PMC Commentary

The world we live in

"We live in a world where the president routinely attacks the F.B.I. because he fears its work. He calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We also live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president is an accused serial abuser of women, who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many 'false' accusations against him.

"Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K."

— James Comey, former FBI director, current enemy of the people, friend of no one, cherished target of a presidential sexual offender, in a NY Times op-ed 

 

A civic message above all others

Looking for a 2018 Democratic "message"? Try this.

"Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct. It is certain that today every honest [American] is ashamed of his government…. If the [American] people are already so corrupted and spiritually crushed that they do not raise a hand, frivolously trusting in a questionable faith in lawful order...; if they surrender [humanity's] highest principle, that which raises [us] above all other God’s creatures, [our] free will; if they abandon the will to take decisive action and turn the wheel of history and thus subject it to their own rational decision; if they are so devoid of all individuality, have already gone so far along the road toward turning into a spiritless and cowardly mass — then, yes, they deserve their downfall."

— from Die Weiße Rose [The White Rose], a German resistance movement, 1942-1943

 

The GOP is forsaking the House

It seems to me "the thinking" is rather dubious.

"By agreeing to delay Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination in the short term," reports the Times, "the thinking, according to Republicans, is that Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation would cause a backlash from female and independent voters against Republican candidates in dozens of highly competitive House races … and do more damage than in statewide Senate contests."

The Times describes the Republican strategy as two "long-term bets" (the next election always being as long-term as Republican strategies get): ensuring a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and in the Senate. The House they would be throwing overboard, in the wise assumption that it's already a goner.

The potential flaw in Republican thinking is, of course, that female and independent voters will turn on the party throughout purple states as much as in at-risk congressional districts. Possibly offsetting losses in purple states, however, are Republican pickups in North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri and Indiana, where incumbent Democratic senators are endangered — largely because of the Kavanaugh battle.

As in every political contest, the strategy essentially distills to one of voter enthusiasm. Fox News and conservative commentators in print will be doing their part to rally the faithful, such as in this wild-eyed polemic by the NY Post's Michael Goodwin (who also does commentary for Fox): "Friday’s agreement to give the FBI a week to supplement its background check by looking into existing misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh guarantees the nightmare will continue, especially for him and his battered family. You don’t have to be a cynic to assume the rabid left will come up with more outlandish accusations in an effort to make up in quantity what it lacks in quality."

That's the way the game is being played. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was anything but an "outlandish accusation," but in the next five weeks the right's ever-churning propaganda machines will have their consumers believing that Choir-boy Kavanaugh is but a helpless victim of the rabid left's propaganda machines.

The GOP may indeed save the Senate, unless Democratic enthusiasm — among women, minorities, independent voters and even the young — amasses in a tidal wave of outrage and disgust.

Still, the House is all Democrats really need. There they can halt any Trump-addled legislation and launch a legion of investigations into this, the most corrupt presidential administration ever.

 

There is hope: Disgust with Congress - and Trump - can be terminated

If nothing else, the unnerving Kavanaugh hearings propelled Democratic senators to fresh heights of vocal indignation, which should have been climbed long ago. Richard Blumenthal declared "All of America is watching the United State’s Senate today … and they should be deeply embarrassed." They should also be deeply ashamed. The Republican majority didn't seize the Senate by coup; in an alarming demonstration that representative democracies can throttle themselves, it was elected.

Mazie Hirono, from Hawaii — for you Trump voters, that's a U.S. state — said it's "it’s very clear that the Republicans will break every norm, every rule, to get this person on the Supreme Court." But not only to "get this person" on the Court. They'll break every norm and every rule to keep others off the Court, such as President Obama's nominee, the moderate Merrick Garland. Republican Senator John Cornyn revealed a severe case of self-induced, short-term memory loss when he said "I can’t think of a more embarrassing scandal for the United States Senate since the McCarthy hearings."

And then there was Patrick Leahy, who, with a too-often institutionally lapsed sense of history and constitutionalism, lamented that "It's unbelievable where we are today. It's almost surreal. This Judiciary Committee is no longer an independent branch of government. And we're supposed to be. The Senate is supposed to be an independent, equal branch of government. We're no longer that. We are an arm — and a very weak arm — of the Trump White House. Every semblance of independence has just disappeared. It's gone."

The Democratic senator from Vermont made that statement before Arizona's Republican senator Jeff Flake delivered a yea vote at the price of an FBI investigation, which columnist Roger Cohen called "a small act of honor in a tawdry time." I agree with Cohen's assessment, even if Flake later votes to confirm. After all, how many other Republican senators insisted that a further investigation precede what Mitch McConnell was attempting to "plow right through"?

It is frequently observed that the U.S. Senate is broken. This is now frequently observed because we tired of observing the despairing, shambolic state of the U.S. House, which, under the cringeworthy guidance of the cowardly Paul Ryan, lost its independence two years ago. (Before that, the House was merely the official GOP organ of mindless obstructionism.) But, as implied in this post's opening paragraph, the U.S. Senate is actually humming along quite well; its majority is doing what 18 percent of the American population put it there to do: vote as a non-independent arm of Donald J. Trump.

Undoing the Senate's unrepresentative composition would require an unachievable constitutional amendment. But American democracy may yet execute a shortcut to stifling the pro-Trump boobs, yahoos and hayseeds of the upper chamber: It just might, this November, throw the fawning majority out, and elect a replacing conscience.

Not since John Tyler's accidental presidency has the electorate wearied so quickly of the chief executive. We can now add a towering disgust of the national legislature to boot — all its Ryans, McConnells, boneheaded Cornyns and hysterical Lindsey Grahams. In its biannual pressure-valve wisdom, the U.S. constitution is granting the nation another chance to reverse its stupendous stupidity of 2016. Let us pray that voters are as wise as the framers.

 

Jeff Flake is an idiot - oops, let's pause that

"It had been unclear how Mr. Flake would vote," notes the Times. But no longer is Jeff Flake's political reasoning in doubt.

It stinks.

As I argued three days ago:

"He's interested in challenging Trump in 2020. He may not do so, and if he does the odds will be heavily against him. But that's all the more reason for Flake to safeguard as much of the Republican women's vote as is politically possible — and opposing Kavanaugh, from one of the 11 [Republican] seats on the Judiciary Committee, would be a spectacular way to do it.

"Democrats hold 10 seats, so the math speaks for itself. As does Flake's political self-interest."

Flake could not see, however, what his own interest demanded. What a dolt.

***

Update: Well, Lindsey Graham is shaking his head in disgust — it's now 1:37 Eastern. Maybe Flake is smarter than I thought.

Further update, 2:01 Eastern: This is the damnedest clusterfuck I have ever seen. But … As I understand it, Flake has voted "Aye" in committee with the understanding that he's a "Nay" on the floor unless an FBI investigation intervenes within a week. For a Republican senator, that's actually a reasonable, even courageous position. So I withdraw my summary judgment of Flake's idiocy, and will take it under advisement.

 

Brett the Bold

Trump wanted Kavanaugh to be more aggressive in this follow-up hearing, and did he ever get his wish. The judge nearly launched from his seat in raging anger several times — and that was just in his opening statement.

The tears? They were either a nice touch or a bit too much, depending on your opinion of the man. 

There's also little doubt that Kavanaugh's performance will resuscitate his ailing nomination. It's not only powerful emotional stuff; he's been smart enough to frame most of his opposition as organized, partisan warfare executed by wicked Democrats. (At one point Kavanaugh actually sneered at Senate Democrats on the committee.)      

There's nothing Republicans like more than heartfelt assaults on the conspiring, malevolent left.

One thing is now resoundingly clear. If — still a big if — Kavanaugh goes on to be confirmed, Senate Republicans will be able to take no credit for it. It will have been all Brett Kavanaugh's doing, today, this afternoon, in this dynamite performance. (To clarify, I mean "dynamite performance" from a theatrical point of view only.) 

***

It's baffling that Kavanaugh repeatedly refuses to agree to an FBI investigation. Because he's correct: The FBI reaches no conclusions. Hence his repeated refusals will remain a sticking point for Republicans on the fence, Flake, Collins and Murkowski.

***

Hilarious.

And, for sure:

And:

And from Peter Beinart, a profound political truth (it's always far more about politics than ethics):

***

I know one thing, and it's just about all I know regarding these competing sagas. If Kavanaugh can be that emotional and angry when sober, I sure as hell would not want to be around him when he's drunk.

 

The Ford-Kavanaugh hearings

All I can say is that if Dr. Blasey's testimony changed no minds, then those minds were never open to change.

***

For the victims' sake, I sure hope Ms. Mitchell was more effective as a sex-crimes prosecutor in Arizona.

***

The whole fucking family has so much class. Here's what Trump Jr. just retweeted:

Thanks to MSNBC for the tip.

***

The "defendant" doesn't strike me as the devious type who would study how to beat a polygraph. Mitchell's questions are chiefly a sign of desperation.

*** 

So far the prosecutor is hanging her case on Blasey's fear of flying and her mode of anonymous publicity. And it's rather pathetic. There's nothing there, other than what some Cruz-like demagogue might wish to make of it.

***  

Grassley: "It is now Sen. Cornyn's time, so proceed, Ms. Mitchell."

***

Yes, checking a house on a map oughta nail down Kavanaugh's innocence. Well done, Ms. Mitchell. (This is really not her fault. The Republican committee gave her nothing to work with.)

***

Grassley: "Ms. Mitchell, you have five minutes for Sen. Hatch."

This Republican questioning arrangement is about as bizarre as bizarre can get. Even the prosecutor — excuse me, the "female assistant" — seems unaware of, and confused by, the schedule. She's also consuming all her time by merely asking basic questions as to Blasey's high school "experience." That's probably because no investigation was done before the hearings.

As an exploratory session, this is a waste of time. On the other hand, it should serve a higher purpose: Her televised credibility will give a few GOP senators an escape hatch.      

***

That's quite the little fussbucket to Dr. Blasey's immediate left.

***

"Ms. Mitchell, you have my five minutes to ask questions" — Sen. Grassley. And yes, that sounded as silly as it actually was. 

***

Dr. Blasey (Ford) became believable within the first 30 seconds of her testimony. She was emotional and, by her own admission, terrified at being before the committee. Appearing was not her choice or decision. Instead, her civic duty called for it, she said.

Somewhere in the White House, someone is pulling out the old list of possible Court nominees, shaking his head, and saying, Here we go again. Already. 

***

If nothing else I have learned that Sen. Feinstein doesn't understand the accusative case. ("Known to Sen. Harris and I….")

***

Politics are being played only when the other side ridicules Republican senators for hiding behind Prosecutor Mitchell's skirts. So says Chairman Chuck Grassley.

***

My first thought is that I'm surprised the hearings are even going forward. Trump is just about to officially  change his mind, I'd wager, because this nomination is doomed in the Senate.

Why are the hearings going forward? Of what benefit are they to any Republican senator? They won't help a soul. Not one. They can only do harm to each and every GOP senator, especially those in purple states.  

***

From the Washington Post's "Viewers' Guide" to the extended Kavanaugh hearings:

Viewers' Tip #5: "Senators will get five minutes to ask each witness questions. Those five minutes will go by very quickly, and once their time is done, they won’t get another chance."

This makes perfect sense only when you arrive at Viewers' Tip #8: "Everything about how this hearing will work was set up by Republicans."

***

As will most of America, I'll be watching. As thoughts occur, I shall note them here. 

 

A seed of incoherence: Where the right learns its arguments

In the ominously titled "The Kavanaugh Standard: A defeat based on these accusations will divide the country for a generation," Daniel Henninger, the Wall Street Journal's deputy editorial page director, levels an astonishingly garbled argument. Its thrust:

"If the Kavanaugh nomination fails because of the accusations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford and others, America’s system of politics, indeed its everyday social relations, will be conducted in the future on the Kavanaugh Standard…. The Kavanaugh Standard will hold that any decision requiring a deliberative consideration of contested positions can and should be decided on just one thing: belief. Belief is sufficient. Nothing else matters."

Henninger leads with this indignation, which forges what we might call The Henninger Standard: A good argument made against adversarial political forces may and probably should include a staggering indifference to facts on the ground, which may then result in an upside-down argument — but what the hell, one's biased readers aren't likely to ask questions. Such as … In the Kavanaugh case, which side has persistently called for an FBI investigation into accusations made by Ford and others? The answer is Ford, others, and Senate Democrats. Which side has repeatedly refused an investigation, thereby insisting that Kavanaugh's nomination should be decided on belief alone? Senate Republicans.

Continues Henninger:

"In fact, the Kavanaugh Standard would have less intellectual content than liberalism’s previous judicial gold standard—agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade."

How does one become a WSJ deputy editorial page director? It helps if one can write a sentence such as the one above without acknowledging that conservatism's judicial gold standard is disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

Next by Henninger:

"For a political cynic, like Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein, all these considerations [such as intellectual content] are pointless and irrelevant. Just win, baby…. If Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, this is how they will govern—with belief alone sufficient as justification for imposing policy."

When President Reagan was presented with weighty evidence (by OMB Director David Stockman) that supply-side economics would create immense deficits, his reply was, Well, let's wait and see. In brief, belief. Not intellectual content. For nearly 40 years now, belief in the virtues of supply-side economics has ruled Republicans fiscal policies. That is how they have governed — with belief alone. (Although I doubt they really believe in supply-side economics.)

On a related note, Henninger writes that

"it is clear that the political and academic left are contesting centuries-old standards of evidence. Liberal jurisprudence and its arguments with conservatives … is being displaced by a Democratic left … that prefers rough justice. Rough justice is what the political left and the media left, notably the New Yorker and New York Times, is meting out to Brett Kavanaugh."

By "rough justice," Henninger essentially means a denial of fairness, which, he implies, conservatives would never abide. They simply did not tolerate, for example, Donald Trump's relentless campaign of birtherism. Nor did they gather in 2009 and decide to obstruct everything the new Democratic president was about to propose. Right?

In the larger scheme of things, whatever the WSJ's Daniel Henninger believes is unimportant. But the WSJ's deputy editorial page director helps to set argumentation standards for the right. It would be further helpful, then, if Mr. Henninger were to structure his arguments on that which he claims the left has abandoned: intellectual content, evidence, deliberative considerations, sound policies and fairness.

 

Trump's presser (the poor guy)

A few minutes ago, in one of his characteristically offensive press conferences, Trump expressed befuddlement as to why he has been able to appoint so many judges to the federal bench. At one point he guessed that the Obama administration simply got "tired," but mostly he stood there, either feigning ignorance or, more believably, steeped in it.

This, from the Chicago Tribune, Christmas Day, 2016, should clear up the president's bewilderment:

"The estimated 103 judicial vacancies that President Barack Obama is expected to hand over to Trump in the Jan. 20 transition of power is nearly double the 54 openings Obama found eight years ago following George W. Bush's presidency.

"Confirmation of Obama's judicial nominees slowed to a crawl after Republicans took control of the Senate in 2015. Obama White House officials blame Senate Republicans for what they characterize as an unprecedented level of obstruction in blocking the Democratic president's court picks (italics mine)."

The press conference continues. So far, Trump has talked more about himself — and all the egregious wrongs committed against him — than Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.

 

New poll finds widespread devastation for the GOP

From a new, USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll:

Democrats had a 14-point margin, 55% to 41%, when likely voters were asked which party’s candidate they would cast a ballot for if the election were held now….

Especially notable are the views of women, whose preferences have expanded the Democratic edge since a USC Dornsife poll surveyed most of the same voters this summer….Voters … oppose Republicans on a number of major issues. But overriding all of them is the president, whose outsized personality has dominated the nation’s news since he declared his candidacy more than three years ago.

In the summer, men were closely divided between the two parties; they remain so now. But women, who already leaned significantly toward the Democrats, have shifted further in their direction, widening a large gender gap. The poll found women now favor the Democrats by 28 percentage points, 62% to 34%, among likely voters.

"Especially striking," notes the LA Times, is this almost unbelievable finding: "Democrats have also made significant gains among older voters, a bastion for Republicans over the last two decades. Among likely voters 65 and older, Democrats lead 51% to 45%."

"Especially striking," meet "very disturbing," which is how Republican strategist Mike Murphy assessed the poll. "If Republicans are not doing well with seniors and not doing well with college-educated voters in the suburbs," said Murphy, "there’s just no good news" for the GOP.

One hopes the 2018 election is more than a conservative setback. One hopes instead it's the beginning of a major realignment. If so, then Donald Trump will have performed a lasting service to his country, after all. Next up, someone, somewhere will have to pick up the partisan pieces and spearhead a new and genuinely conservative party.

(On the less hopeful downside, Nate Silver gives a dispiriting "C" to USC Dornsife/LA Times polls.)

 

You just can't top this kind of stupid

CNN reports that "Trump has grown increasingly dissatisfied with the way Brett Kavanaugh has defended himself." He's "become increasingly agitated and animated," he believes the nominee appeared "wooden" in his "This Is My Life" Fox News interview Monday night, and that he "should have been more aggressive" — all of which "has led the President to believe that he must personally take charge of defending his embattled nominee."

Here, though, is the more revelatory — or should I say familiar? — part of the CNN story:

"Trump addressed the matter again Wednesday, minutes before he chaired the Security Council meeting, remarking he would have pushed Kavanaugh's nomination through the Senate two weeks ago if he were responsible for the proceedings. 'They could have pushed it through two weeks ago and we wouldn't be talking about this right now, which is what I would have preferred,' said Trump."

I've no doubt Trump would have done just that: He would have rammed through Kavanaugh's confirmation — and then been left with a wounded, crippled, forever-stained Supreme Court nominee, once the current allegations came to light, which they most assuredly would have.

That is Trump in brief: reckless, rash, foolhardy, imprudent, careless — and stupid. Even knowing (as of yesterday) what his opponents' next move would have been — the exposition of multiple sexual-assault allegations — Trump still insisted he would have executed a hurried confirmation, and thereby put his and Kavanaugh's neck in a noose.

The severely limited cognition of this clown is absolutely unfathomable. 

 

#3

***

The "end of the line" came days ago, boys. 

REPOST

 

Trump's stand-up routine at the U.N.

Former diplomat Nicholas Burns called it "a sad moment for American leadership," and Thomas Wright, of the Brookings Institution, recounted that "it’s the first time I’m aware of that people actually laughed at a president…. The world is laughing at us. They think we’re fools."

The world would be right, were it not for Hillary Clinton's three-million-vote victory over Trump in the presidential election. That singular statistic (which is growing in sentiment) is what keeps most American voters — the majority opposition to the properly ridiculed president — from fleeing the fatherland in humiliation and shame.

Still, we're stuck with this embarrassing clown, who, in his infinite cluelessness, shabbily misuses a gathering of United Nations members as a campaign event. Trump is simply incapable of seeing the world stage as anything but another opportunity to boast, preen and demagogue before his domestic base of the equally clueless.

"In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country," bragged the delusional president before a shocked U.N. audience, which, as the Times puts it, "broke into murmurs and laughter." Trump, somewhat rattled, said "[I] didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s O.K." To which, in turn, the Times editorials board sensibly writes, "Actually, it’s not O.K. America’s president is now openly derided in the most important international forum."

This is what "America First" has reduced us to. Trump was going to restore what was never lost in American greatness under his predecessor.

But it's lost now.

 

Jeff Flake could be the joker in the deck

The Hill observes that Maine's Susan Collins "is poised to make or break Brett Kavanaugh’s chance at becoming a Supreme Court justice," and the NY Times reports that Lisa Murkowski of Alaska "is offering a blunt warning of her own: Do not prejudge sexual assault allegations against the nominee."

Such is the senatorial twosome that might spearhead the collapse of the Kavanaugh nomination.

Less observed is the political position of Arizona's Jeff Flake, one of the few U.S. senators who has spoken publicly against Trump — far more so, in fact, than either Collins or Murkowski. And it seems to me that Flake, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, could cause real trouble for Brett Kavanaugh.

Why do I single out Sen. Flake? Because he's interested in challenging Trump in 2020. He may not do so, and if he does the odds will be heavily against him. But that's all the more reason for Flake to safeguard as much of the Republican women's vote as is politically possible — and opposing Kavanaugh, from one of the 11 seats on the Judiciary Committee, would be a spectacular way to do it.

Democrats hold 10 seats, so the math speaks for itself. As does Flake's political self-interest.

 

Senator Cretin?

How would you like this imbecile representing you in the United States Senate? Politico:

"Rep. Kevin Cramer, the Republican nominee for Senate in North Dakota, questioned whether the allegation of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be disqualifying for his Supreme Court nomination even if it were true.

"In an interview with a local TV station, Cramer said if Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her three decades ago were true, it would be 'unfortunate' and 'terrible,' but should be weighed against his life and judicial record since that time."

Yes, a trifle unfortunate.

Still, others have made the argument that Kavanaugh's professional record more than compensates for his youthful … indiscretion? There, Cramer is not that unique — which is also "unfortunate." But take a look at the congressman's stated reasoning as to why Kavanaugh's particular, teenage actions were rather innocuous:

"There was no type of intercourse or anything like that," he said. "Nothing happened in terms of a sexual event, beyond, obviously, the attack."

Emphasis mine. Imbecility his.