reasoned, philosophical manner. His theme was a lighthearted jab at Trump's MAGA; his simple, alternative proposition was that we should "Make America America Again" — with all that slogan implies.

At the presentation's conclusion, I decided to check out the #JoeBiden page on Twitter, assuming there would be plentiful congratulations on a well-written, well-delivered speech. I don't cruise Twitter much, and I assume it was for that reason that I was astonished at the vitriol I found, not only from saliva-drenched right wingers, but from "progressives" as well. (In most instances I was unable to distinguish the two camps only by reading the contributor's little bio.) A sampling:

"I'm watching Flip-Floppy Joe Biden do his wondering dull speech in Ottumwa."

"Truthfully this is the dullest speech in Ottumwa, Iowa since Radar came home from Korea."

"Watching and listening to Biden right now. Funny...don't hear him mentioning under Obama/Biden...$9 trillion was added to our debt and the $800 billion stimulus that was supposed to go to shovel ready jobs? We know what got shoveled."

"#joebiden is demon tube preacher in DC sheep skin."

My favorite tweet was "Joe Biden is an moron," but it was from 6 June and thus unusable, although I just used it.

The one exceptionally rational tweet I encountered came, somewhat surprisingly, from "Progressive Power," which noted that "Some Progressives love to troll on #JoeBiden all day long. We want progressive candidates too, but as grownups in a bipartisan institutional reality...'you can’t always get what you want'. Please try to focus your attention on what is truly evil and corrupt. #UniteBlue."

Amen.

I hope Trump believes his own lies

In Trump's mind, there is absolutely nothing broken that can't be fixed by lying. The NY Times:

"After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win, even though he is also trailing in public polls from key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And when top-line details of the [internal] polling leaked, including numbers showing the president lagging in a cluster of critical Rust Belt states, Mr. Trump instructed aides to say publicly that other data showed him doing well."

Biden: Trump is an "existential threat" to the U.S.

Joe Biden is scheduled to deliver some withering remarks about our Great Patriotic Leader in Ottumwa, Iowa, today, just as the latter is attending an Iowa GOP fundraiser. I hope cable airs Biden's speech live, as he blasts Trump for being an "existential threat" to the United States. A preview of the speech's highlights:

***

"I’ve said many times that we can overcome four years of Trump – but if we give him eight years in the White House he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation."

"How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he's doing to America's farmers? Here's the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero."

"If he was just another rich guy sitting in his gold-plated apartment in Manhattan tweeting about how those pointy-headed scientists don't know anything [about the climate], it wouldn't matter -- but he's president."

Biden will take Trump to task for his "crude language" and "embarrassing behavior."

"Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any beginning econ student at Iowa or Iowa State could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs. The cashiers at Target see what’s going on; they know more about economics than Trump."

"[I]t’s clear that Trump is shredding what we believe in most. I believe we have to restore those basic values. I gather some people [e.g., Sens. Harris and Warren and Sanders] think that’s a return to the past. I don’t see it that way. I see it as embracing the enduring values that have made America – America. I don’t think that’s taking us into the past. For me, it’s the only way America is going to have a future."

***

This is what the Democratic Party and the American people need: A presidential candidate who focuses on assailing the country's #1 threat — Trump — rather than belittling his or her fellow Democratic candidates; a center-left pol with authentic crossover appeal; a candidate who understands that reversing the tragic course on which Trump has set this nation is the supreme duty of the next president.