The number one question which will be answered by the midterms is our political system's 2018 response to its catastrophic fall forward on its face in 2016. Will it be to lie prostrate and pathetic, or to spring back ? There is a third option, for it to rise groggily to its feet and ready itself for the real conflict which lies ahead.
Not for nothing, I have decided to spend the one hour given back by this day--and what an exceptionally lovely fall day it was here today--and post some of my current thoughts within a strict, one-hour limit. I am five minutes into it now as I write. Of course, this has nothing to do with the time zone change here, for which the mnemonic is the inverse.
My predictions for the election, defined as of the first day of the new Congress' session:
229 for Dems in the House (vs. 205), and
48 Dem. senators (including Independents).
With senators, the prediction comes from looking at the individual races and how they are likely to turn out. Right now, there is one very likely D-to-R (Heitkamp in ND) and five that are basically toss-ups (AZ and NV that the Republicans are defending, and IN, MO, and FL that the Democrats are defending). Viewed as a product of the function of the number of seats changing party hands, 1, 3, and 5 are very likely results for that; each of those is most likely to result in the Republican Senator number being 52. Considering only those, if the Democrats lose ND they cannot win the Senate, looking only at those states.
The main wild card is if the Democrats can win one of North Dakota (Heitkamp defending), Tennessee (open seat with Corker's retirement) or Texas (the Beto O'Rourke phenomenon). Any of those outcomes is a game-changer and suddenly makes the Senate contest both relevant and a top story. There are going to be a whole lot of states we can expect the Democats to win and hold their Senate seats, in spite of 2016 Trump wins (OH, PA, MI, WI, MT, WV, and the special case of Bob Menendez defending in the Clinton state of NJ ). These will not be news--though Ohio should be--unless the Democrat is defeated.
Otherwise, the top story will be the governors' races. Leading the coverage will be those of Florida and Georgia, where history can be made in 2018. First African-American governor(s) in the Deep South (i.e., excluding Virginia) since Reconstruction? Gillum seems very likely in FL, while Stacey Abrams' bid to become Governor of Georgia (!!) is highly plausible but very possibly will be wrecked on the (il)logic of the state's political system. It looks to me as though she may have a plurality on Tuesday, but having less than 50% of the votes it would go to a runoff, which may be harder for her to win. (It may take quite a while to determine if that's so; if there needs to be a runoff)
There are a whole lot of other close governors' races through the night, allowing national coverage to fill with plenty of content. Iowa is a particularly important one; so is Kansas, where a total Trumpite voter suppression creep (Kris Kobach) has the opportunity to continue a Kansan tradition of failed Republican governors. New Mexico should return a Democrat to office; real control of the state government remains just beyond reach, but the win takes out of the statewide picture a prominent right-wing elected official (Steve Pearce, no relation to the World Series MVP).
The Upper Midwest will be a good story for the Democrats. Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania will all go Democratic or remain comfortably Democratic. Wisconsin has an exciting race to see if Scott Walker can be displaced. Ohio is a nail-biter, and a win for Richard Cordray would have implications for the 2020 voter issues in that critical state.
My House estimate is based on one statistic: the average, between realclearpolitics' number and fivethirtyeight's one, for the difference between parties in the generic Congressional preference poll. Those are themselves averages of various poll results, weighted according to their judgment.
From the results of studies, there is a definite mathematical relationship between that gap and the expected pick-up of Congressional seats for the Democrats. Five38 has a 5.8% gap being the estimate of what is required for the Dems to have 218 seats (pickup of 23), while a 12% gap is estimated for the Democrats to reach 250 (pickup of 55). The relationship is largely linear, but with non-linearities at the top and bottom of the distribution, and around the 8-10% range, this last one when the numerical net advantages the Republicans achieved through redistricting fall apart and accelerate the increase. My fit of that, and the data showing about 7.8% average, gives me an estimate of a 34-seat pickup for the Democrats, to 229.
Enough about that. I am moved to write by the beauty of the fall day here. It is to protect the quality of life, for my kids, theirs, my neighbors kids, etc. The sense of the meaning of quality of life that these kinds of days bring allows me to make my choices.
Start Thinking About Tomorrow--It'll Soon Be Here: I can not choose between electoral reforms and climate change defenses that I should make as my top issue for 2020 (and polls have asked me that question, though about the 2018 elections, several times; I switch between the two, and typically I'd have to write-in either one, as they don't include those among the suggested answers. If they don't let me write in, I put "Education".)
Next I would put, but don't even mention it, "it's not a priority" in choosing a President, foreign policy: Withdrawing for the Paris Climate Change accords is one of the great scars on the record of the Trump Administration, an unthinkable act of stubborn ignorance which brings shame upon the country. I give Trump credit for avoiding getting us in a stupid war--so far, but no credit at all for unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear accord and sabotaging his European trading partners. When Mattis leaves, and Kelly, and it is just Stephen Miller and John Bolton, I fear the worst.
It's not on the horizon in the pre-race discussion but watch out, as it could easily overshadow any other issue (and could save Trump's bippy if the economy stalls).
For the Democratic platform, I recommend a plank for Electoral College representation for Puerto Rico. A constitutional amendment if that's what it takes. DC Statehood, also (a plank); whether legislatively or the same amendment. It should help focus Republican attention on the fact that they are going to lose Florida real quick, and Texas maybe, also, in the next few years. You take away those two states' votes and the Republicans will no longer look on the Electoral College as their friend. If you make Puerto Rico and D.C. more viable, in several ways, this being one of them, you strengthen the nation.
In terms of tactics for all these, these should be bipartisan in scope and an attempt made to negotiate with the Republicans and Trump. In return, they can agree to whatever middle-class tax cut the 3-D President would sign, an infrastructure agreement, and a gradual change in some of the legal immigration trajectories, bringing some sense and thought into that effort.
I saw the bold CBS 60 Minutes' piece on the AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass killers throughout the country. That's #3 for me: If you can't advocate changes to help our environment, support some meaningful changes to the electoral system, or propose something positive on reducing gun violence (even through mental illness treatment), I got no use for you, and I don't care what party you're in, or how you feel about "welfare" or "entitlement programs" or even women's liberation or affirmative action. Those things come later, after you've passed the initial intelligence test.
P.S. 3-D President was originatlly (Dumb Duck Dubya). The King Duck title has now been passed on (around Obama) to Trump, making him Dickhead Duck Drumpf.
Sunday, November 04, 2018
Sunday, October 21, 2018
2018 Midterms: Some Fearless/Fearful Predictions
Confusion will be my Epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
--Epitaph, King Crimson
I'm thinking of the song lyrics above as an epigram for the elections themselves, or for one, or more likely, both parties, not for me personally. I'm saving my emotions somewhat for the War of 2020.
Watching and reading the talking heads, I find that they were burned too badly in 2016; nobody is willing to step up and make a prediction on the outcome(s). Is there a red wave, and will it cancel out the blue one? Will this be an affirmation, a check, or a rejection of the Drumpfenreich? Nobody is saying.
Not having a professional reputation in this area to defend, I am less constrained. For the most part, I'm not going to make many specific predictions on individual races, as I don't have good enough sources of data. However, I will do something that not many have done and make some broad general predictions, to wit:
1. The most lasting result of the 2018 elections will be confusion and stagnation. We can expect the Democrats to control the House of Representatives--how much or how little won't even matter that much in practical terms; we can expect the Senate control to stay in Republican hands, and most likely they will do a little bit better than the 51-49 margin they have now. We can expect a fairly large number of state governors to flip from Republicans to Democrats, and some in important states for the 2020 elections--that will be the most significant outcome in the longer run.
The expected split in control of the houses of Congress means that very little is likely to be accomplished legislatively in the next Congress. The "do-nothing Congress" will be a term that both parties will overuse in the 2020 campaign; partisans on both sides will know whom to blame (the other side), while independents will be able to maintain their states of confusion and of indifference-to-hate with which they view both sides. President Trump will continue to do his best to undermine the effectiveness of the Federal government through his incompetent and destructive leadership.
2. It will take a long time for the final numbers of the 2018 midterms to be confirmed. This will be very frustrating for the news organizations on Election Night; I think it is unlikely that they will be able to make a call on control of either the House or the Senate until deep into the night, or until the morning after. There are so many close races--something like eight races listed as "tossup" in both the Senate and the Governors' categories, and 30 or so in the House, by the reckonings of most experts. To make things worse, a runoff is likely in the Mississippi Senate special election, and very possible in the Georgia governor's race (more on this one later). The former could be decisive on Senate control (a good result leading to a relatively bad outcome for the Democrats, if true); the latter is going to be full of controversy, it is already apparent, due to efforts by the Georgia Secretary of State and his minions to affect the outcome--in the race for which he is the Republican candidate--through voter suppression (or, if you like, "prevention of voter fraud") measures. There are going to be many races in which the result will depend on absentee ballots, recounts, or even court decisions on disputed outcomes. The muddle will continue for weeks, or months.
3. Donald Trump will declare the result "a huge victory"; so will the Democratic National Committee, and especially the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I guess this is obvious. I will be interested to see if the House results (the purview of the DCCC) will make my (very fine) Congressman, Ben Ray Lujan, a national star. (he is the head of the DCCC this year) . Again, in the House of Representatives, even a one-vote margin will suffice for the Democrats to claim victory, though they are shooting for more than that, to make sure they get control. Same goes for the Republicans in the Senate, really, as getting to 60 Republican Senators, something which would give them full control on Senate legislative activity, seems out of the question. If you're wondering, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee is Cory Gardner of Colorado, who will be a key target for Democrats in 2020 trying once again to regain control of the Senate. He's keeping a pretty low profile this year but will become a focal point later, particularly if he is not able to expand his party's current narrow margin.
4. Bottom Line: the can will effectively be kicked down the road, and the 2020 campaigns will begin immediately, even before the numbers are finalized. Democratic Presidential candidates will not be able to tell whether to contest Trump's' bluster and insults fiercely, or matter-of-factly, or just to ignore them. There will be enough candidates that several will try each strategy. The one of those strategies that works best, and things like personality, name recognition, and organization will determine which candidates will survive the pre-primary and early-primary free-for-all. For some of the debates, there will not be enough room on the stage for all of them, let alone enough time for each to make more than a sound-bite line or two.
5. The incredible waste of money in the current format and (lack of) regulation of campaign financing and spending will itself become a major issue. I really am just hoping this is true; it will not be resolved by 2020, but I expect to see some new approaches to the problem (how to raise enough money to defeat one's opponent without compromising oneself in the eyes of the constituents) from candidates--maybe from both parties!--who see what a problem it is, who see how it is leading to the bad outcomes (disapproval of all parties and candidates, low turnout, polarization, and the aforementioned stagnation) we are getting. I would cite Beto O'Rourke's campaign as an early version of what I'm talking about, though the jury is out whether that will be a winning strategy in his Senate race in Texas.
2020 Democratic Presidential/Vice-Presidential Endorsements. (I am only half-serious here, obviously there are many, many hills and valleys ahead, starting November 7.)
For President: Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio. Despite the Republicans' best efforts--multiple Trump/Pence visits, lots of money, etc.--Brown is headed for a resounding re-election victory in this super-critical, Republican-leaning state. That in itself tells a lot, but there's more: he is a strong Democratic partisan (critical for the nomination), something of a populist when it comes to foreign and trade policies (in line with most Americans' views these days, whether right or wrong), and his gruff, colloquial speaking style could appeal to disaffected blue-collar men all over the country. But don't let that fool you too much: he is a veteran (though not undefeated) electoral campaigner, highly knowledgeable (yes, a Yale graduate) and a convincing public speaker.
The negative: he has denied any interest in running for President ("I don't want to do it"), From my personal point of view, that's a positive for consideration--anyone who wants to be President too much, shouldn't be, and anyone who wants to run for President must be a masochist. Still, the days of nomination by draft are probably over.
For Vice-President: Carmen Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. She has emerged into national semi-prominence in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the often-heroic efforts to address the devastation it caused, and the controversy over the blame for the failures to address life-and-death health issues in the territory since then. In every regard, she has emerged as a powerful, honest voice concerned above all for her constituents and unafraid of anyone. She would make a great "attack dog"--no insult intended--to mock and counter Trump effectively (what the 2020 Democratic VP nominee must do, and what 2016 nominee Tim Kaine failed to do), as well as someone who could help bring attention to what should be a strong Democratic platform element: statehood for DC, and a debate, leading to a referendum and Congressional action, on Puerto Rico's permanent status. Better than .anyone, she can analyze why the current P.R. status does not work and what should be done about it. In case anyone is wondering, she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements for the position.
While I'm at it:
For Speaker of the House (assuming Democrats win control): former President Barack Obama. It amazes me that no one--at least as far as I have seen--has suggested this solution to the potential bloody internecine problem the House Democrats would have. Sure, Nancy Pelosi will win a showdown if it comes to that, but that will leave many unhappy or unsatisfied, and the Democrats need a recognized party leader to take them to 2020. I anticipate that Mitt Romney will become the new Republican "conscience of the Senate", the person who can stand up to our Banana Republic would-be autocrat, taking the place of the departed McCain, Corker, Flake, and the abdication from that role of Lindsay Graham; who better to top Romney than the man who comprehensively defeated him? Who knows, I would bet Romney and Obama would be able to find some common ground behind closed doors and overcome the stagnation in some cases (like keeping the government running, despite Trump). Like Cruz, he meets the requirements for the position--they do not include being an elected House Representative.
I will make two stipulations: 1) Speaker Obama would not/can not be part of the line of succession to the Presidency; it would just skip over that office to the next person (I think Speaker is between President pro tempore of the Senate and Secretary of State); and 2) The possibility of this is really just between Pelosi, Obama, and Michelle Obama. I know President Obama has some things he wants to accomplish outside of Washington, and Michelle can't wait to leave it behind, but neither does Obama seem comfortable sitting on the sidelines. This would be a two-year commitment only; Pelosi would still get a "promotion" to Majority Leader. It would be a great move of self-abnegation for Pelosi, historic in its significance, unprecedented--but these are times that cry out for innovative thinking. I think if she made the announcement, he would be approved by acclamation in the Democratic caucus--he'd better be!
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
--Epitaph, King Crimson
I'm thinking of the song lyrics above as an epigram for the elections themselves, or for one, or more likely, both parties, not for me personally. I'm saving my emotions somewhat for the War of 2020.
Watching and reading the talking heads, I find that they were burned too badly in 2016; nobody is willing to step up and make a prediction on the outcome(s). Is there a red wave, and will it cancel out the blue one? Will this be an affirmation, a check, or a rejection of the Drumpfenreich? Nobody is saying.
Not having a professional reputation in this area to defend, I am less constrained. For the most part, I'm not going to make many specific predictions on individual races, as I don't have good enough sources of data. However, I will do something that not many have done and make some broad general predictions, to wit:
1. The most lasting result of the 2018 elections will be confusion and stagnation. We can expect the Democrats to control the House of Representatives--how much or how little won't even matter that much in practical terms; we can expect the Senate control to stay in Republican hands, and most likely they will do a little bit better than the 51-49 margin they have now. We can expect a fairly large number of state governors to flip from Republicans to Democrats, and some in important states for the 2020 elections--that will be the most significant outcome in the longer run.
The expected split in control of the houses of Congress means that very little is likely to be accomplished legislatively in the next Congress. The "do-nothing Congress" will be a term that both parties will overuse in the 2020 campaign; partisans on both sides will know whom to blame (the other side), while independents will be able to maintain their states of confusion and of indifference-to-hate with which they view both sides. President Trump will continue to do his best to undermine the effectiveness of the Federal government through his incompetent and destructive leadership.
2. It will take a long time for the final numbers of the 2018 midterms to be confirmed. This will be very frustrating for the news organizations on Election Night; I think it is unlikely that they will be able to make a call on control of either the House or the Senate until deep into the night, or until the morning after. There are so many close races--something like eight races listed as "tossup" in both the Senate and the Governors' categories, and 30 or so in the House, by the reckonings of most experts. To make things worse, a runoff is likely in the Mississippi Senate special election, and very possible in the Georgia governor's race (more on this one later). The former could be decisive on Senate control (a good result leading to a relatively bad outcome for the Democrats, if true); the latter is going to be full of controversy, it is already apparent, due to efforts by the Georgia Secretary of State and his minions to affect the outcome--in the race for which he is the Republican candidate--through voter suppression (or, if you like, "prevention of voter fraud") measures. There are going to be many races in which the result will depend on absentee ballots, recounts, or even court decisions on disputed outcomes. The muddle will continue for weeks, or months.
3. Donald Trump will declare the result "a huge victory"; so will the Democratic National Committee, and especially the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I guess this is obvious. I will be interested to see if the House results (the purview of the DCCC) will make my (very fine) Congressman, Ben Ray Lujan, a national star. (he is the head of the DCCC this year) . Again, in the House of Representatives, even a one-vote margin will suffice for the Democrats to claim victory, though they are shooting for more than that, to make sure they get control. Same goes for the Republicans in the Senate, really, as getting to 60 Republican Senators, something which would give them full control on Senate legislative activity, seems out of the question. If you're wondering, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee is Cory Gardner of Colorado, who will be a key target for Democrats in 2020 trying once again to regain control of the Senate. He's keeping a pretty low profile this year but will become a focal point later, particularly if he is not able to expand his party's current narrow margin.
4. Bottom Line: the can will effectively be kicked down the road, and the 2020 campaigns will begin immediately, even before the numbers are finalized. Democratic Presidential candidates will not be able to tell whether to contest Trump's' bluster and insults fiercely, or matter-of-factly, or just to ignore them. There will be enough candidates that several will try each strategy. The one of those strategies that works best, and things like personality, name recognition, and organization will determine which candidates will survive the pre-primary and early-primary free-for-all. For some of the debates, there will not be enough room on the stage for all of them, let alone enough time for each to make more than a sound-bite line or two.
5. The incredible waste of money in the current format and (lack of) regulation of campaign financing and spending will itself become a major issue. I really am just hoping this is true; it will not be resolved by 2020, but I expect to see some new approaches to the problem (how to raise enough money to defeat one's opponent without compromising oneself in the eyes of the constituents) from candidates--maybe from both parties!--who see what a problem it is, who see how it is leading to the bad outcomes (disapproval of all parties and candidates, low turnout, polarization, and the aforementioned stagnation) we are getting. I would cite Beto O'Rourke's campaign as an early version of what I'm talking about, though the jury is out whether that will be a winning strategy in his Senate race in Texas.
2020 Democratic Presidential/Vice-Presidential Endorsements. (I am only half-serious here, obviously there are many, many hills and valleys ahead, starting November 7.)
For President: Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio. Despite the Republicans' best efforts--multiple Trump/Pence visits, lots of money, etc.--Brown is headed for a resounding re-election victory in this super-critical, Republican-leaning state. That in itself tells a lot, but there's more: he is a strong Democratic partisan (critical for the nomination), something of a populist when it comes to foreign and trade policies (in line with most Americans' views these days, whether right or wrong), and his gruff, colloquial speaking style could appeal to disaffected blue-collar men all over the country. But don't let that fool you too much: he is a veteran (though not undefeated) electoral campaigner, highly knowledgeable (yes, a Yale graduate) and a convincing public speaker.
The negative: he has denied any interest in running for President ("I don't want to do it"), From my personal point of view, that's a positive for consideration--anyone who wants to be President too much, shouldn't be, and anyone who wants to run for President must be a masochist. Still, the days of nomination by draft are probably over.
For Vice-President: Carmen Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. She has emerged into national semi-prominence in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the often-heroic efforts to address the devastation it caused, and the controversy over the blame for the failures to address life-and-death health issues in the territory since then. In every regard, she has emerged as a powerful, honest voice concerned above all for her constituents and unafraid of anyone. She would make a great "attack dog"--no insult intended--to mock and counter Trump effectively (what the 2020 Democratic VP nominee must do, and what 2016 nominee Tim Kaine failed to do), as well as someone who could help bring attention to what should be a strong Democratic platform element: statehood for DC, and a debate, leading to a referendum and Congressional action, on Puerto Rico's permanent status. Better than .anyone, she can analyze why the current P.R. status does not work and what should be done about it. In case anyone is wondering, she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements for the position.
While I'm at it:
For Speaker of the House (assuming Democrats win control): former President Barack Obama. It amazes me that no one--at least as far as I have seen--has suggested this solution to the potential bloody internecine problem the House Democrats would have. Sure, Nancy Pelosi will win a showdown if it comes to that, but that will leave many unhappy or unsatisfied, and the Democrats need a recognized party leader to take them to 2020. I anticipate that Mitt Romney will become the new Republican "conscience of the Senate", the person who can stand up to our Banana Republic would-be autocrat, taking the place of the departed McCain, Corker, Flake, and the abdication from that role of Lindsay Graham; who better to top Romney than the man who comprehensively defeated him? Who knows, I would bet Romney and Obama would be able to find some common ground behind closed doors and overcome the stagnation in some cases (like keeping the government running, despite Trump). Like Cruz, he meets the requirements for the position--they do not include being an elected House Representative.
I will make two stipulations: 1) Speaker Obama would not/can not be part of the line of succession to the Presidency; it would just skip over that office to the next person (I think Speaker is between President pro tempore of the Senate and Secretary of State); and 2) The possibility of this is really just between Pelosi, Obama, and Michelle Obama. I know President Obama has some things he wants to accomplish outside of Washington, and Michelle can't wait to leave it behind, but neither does Obama seem comfortable sitting on the sidelines. This would be a two-year commitment only; Pelosi would still get a "promotion" to Majority Leader. It would be a great move of self-abnegation for Pelosi, historic in its significance, unprecedented--but these are times that cry out for innovative thinking. I think if she made the announcement, he would be approved by acclamation in the Democratic caucus--he'd better be!
Monday, October 01, 2018
Do Due Diligence
I can only imagine the anguish that a Senator who had not decided whether to vote for Brett Kavanaugh, someone whose decision lay in resolving the truth of Professor Blasey Ford's accusation, might have felt watching the drama Thursday. I wonder if there were any such Senators.
I have no trouble at all believing both Dr. Ford's account and Kavanaugh's protestations of innocence. Innocence is a state of mind, and I can easily believe that it happened, just as she said (sketchy though the details may be) and that he remembers nothing of it. I don't even believe he would have had to have been pass-out drunk to lose his memory of it, just that what happened was not sexual assault in his mind, and he forgot about it. When it came up recently, he readily convinced himself that it couldn't have happened. There can be that much difference in how people perceive events.
I do thank Senator Flake for his crisis of confidence (or of conscience), his second thoughts just after announcing his intention to vote to confirm. We can call it courage, but it was certainly human, in the best sense of the word. The result was a well-drawn political compromise, in the way these finally occur: not horse-trading, but the merging of varying interests.
We can all wish that a week's investigation will firmly establish the truth of the matter, or of the Yale freshman dorm indecent exposure charge, but that is not the way this life works. Truth reveals itself much more subtly than that, if at all. I have no doubt that a persistent investigation would show that Kavanaugh's "white lies" were much more numerous and substantial than those that have already been uncovered. If I were the FBI investigator, I would want to talk to that ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, someone whose name I have not heard mentioned as an investigation interview subject. Though it would all be hearsay, there could be no better source to get the hidden dirt.
The Senators who have the true leverage in this story are Senators Collins and Murkowski, as they have been for weeks. Though they were not in the Judiciary Committee, they enlisted Flake to be their voice there, and he came through for them. I have heard that they are both very concerned about process, and this will give them a chance to satisfy themselves and vote for confirmation, if that is what they feel they must do. As for Sen. Manchin and Sen. Heitkamp, they have correctly understood that their best interest (vote maximizing in the midst of challenging re-election bids) is to wait until the last moment to make their decisions, thus having all the information of their respective states' public opinion. Their votes are unlikely to be decisive, unless Collins and Murkowski both vote No.
Just as Flake desperately needed to find another door when he was cornered in the elevator by the women demonstrating their despair, Friday's change of story provided Mitch McConnell a way out from a difficult situation, as the immediate agreement both he and President Trump gave to the one-week delay proposal showed. There had been a scheduled vote the next day to set the date of the final vote--that was looking like a vote that McConnell was going to lose. The vote to end debate was always the one he had to find all 51 Republicans to support, and now he has the means to get it--or rather, he will, in a week.
What it appears to me from Thursday's session is that Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas may find that he need not stay on any longer in the Court, for Justice Kavanaugh should adequately represent the men-feeling-aggrieved-by-women's-accusations constituency. I don't dispute its existence, and it's probably growing, but does it really need two Supreme Court justices (and a President) to defend its interests?
Professor Ford's civic-minded sacrifice should have at least one positive effect, though it may not stop Kavanaugh's confirmation: she will have provided the national culture something permanent, in terms of women's ability to speak out against bad actors. And, though regardless of his guilt, based on his performance Thursday I would indeed describe Kavanaugh as a bad actor, I also find that the Republican base is in love with them (see Reagan, Trump). As such, I think Kavanaugh's stance will also help juice up Republican turnout, which will make Election Night even more uncertain and much too interesting.
"The Ranking Member"and Team
I cannot help giving some reviews to some of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee--for one thing, three of them seem likely to run for President, and this was their unavoidable national audition. Of those three, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota had the best moments, and she, along with moderates Blumenthal and Coons ended up winning the day for their team's search for delay, while Cory Booker and Kamala Harris were less successful in creating positive momentum for their embryonic candidacies. I will cite the public service of Sen. Whitehouse (not in a close race this year, probably not running for President) for taking on the ugly, unpopular task of going through Kavanaugh's damaging high-school yearbook quotations and the evasive and sarcastic responses that exercise was sure to elicit.
The Democrats on the committee stuck together, as they needed to do, and worked cooperatively.. I am concerned, though, about Sen. Feinstein, the "ranking member" (what a crummy title!) of the committee's Democratic contingent, who was unable to provide leadership in the meeting room--maybe she did better away from the cameras. She was not able to provide a Kavanauvian denial of the leaking of Prof. Ford's original letter which had been entrusted to her (she denied it, but not very passionately), never showed much capacity to defend herself from the criticism (from all sides) for respecting Ford's privacy for so long, and was clueless on Friday about what was going on. While I don't see that she did anything improper, running for re-election this year at age 85, against another Democrat (the general election pits the two survivors of California's open primary), she might want to consider gracefully stepping aside. Or, put another way, Californians might take another look, a more favorable one, at her opponent, Kevin de Leon.
I have no trouble at all believing both Dr. Ford's account and Kavanaugh's protestations of innocence. Innocence is a state of mind, and I can easily believe that it happened, just as she said (sketchy though the details may be) and that he remembers nothing of it. I don't even believe he would have had to have been pass-out drunk to lose his memory of it, just that what happened was not sexual assault in his mind, and he forgot about it. When it came up recently, he readily convinced himself that it couldn't have happened. There can be that much difference in how people perceive events.
I do thank Senator Flake for his crisis of confidence (or of conscience), his second thoughts just after announcing his intention to vote to confirm. We can call it courage, but it was certainly human, in the best sense of the word. The result was a well-drawn political compromise, in the way these finally occur: not horse-trading, but the merging of varying interests.
We can all wish that a week's investigation will firmly establish the truth of the matter, or of the Yale freshman dorm indecent exposure charge, but that is not the way this life works. Truth reveals itself much more subtly than that, if at all. I have no doubt that a persistent investigation would show that Kavanaugh's "white lies" were much more numerous and substantial than those that have already been uncovered. If I were the FBI investigator, I would want to talk to that ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, someone whose name I have not heard mentioned as an investigation interview subject. Though it would all be hearsay, there could be no better source to get the hidden dirt.
The Senators who have the true leverage in this story are Senators Collins and Murkowski, as they have been for weeks. Though they were not in the Judiciary Committee, they enlisted Flake to be their voice there, and he came through for them. I have heard that they are both very concerned about process, and this will give them a chance to satisfy themselves and vote for confirmation, if that is what they feel they must do. As for Sen. Manchin and Sen. Heitkamp, they have correctly understood that their best interest (vote maximizing in the midst of challenging re-election bids) is to wait until the last moment to make their decisions, thus having all the information of their respective states' public opinion. Their votes are unlikely to be decisive, unless Collins and Murkowski both vote No.
Just as Flake desperately needed to find another door when he was cornered in the elevator by the women demonstrating their despair, Friday's change of story provided Mitch McConnell a way out from a difficult situation, as the immediate agreement both he and President Trump gave to the one-week delay proposal showed. There had been a scheduled vote the next day to set the date of the final vote--that was looking like a vote that McConnell was going to lose. The vote to end debate was always the one he had to find all 51 Republicans to support, and now he has the means to get it--or rather, he will, in a week.
What it appears to me from Thursday's session is that Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas may find that he need not stay on any longer in the Court, for Justice Kavanaugh should adequately represent the men-feeling-aggrieved-by-women's-accusations constituency. I don't dispute its existence, and it's probably growing, but does it really need two Supreme Court justices (and a President) to defend its interests?
Professor Ford's civic-minded sacrifice should have at least one positive effect, though it may not stop Kavanaugh's confirmation: she will have provided the national culture something permanent, in terms of women's ability to speak out against bad actors. And, though regardless of his guilt, based on his performance Thursday I would indeed describe Kavanaugh as a bad actor, I also find that the Republican base is in love with them (see Reagan, Trump). As such, I think Kavanaugh's stance will also help juice up Republican turnout, which will make Election Night even more uncertain and much too interesting.
"The Ranking Member"and Team
I cannot help giving some reviews to some of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee--for one thing, three of them seem likely to run for President, and this was their unavoidable national audition. Of those three, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota had the best moments, and she, along with moderates Blumenthal and Coons ended up winning the day for their team's search for delay, while Cory Booker and Kamala Harris were less successful in creating positive momentum for their embryonic candidacies. I will cite the public service of Sen. Whitehouse (not in a close race this year, probably not running for President) for taking on the ugly, unpopular task of going through Kavanaugh's damaging high-school yearbook quotations and the evasive and sarcastic responses that exercise was sure to elicit.
The Democrats on the committee stuck together, as they needed to do, and worked cooperatively.. I am concerned, though, about Sen. Feinstein, the "ranking member" (what a crummy title!) of the committee's Democratic contingent, who was unable to provide leadership in the meeting room--maybe she did better away from the cameras. She was not able to provide a Kavanauvian denial of the leaking of Prof. Ford's original letter which had been entrusted to her (she denied it, but not very passionately), never showed much capacity to defend herself from the criticism (from all sides) for respecting Ford's privacy for so long, and was clueless on Friday about what was going on. While I don't see that she did anything improper, running for re-election this year at age 85, against another Democrat (the general election pits the two survivors of California's open primary), she might want to consider gracefully stepping aside. Or, put another way, Californians might take another look, a more favorable one, at her opponent, Kevin de Leon.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Just Baseball--Premature Postseason Analysis
It's premature to make too many specific guesses about winners in post-season series, when so many specific details of the National League brackets are yet to be finalized. So please grant me the indulgence of allowing me to do so, anyway.
Whereas the focus during the close of the regular season is entirely on the NL, in the playoffs one should look first to see what's happening in the junior circuit, the American League.
I would say that the name of the game, until changed, will be "Who Can Stop the Red Sox"? They have had a regular season of historically high quality, one of the best in our lifetimes. They have few weaknesses, and they are relatively minor ones. The offense is explosive, they even have hitters like Brandon Phillips and Hanley Ramirez in reserve, and they have sufficient top-line starting pitching along with the best closer in the majors (over the past few years) in Craig Kimbrel. They have lost so few series with opponents, so few games for that matter. They are certainly going to take some beating. But, in a short series, or more precisely in a series of those series, the unexpected can surely happen.
First round for the Botox Dynasty Bid: 2018, will of course be the Yankees. Well, it should be, but those upstart A's could take out the Bombers in a single-game playoff. Either team will come in with strong confidence in their capability, and it will be up to Boston to take them out, quickly and decisively. And that includes getting that toughest win--the fourth (just ask the 2004 Yankees).
The ALCS should also be a true test for the wannabe-Warriors (referring of course to the current dynasty-holder in the NBA; the American League Championship Series is now the MLB equivalent of the Western Conference finals. On that note, remember the 2018 ones, Golden State vs. Houston?) It will either be Cleveland or Houston, both hardened postseason veteran teams, coming off a similar series success. Both are huge offensive-minded teams with great defense, like the Red Sox. The series will likely come down to a hot starting pitcher: the Red Sox have Chris Sale and David Price who could be That Man, but the Indians have Corey Kluber and the Astros have Justin Verlander (and Gerrit Cole, for that matter).
Let's say that, in spite of those two tough tests, the Red Sox win through to the World Series. I would give that a probability in the 45-50% range (I'll check back with Fivethirtyeight's to see what they have or will have, once all the names are known). Who the heck will they play in the Series, and what will the matchup be like? Hard to say--I will take that up in a moment--but I would give the Red Sox a blanket 60% chance against the NL field. * That 60% chance, layered on the 45-50% for the New-Look BTD (see above), gives the Red Sox something like a 27-30% chance. Not so high, you could say, but it's several times higher than any other team's.
As for the NL races, they have turned out to be just as tight as promised earlier. We have been able to eliminate 3-4 "pretenders" (the Nationals, now the Phillies, Pirates and Diamondbacks), but there are still two division titles to be determined, as well as both Wild Card spots. The Cubs and Dodgers would seem to be the best bets, to win the contested divisions, to survive the playoffs and to have a chance to stop the Red Sox' bats, or at least slow them, if Boston makes the Series. For a NL team to win vs. Boston, should require one or two pitchers who can consistently demonstrate command of their pitches, under the conditions of the World Series. But it could happen.
It could also happen that the AL pitchers--from any team--are not able to command and control the NL hitters; that might happen, for example, if any of the other three NL teams in serious running (Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Colorado) get to scalding temperature with their hitting. In that vein, my two dark horse candidate for Series MVP are the leading candidates for Rookie of the Year and MVP in the NL, Ronald Acuna, Jr. (sorry, no tilde) and Nolan Arenado.
(Note on 9/22: I omitted the Cardinals from consideration, which is a very dangerous thing to do. They will need to run the gauntlet through the Wild Card, but it is far from impossible.)
OK: My bet is Red Sox defeat Braves, 4-2. If I'm given proper (longshot) odds on that Trifecta.
* I think there is a higher probability for the underdog in MLB's 7-game series than in the NBA Championships, the random event distribution shifting more toward repeated wins by the underdog. Subject for another day, I promised "just baseball". Fact is, though the AL has consistently bettered the NL in interleague games (a little less margin this year, I think) and talent has tended to flow the AL's way in things like the trading deadline moves and thourgh the draft (again, a little more balanced this year), the NL has won 4 of 7 championships this decade (5 of 8, if you include 2010, which I do not). We can mostly thank the SF Giants, who are now pretty much out of it, for that.
Whereas the focus during the close of the regular season is entirely on the NL, in the playoffs one should look first to see what's happening in the junior circuit, the American League.
I would say that the name of the game, until changed, will be "Who Can Stop the Red Sox"? They have had a regular season of historically high quality, one of the best in our lifetimes. They have few weaknesses, and they are relatively minor ones. The offense is explosive, they even have hitters like Brandon Phillips and Hanley Ramirez in reserve, and they have sufficient top-line starting pitching along with the best closer in the majors (over the past few years) in Craig Kimbrel. They have lost so few series with opponents, so few games for that matter. They are certainly going to take some beating. But, in a short series, or more precisely in a series of those series, the unexpected can surely happen.
First round for the Botox Dynasty Bid: 2018, will of course be the Yankees. Well, it should be, but those upstart A's could take out the Bombers in a single-game playoff. Either team will come in with strong confidence in their capability, and it will be up to Boston to take them out, quickly and decisively. And that includes getting that toughest win--the fourth (just ask the 2004 Yankees).
The ALCS should also be a true test for the wannabe-Warriors (referring of course to the current dynasty-holder in the NBA; the American League Championship Series is now the MLB equivalent of the Western Conference finals. On that note, remember the 2018 ones, Golden State vs. Houston?) It will either be Cleveland or Houston, both hardened postseason veteran teams, coming off a similar series success. Both are huge offensive-minded teams with great defense, like the Red Sox. The series will likely come down to a hot starting pitcher: the Red Sox have Chris Sale and David Price who could be That Man, but the Indians have Corey Kluber and the Astros have Justin Verlander (and Gerrit Cole, for that matter).
Let's say that, in spite of those two tough tests, the Red Sox win through to the World Series. I would give that a probability in the 45-50% range (I'll check back with Fivethirtyeight's to see what they have or will have, once all the names are known). Who the heck will they play in the Series, and what will the matchup be like? Hard to say--I will take that up in a moment--but I would give the Red Sox a blanket 60% chance against the NL field. * That 60% chance, layered on the 45-50% for the New-Look BTD (see above), gives the Red Sox something like a 27-30% chance. Not so high, you could say, but it's several times higher than any other team's.
As for the NL races, they have turned out to be just as tight as promised earlier. We have been able to eliminate 3-4 "pretenders" (the Nationals, now the Phillies, Pirates and Diamondbacks), but there are still two division titles to be determined, as well as both Wild Card spots. The Cubs and Dodgers would seem to be the best bets, to win the contested divisions, to survive the playoffs and to have a chance to stop the Red Sox' bats, or at least slow them, if Boston makes the Series. For a NL team to win vs. Boston, should require one or two pitchers who can consistently demonstrate command of their pitches, under the conditions of the World Series. But it could happen.
It could also happen that the AL pitchers--from any team--are not able to command and control the NL hitters; that might happen, for example, if any of the other three NL teams in serious running (Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Colorado) get to scalding temperature with their hitting. In that vein, my two dark horse candidate for Series MVP are the leading candidates for Rookie of the Year and MVP in the NL, Ronald Acuna, Jr. (sorry, no tilde) and Nolan Arenado.
(Note on 9/22: I omitted the Cardinals from consideration, which is a very dangerous thing to do. They will need to run the gauntlet through the Wild Card, but it is far from impossible.)
OK: My bet is Red Sox defeat Braves, 4-2. If I'm given proper (longshot) odds on that Trifecta.
* I think there is a higher probability for the underdog in MLB's 7-game series than in the NBA Championships, the random event distribution shifting more toward repeated wins by the underdog. Subject for another day, I promised "just baseball". Fact is, though the AL has consistently bettered the NL in interleague games (a little less margin this year, I think) and talent has tended to flow the AL's way in things like the trading deadline moves and thourgh the draft (again, a little more balanced this year), the NL has won 4 of 7 championships this decade (5 of 8, if you include 2010, which I do not). We can mostly thank the SF Giants, who are now pretty much out of it, for that.
The Lead, wth Jake Tapper
I just watched an interesting discussion on CNN moderated by Tapper. He asked the panel the question what to make of it--it being Trump's latest Twit-off about the Kavanaugh assault allegation: Ms. Kucinski clearly answered the question, it hurts the campaign for Kavanaugh's confirmation, by making the support of Senators Collins and Murkowski more problematic. Tapper moved on, yes, clearly that is the case, but what is the strategy?
I was surprised that no one answered the question correctly. Bill Kristol seemed so shell-shocked by the blunderbuss that he could not offer a rationale. Robby Mook--how would Tapper go to him for a discussion of strategy?--expressed some talking points of the whole thing being the game of hopscotch (see previous post) and getting through it (so, the strategy of the tweet?) .
What I didn't hear (did I miss something?) was that, for Trump, this confirmation is not the real objective. It doesn't matter to him, that much--particularly as long as he can blame someone else if he "loses" this one. That would be easy. He can find another guy like Kavanaugh, also relatively easily, he could "even be a woman"--Trump had just drawn Brett from a list of 10 vetted for their politics by the extreme right-wing Federalist society, perhaps particularly attracted by Kavanaugh's statements, on the record, limiting the ability of Justice to impede Presidential criminality, and there are confirmable women judges on the list. And, unless McConnell somehow blows it in the Senate contest (it would be entirely his fault), he can get that person confirmed, preserving his "legacy".
Bottom line is: As always, Trump is just trying to whip up his base. Playing the long game, the one win that would matter for Trump in the midterms is if he can somehow save control of the House. He can dare Collins or Murkowski to turn against him in the key vote, whether to proceed to the final confirmation vote, which will be as close to party-line as there is. He can even shut the government down about his Stupid Wall (the crux will come by the end of the month, if it happens). So far, he hasn't seen the need to do it; but he can still do it (to everyone) if he wants. And he likes that.
I was surprised that no one answered the question correctly. Bill Kristol seemed so shell-shocked by the blunderbuss that he could not offer a rationale. Robby Mook--how would Tapper go to him for a discussion of strategy?--expressed some talking points of the whole thing being the game of hopscotch (see previous post) and getting through it (so, the strategy of the tweet?) .
What I didn't hear (did I miss something?) was that, for Trump, this confirmation is not the real objective. It doesn't matter to him, that much--particularly as long as he can blame someone else if he "loses" this one. That would be easy. He can find another guy like Kavanaugh, also relatively easily, he could "even be a woman"--Trump had just drawn Brett from a list of 10 vetted for their politics by the extreme right-wing Federalist society, perhaps particularly attracted by Kavanaugh's statements, on the record, limiting the ability of Justice to impede Presidential criminality, and there are confirmable women judges on the list. And, unless McConnell somehow blows it in the Senate contest (it would be entirely his fault), he can get that person confirmed, preserving his "legacy".
Bottom line is: As always, Trump is just trying to whip up his base. Playing the long game, the one win that would matter for Trump in the midterms is if he can somehow save control of the House. He can dare Collins or Murkowski to turn against him in the key vote, whether to proceed to the final confirmation vote, which will be as close to party-line as there is. He can even shut the government down about his Stupid Wall (the crux will come by the end of the month, if it happens). So far, he hasn't seen the need to do it; but he can still do it (to everyone) if he wants. And he likes that.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Two Games Changed
1) Trump Dodgeball - If you know the game, we are now down to that last stage: there's only one ball active in play, and Mueller's got it. The question is, who is/are the target(s)?
Paul Manafort copping the plea will make it clear--finally--to Donald that he will not be able to snuff this out through use of his pardon. Mueller didn't particularly need Manafort to turn in order to finalize his case, but this will allow him to connect the dots more clearly for the cases he will bring. Whatever crimes were committed in the original Russian-political-interference case, Manafort was there and knows what they were. He also should understand fully that any lies he gives to the investigators would invalidate his deal (and put him in jail forever, probably), so he would have to be extremely careful, saying nothing that anyone could prove false. For Mueller, Manafort will help him wrap things up more quickly and effectively.
Based on what I've seen, there is no solid criminal case against the President for this stuff. We can take a clue from the Anonymous op-ed (remember that? It was six days ago!) The way DrumpfOrg worked and continues to work is: the Boss is strictly on a Need-to-Know basis, the less the better. Any funny business, these career hacks and dirty tricksters know, keep him out of it, protect him completely. If we are waiting for Mueller to name him Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator (as happened with Nixon), we should stop waiting, as it really doesn't mean that much anyway. The real danger to Donald is that Donald Jr. and maybe Jared could be implicated, in something like taking an illegal meeting with known foreign agents to benefit the campaign, and they wouldn't have any immunity from indictment. Now, Trump could announce pre-emptively that he will "forgive" (read: pardon) any misstatements or missteps because they were trying to do right by him, our one and only President. Trump used similar logic earlier in pardoning Scooter Libby, the top assistant for VP Dick Cheney who took the fall for the 2003 Valerie Plame outing scandal.
A pardon will keep them out of jail, but it won't keep The Donald from the jail he will come to see the White House being next year--it will be that bad for him. The question is: will he want to stick it out? Supposedly he likes doing this and wants to continue; basically that is an unrealistic view of the job for any President, and if he does feel that way, I would expect that view to change. I continue to think defeat in 2020 is the sure path to ending Drumpfenreich once and for all, but I would say the odds of him just quitting, or of announcing that he will not run in 2020, both just got shorter (I previously rated those two as #2 and #4 most-likely of the six ways it can end; maybe the opt-out from the 2020 run now passes the likelihood of Trump's death in office.)
2) Hop-SCOTUS - There is a path to confirmation for any nominee, power dynamics permitting, and regardless of the nominee's ideology. It resembles the kids' game of hop-scotch: step in the right spots, stay off the lines, bounce over the selected blocked-off square (the one you put the chalk on, after your first run through). It's a sort of solo dance, but not too difficult if you follow.
The game was going according to form until today, really. The anonymous letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in his high school days didn't appear to be much of an obstacle for him to leap over (along with the one from the previous round, Roe v. Wade) and get to victory. Until the accuser chose--possibly under pressure from some unwelcome journalistic snooping--to reveal her identity and come forward.*
Now it's going to be Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, variations on a theme. She said, he denied. Surely some things have changed, though. One, of course, is that this is a white-on-white offense, which is viewed differently than a black-on-black one. One was a "lynching" (Thomas' word); this will be a "witch hunt". Let's see how long it takes Donald to come up with the use of his favorite phrase for the Mueller investigation for this one, too.
But seriously, when the accuser comes to testify, as it appears she will be bound to do, and the Republican senators have their chance to "cross-examine" (to use the court term), it is going to be ugly all the way around. Apparently, she does not remember the particulars, like the date, address, anyone who else might be able to corroborate. Though she passed an (unofficial) lie detector test that she is telling the truth, that will not count as evidence. They will ask harrowing, hounding, speechlike-questions such as, "Who told you the alleged assailant was Brett Kavanaugh? How do you know it wasn't someone pretending to be him? Had you ever met him before? He denies being there, wherever it was."
I do think that this "game-changer" gives pause to Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senators who were on the fence but leaning toward voting for confirmation. Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who feels free to do the right thing, has already announced he will vote against immediate approval in committee, which would mean the vote might well fail there if the party leadership tries to force it through now. That defeat, however, would not prevent Kavanaugh's nomination coming to the floor of the Senate. The ultimate outcome there would now be uncertain (while it was not really uncertain before this development), but I feel it will make it almost impossible for any Democrats, no matter how red their states may be, to vote for confirmation now. One phenomenon that seems likely to continue is that Democrats own up to their failings in the #metoo arena, while Republicans dare to defy their accusers.
Thus, even heavier implications for the massive gender divide emerging in the midterms.
*No need to call her out by name, since it seems she was originally trying to avoid the unwanted publicity.
Paul Manafort copping the plea will make it clear--finally--to Donald that he will not be able to snuff this out through use of his pardon. Mueller didn't particularly need Manafort to turn in order to finalize his case, but this will allow him to connect the dots more clearly for the cases he will bring. Whatever crimes were committed in the original Russian-political-interference case, Manafort was there and knows what they were. He also should understand fully that any lies he gives to the investigators would invalidate his deal (and put him in jail forever, probably), so he would have to be extremely careful, saying nothing that anyone could prove false. For Mueller, Manafort will help him wrap things up more quickly and effectively.
Based on what I've seen, there is no solid criminal case against the President for this stuff. We can take a clue from the Anonymous op-ed (remember that? It was six days ago!) The way DrumpfOrg worked and continues to work is: the Boss is strictly on a Need-to-Know basis, the less the better. Any funny business, these career hacks and dirty tricksters know, keep him out of it, protect him completely. If we are waiting for Mueller to name him Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator (as happened with Nixon), we should stop waiting, as it really doesn't mean that much anyway. The real danger to Donald is that Donald Jr. and maybe Jared could be implicated, in something like taking an illegal meeting with known foreign agents to benefit the campaign, and they wouldn't have any immunity from indictment. Now, Trump could announce pre-emptively that he will "forgive" (read: pardon) any misstatements or missteps because they were trying to do right by him, our one and only President. Trump used similar logic earlier in pardoning Scooter Libby, the top assistant for VP Dick Cheney who took the fall for the 2003 Valerie Plame outing scandal.
A pardon will keep them out of jail, but it won't keep The Donald from the jail he will come to see the White House being next year--it will be that bad for him. The question is: will he want to stick it out? Supposedly he likes doing this and wants to continue; basically that is an unrealistic view of the job for any President, and if he does feel that way, I would expect that view to change. I continue to think defeat in 2020 is the sure path to ending Drumpfenreich once and for all, but I would say the odds of him just quitting, or of announcing that he will not run in 2020, both just got shorter (I previously rated those two as #2 and #4 most-likely of the six ways it can end; maybe the opt-out from the 2020 run now passes the likelihood of Trump's death in office.)
2) Hop-SCOTUS - There is a path to confirmation for any nominee, power dynamics permitting, and regardless of the nominee's ideology. It resembles the kids' game of hop-scotch: step in the right spots, stay off the lines, bounce over the selected blocked-off square (the one you put the chalk on, after your first run through). It's a sort of solo dance, but not too difficult if you follow.
The game was going according to form until today, really. The anonymous letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in his high school days didn't appear to be much of an obstacle for him to leap over (along with the one from the previous round, Roe v. Wade) and get to victory. Until the accuser chose--possibly under pressure from some unwelcome journalistic snooping--to reveal her identity and come forward.*
Now it's going to be Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, variations on a theme. She said, he denied. Surely some things have changed, though. One, of course, is that this is a white-on-white offense, which is viewed differently than a black-on-black one. One was a "lynching" (Thomas' word); this will be a "witch hunt". Let's see how long it takes Donald to come up with the use of his favorite phrase for the Mueller investigation for this one, too.
But seriously, when the accuser comes to testify, as it appears she will be bound to do, and the Republican senators have their chance to "cross-examine" (to use the court term), it is going to be ugly all the way around. Apparently, she does not remember the particulars, like the date, address, anyone who else might be able to corroborate. Though she passed an (unofficial) lie detector test that she is telling the truth, that will not count as evidence. They will ask harrowing, hounding, speechlike-questions such as, "Who told you the alleged assailant was Brett Kavanaugh? How do you know it wasn't someone pretending to be him? Had you ever met him before? He denies being there, wherever it was."
I do think that this "game-changer" gives pause to Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senators who were on the fence but leaning toward voting for confirmation. Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who feels free to do the right thing, has already announced he will vote against immediate approval in committee, which would mean the vote might well fail there if the party leadership tries to force it through now. That defeat, however, would not prevent Kavanaugh's nomination coming to the floor of the Senate. The ultimate outcome there would now be uncertain (while it was not really uncertain before this development), but I feel it will make it almost impossible for any Democrats, no matter how red their states may be, to vote for confirmation now. One phenomenon that seems likely to continue is that Democrats own up to their failings in the #metoo arena, while Republicans dare to defy their accusers.
Thus, even heavier implications for the massive gender divide emerging in the midterms.
*No need to call her out by name, since it seems she was originally trying to avoid the unwanted publicity.
Friday, September 07, 2018
2018 Elections: Gun Lap
The final phase of the midterm elections traditionally begins at Labor Day; this one entered with a bang. Wherever Man has permanently pissed off his own team, and his lunatic approach is coming back to bite him through the collapse of his White House. I can't imagine that the timing of Woodward's book release, full of damning quotes about Drumpf from his own people, and of the Anonymous New York Times op-ed, in which a "senior administration" individual questions Trump's fitness to continue to govern, can be accidental. It's an effective 1-2 kick in the shins, to which his natural reaction can only be to overreact.
The op-ed shouldn't be a big deal, unworthy of lie detector tests and additional loyalty oaths. The news Drumpf is and has been unfit has long been perfectly obvious to many of us observers. You could say that the only things he lacks to perform his job are judgment, temperament and comprehension (as long as his health holds up), but the most damning behavior is his unwillingness to learn. As for Woodward, it's the usual hatchet job, full of the confidential views which derive from his trusted access; he applies it at least once to every President, just because he can.
The timing could hardly be worse, as in spite of both parties' desire to show they have some substance, it's still going to be a referendum on Trump (and your representatives' stances toward him, and how that plays). In his most recent comments on the election (before this week's blow-up), Trump seemed to have been coached to understand that Republicans' loss of the control of the House was likely and its effect should be minimized, but that their control of the Senate may still be retained. In a fundamental way, it is true that the House does not pose an existential threat to Trump; they can impeach, but not remove him from office. They would be able to change patterns of government spending, the implication of which is that it is probably next year that Trump would now choose to shut down rather than accede to Democratic priorities, instead of this year, as he was previously threatening to do.
Most importantly for the Democratic strategy to cripple Trump by 2020, even if there is no way to take him out without the assistance of some 15-20 Republican senators, there is an opportunity for some serious vengeance through control of House committees, and their powers for oversight and investigation. The Trump Administration desperately needs and deserves this function to be applied, even if it is ultimately killed by it, for the sake of us all.
I'm not quite convinced that Anonymous' motives are entirely benign, but I can only applaud the sabotage to Drumpfenreich. Am I the first to suggest that this Resistance against Drumpfy-(read: Vichy) Occupied Washington could get bloody, as in enhanced interrogation and challenges to habeas corpus? It would not be out of character.
60-Day Weather Forecast: Stormy*
The campaign has been underway for nine months at least--the early special elections, #metoo, more special elections, a drawn-out primary season (even now still some states are finishing theirs), and a whole lot of nothing. The Kavanaugh news is almost a relief from the hype, as this confirmation is truly significant (the potential ideological shift in the swing vote of the Court), but that show has deliberately been given a short dramatic run by Yertle McConnell. The answers sought will not be forthcoming for Democratic conferees, but there is only one question they must get a clear answer upon: Do you interpret the Constitution as providing for any right of privacy, or not? And don't settle for that "settled law" baloney on that one. With Kavanaugh, either it will be in the Constitution, or it will be next to nothing.
Control of the Senate would be the great prize for the Democrats, but it is not likely to be granted. The Democrats could have a great night, winning elections all over the country, but still fall short. The most distressing outcome--though one which would be very promising for 2020's battle for control--would be for the Republicans to end up with 50 seats, retaining control through Vice President Pence's tie-breaking vote. In order to have that negative outcome, the Democrats would have to successfully win 26 of 35 contests. Successfully holding onto seats in red West Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, along with purple Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota (twice), and Wisconsin, and picking up seats from Arizona and Nevada--all of these successes would not be enough if they cannot hold Florida, North Dakota, or Indiana, or come up with a miracle win in Texas or Tennessee. One thing that is in the Democrats' favor, so far, is that the majority of voters do not seem inclined to punish incumbent Democratic Senators for the lack of progress on most issues: this is something the Republicans' national strategy will try to correct, by trying to place these contested Democrats in a position where they must block ugly Drumpfenreich-stuff, and bringing up those Republican agenda items that were blocked by Democrats in the Senate.
The most interesting story on Election Night will be the battles for control of state governments--governorships and state legislatures. For gubernatorial races, Politico shows six toss-up states and 12 more which only "lean" toward one party's side or the other. The Democrats will definitely make some gains, but they are starting from a very low place. This area will most truly provide the basis to evaluate the depth of the Democratic wave. The big ones are Florida and Georgia, in which African-American Democrats will try to make history, Ohio (need I say more?) and Wisconsin, where the Democrats will have one more chance to finally hang a defeat on Scott Walker. But there are also interesting contests in Kansas, where a super Trump crony (who took on the fake inquiry into voter fraud for Trump) has an unusually difficult challenge (for a Kansas Republican), due in part to the fiscal disasters his predecessors produced, and Iowa, the winner of which will immediately be plunged into the 2020 jockeying for position in the national race which begins there.
The House race will be covered as a binary outcome--did the Democrats get a majority, one vote is big enough?--which will probably be resolved late in the evening, if at all. With so many tight races--somewhere between 60 and 80 are considered "in play" at this point--only a massive victory, a pickup of 50 seats or more, would show up early in the evening, and the quantity of races to cover will be too much for the networks and most blogs to cover very effectively in real time.
The predictit markets on the ranges of GOP House seats, and on the complementary ranges of Democratic seats (two separate markets!) allow one to give rough probabilities from this source; these could (with a little guesswork or inspired interpolation) be compared against the probabilities for the same ranges on Fivethirtyeight.com, the most rigorous of all the probabilistic methodologies (see below). They have three different "flavors" of compiling the likelihood, varying the degree to which prior records and population trends are considered along with recent polls. Their work is absolutely first-rate, and they show their data in a variety of ways. Two key numbers: 230 is their current median projection for Democratic seats, and 5.4% is the margin Democrats are projected to need in order to gain a majority (because of the net effect of gerrymandered districts). Right now, they are showing a margin varying between 8 and 10 points: A 10-point margin, if it were to hold up in actual voting numbers, would lead to a large margin on the order of 50 seats for the Democrats, and a gain just as large.
Investment Strategy for Resistance Donations
Remember, though, that a one-vote margin for the Democrats in the House is almost as good as one that's many times larger; control of committees, electing the Speaker, etc. should strictly follow party control lines. 230 seats (vs. 205 for the Republicans) is a good outcome, in terms of optimal amount of investment vs. the other races. So, help your state's candidates in close races; take enough time to find out which they are (most states have at least one). Don't be too picky about where they lie on the ideological spectrum. Sure, give to your local Democratic representative even if s/he doesn't need it; their leverage should work for your district's benefit, in ways direct or indirect.
The time to respond to appeals to "build ground games"in individual markets is over; either they've done it or they are behind where they need to be. From now on, you are helping to decide where the TV money will go. Florida, Ohio, Georgia, and the DLCC are my recommendations for discretionary contributions--the DCCC and the DGA+ will continue to get money from me. The long primary/special election campaign has allowed many candidates with high recognition and easy races, or none at all, to amass 'warchests' of their discretionary funds, to contribute toward other races this year--some of that '3X multiplier' money candidates think will help draw response--or save for future years' races (though only indirectly for Presidential runs, I think). So make sure you know who you are choosing to give to, and that they really need it now.
The op-ed shouldn't be a big deal, unworthy of lie detector tests and additional loyalty oaths. The news Drumpf is and has been unfit has long been perfectly obvious to many of us observers. You could say that the only things he lacks to perform his job are judgment, temperament and comprehension (as long as his health holds up), but the most damning behavior is his unwillingness to learn. As for Woodward, it's the usual hatchet job, full of the confidential views which derive from his trusted access; he applies it at least once to every President, just because he can.
The timing could hardly be worse, as in spite of both parties' desire to show they have some substance, it's still going to be a referendum on Trump (and your representatives' stances toward him, and how that plays). In his most recent comments on the election (before this week's blow-up), Trump seemed to have been coached to understand that Republicans' loss of the control of the House was likely and its effect should be minimized, but that their control of the Senate may still be retained. In a fundamental way, it is true that the House does not pose an existential threat to Trump; they can impeach, but not remove him from office. They would be able to change patterns of government spending, the implication of which is that it is probably next year that Trump would now choose to shut down rather than accede to Democratic priorities, instead of this year, as he was previously threatening to do.
Most importantly for the Democratic strategy to cripple Trump by 2020, even if there is no way to take him out without the assistance of some 15-20 Republican senators, there is an opportunity for some serious vengeance through control of House committees, and their powers for oversight and investigation. The Trump Administration desperately needs and deserves this function to be applied, even if it is ultimately killed by it, for the sake of us all.
I'm not quite convinced that Anonymous' motives are entirely benign, but I can only applaud the sabotage to Drumpfenreich. Am I the first to suggest that this Resistance against Drumpfy-(read: Vichy) Occupied Washington could get bloody, as in enhanced interrogation and challenges to habeas corpus? It would not be out of character.
60-Day Weather Forecast: Stormy*
The campaign has been underway for nine months at least--the early special elections, #metoo, more special elections, a drawn-out primary season (even now still some states are finishing theirs), and a whole lot of nothing. The Kavanaugh news is almost a relief from the hype, as this confirmation is truly significant (the potential ideological shift in the swing vote of the Court), but that show has deliberately been given a short dramatic run by Yertle McConnell. The answers sought will not be forthcoming for Democratic conferees, but there is only one question they must get a clear answer upon: Do you interpret the Constitution as providing for any right of privacy, or not? And don't settle for that "settled law" baloney on that one. With Kavanaugh, either it will be in the Constitution, or it will be next to nothing.
Control of the Senate would be the great prize for the Democrats, but it is not likely to be granted. The Democrats could have a great night, winning elections all over the country, but still fall short. The most distressing outcome--though one which would be very promising for 2020's battle for control--would be for the Republicans to end up with 50 seats, retaining control through Vice President Pence's tie-breaking vote. In order to have that negative outcome, the Democrats would have to successfully win 26 of 35 contests. Successfully holding onto seats in red West Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, along with purple Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota (twice), and Wisconsin, and picking up seats from Arizona and Nevada--all of these successes would not be enough if they cannot hold Florida, North Dakota, or Indiana, or come up with a miracle win in Texas or Tennessee. One thing that is in the Democrats' favor, so far, is that the majority of voters do not seem inclined to punish incumbent Democratic Senators for the lack of progress on most issues: this is something the Republicans' national strategy will try to correct, by trying to place these contested Democrats in a position where they must block ugly Drumpfenreich-stuff, and bringing up those Republican agenda items that were blocked by Democrats in the Senate.
The most interesting story on Election Night will be the battles for control of state governments--governorships and state legislatures. For gubernatorial races, Politico shows six toss-up states and 12 more which only "lean" toward one party's side or the other. The Democrats will definitely make some gains, but they are starting from a very low place. This area will most truly provide the basis to evaluate the depth of the Democratic wave. The big ones are Florida and Georgia, in which African-American Democrats will try to make history, Ohio (need I say more?) and Wisconsin, where the Democrats will have one more chance to finally hang a defeat on Scott Walker. But there are also interesting contests in Kansas, where a super Trump crony (who took on the fake inquiry into voter fraud for Trump) has an unusually difficult challenge (for a Kansas Republican), due in part to the fiscal disasters his predecessors produced, and Iowa, the winner of which will immediately be plunged into the 2020 jockeying for position in the national race which begins there.
The House race will be covered as a binary outcome--did the Democrats get a majority, one vote is big enough?--which will probably be resolved late in the evening, if at all. With so many tight races--somewhere between 60 and 80 are considered "in play" at this point--only a massive victory, a pickup of 50 seats or more, would show up early in the evening, and the quantity of races to cover will be too much for the networks and most blogs to cover very effectively in real time.
The predictit markets on the ranges of GOP House seats, and on the complementary ranges of Democratic seats (two separate markets!) allow one to give rough probabilities from this source; these could (with a little guesswork or inspired interpolation) be compared against the probabilities for the same ranges on Fivethirtyeight.com, the most rigorous of all the probabilistic methodologies (see below). They have three different "flavors" of compiling the likelihood, varying the degree to which prior records and population trends are considered along with recent polls. Their work is absolutely first-rate, and they show their data in a variety of ways. Two key numbers: 230 is their current median projection for Democratic seats, and 5.4% is the margin Democrats are projected to need in order to gain a majority (because of the net effect of gerrymandered districts). Right now, they are showing a margin varying between 8 and 10 points: A 10-point margin, if it were to hold up in actual voting numbers, would lead to a large margin on the order of 50 seats for the Democrats, and a gain just as large.
Investment Strategy for Resistance Donations
Remember, though, that a one-vote margin for the Democrats in the House is almost as good as one that's many times larger; control of committees, electing the Speaker, etc. should strictly follow party control lines. 230 seats (vs. 205 for the Republicans) is a good outcome, in terms of optimal amount of investment vs. the other races. So, help your state's candidates in close races; take enough time to find out which they are (most states have at least one). Don't be too picky about where they lie on the ideological spectrum. Sure, give to your local Democratic representative even if s/he doesn't need it; their leverage should work for your district's benefit, in ways direct or indirect.
The time to respond to appeals to "build ground games"in individual markets is over; either they've done it or they are behind where they need to be. From now on, you are helping to decide where the TV money will go. Florida, Ohio, Georgia, and the DLCC are my recommendations for discretionary contributions--the DCCC and the DGA+ will continue to get money from me. The long primary/special election campaign has allowed many candidates with high recognition and easy races, or none at all, to amass 'warchests' of their discretionary funds, to contribute toward other races this year--some of that '3X multiplier' money candidates think will help draw response--or save for future years' races (though only indirectly for Presidential runs, I think). So make sure you know who you are choosing to give to, and that they really need it now.
Appendix: Predictit.org latest market prices on number of Democratic seats (compiled from two markets of predictit.org)
Dem Market
Seats GOP Dem
<200 span=""><200 16="" font="">199 - 16%
200-217 28%
218-230 31%
231 + 53%
Those add up to 128%! Clearly the best strategy is to bet No on all except the correct one (joke). But these numbers indicate the estimated median price is around 225 seats for the Democrats.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Still More from the Obit Dept.
John McCain
McCain was a frequent subject in my blog since its beginning in 2005--I feared his political potential.
I view him as the best Republican Presidential candidate of the past 50 years--by which I mean the strongest, in terms of his temperament, personality, status as a war hero, ability to communicate, and even capability. Ironically, he lost quite decisively in his one Presidential general election contest (his Electoral College margin of defeat in 2008 was slightly less than the worst Republican defeat over that period, that of Bob Dole in 1996). He was defeated by the best Democratic candidate over that same time period.
I apologize for being relieved when Dubya's campaign sandbagged McCain in the SC primary in 2000, as I thought Bush would be the easier opponent for Gore to defeat. I was punished, severely, for that arrogance. As it turned out, McCain's weakness was also Hillary Clinton's:--lack of ability to lead the strategy of a Presidential campaign, to select a suitable running mate, and most importantly, to select the people to run it. Like Hillary, he was also unlucky: in choice of opponent in 2008, and in the circumstances which contributed to his defeat (in his case, the collapse of the economy during his 2008 campaign)
Top services to our country by John McCain:
1) His incredible heroism as a POW in the Vietnam War. Regardless of what you may feel about that conflict, his leadership (as the most senior captive) and willingness to give all for country and his comrades-in-arms were all that we could have wanted or deserved. More, in fact.
2) His principled opposition to Donald Trump, on policy (as with the ACA vote this year), on Trump's astonishing betrayal of our national interest in Helsinki, on his lack of ethics, morals, honor or dignity--all four of these last characteristics were right in McCain's wheelhouse (Navy term). If Trump wants to "act Presidential", he should ignore what he thinks that would be, and instead consider: what would John McCain do?
3) tie - His alliance with Russ Feingold to lead reform of campaign financing; and his alliance with the "Group of 8" to put forward bipartisan immigration reform. In the end, both of these efforts failed, but that's not on him.
5) His opposition to waterboarding and other human rights violations as a matter of US policy. He deserves full credit for a strong stance on this, but I rate it lower, as this wss a no-brainer for him based on his own experience.
His worst moments in public service are easy to identify: 1) His cheerleading for the Iraq war after 9/11; and 2) Getting tangled up in the Savings and Loan scandal in the late '80's (one of the Keanting Five). The latter showed his talent for survival, something he had demonstrated amply in his Navy career (surviving being shot down, and the incredible experience he had of surviving a tragic accident on the deck of the USS Forestal). It was these moments of escaping tragedy which provided him inspiration, as he fully recognized how fortunate he had been, and I would say that one could draw a line from the scandal to his willingness to do something about campaign finance.
Among all the plaudits, I read one critical one that accused McCain of being a "fraud". The author was referring to the fact that his "maverick" reputation was overstated by the press, who loved him because of the access that he granted them. I would say that McCain probably encouraged the hero worship, but, again, it wasn't his fault, but the journalists'. He was a straight-up "conservative" in the classic Republican mode: free trade internationalist (in the American nationalist interventionist sense), militarist, anti-welfare state, and he didn't pretend otherwise.
Actually McCain was--or at least, became--a man of undoubted integrity. Interestingly, the word has two definitions: the first relates to quality of ethics and morals, but the second is "complete or undivided completeness". That makes Trump a man of integrity, too--a complete asshole, as he has proven, once again, with his behavior toward McCain. As usual, his comportment has been an obscenity, though Drumpf's handlers have managed to reduce the damage which his gut wanted. That gut--it's hateful, and also something to hate. And I do.
As he was Trump's leading opponent within the Republican party, McCain's passing will facilitate the completion of its transition into a total Drumpfian nightmare, particularly in Congress. No one of the party will be left standing after 2018 who is bold enough to challenge the President, unless the defeat of the party is unambiguous this November.
In McCain's absence, it falls exclusively upon us survivors to commit to the complete obliteration of The Party of Trump as a national force. Whether it is replaced by a rump of moderates in a new organization, it becomes a permanent minority party of reaction and bigotry, or just disappears entirely, any of those would be a great outcome for the future of the nation and for humanity. And you shouldn't worry for the future of two-party democracy under those circumstances: if the Democrats didn't have these creeps to oppose, their unity would fracture very quickly. In the meantime, though, I will brook no divisiveness; there can be dissent about the best way to Depose Trump, but none on the objective, and ultimately unity must be maintained until the job is done.
Neil Simon
He was at the top of the heap of Broadway comedy scriptwriters for a period, which I would place in the '60s and early '70's. He produced sterling dialogue which favored characters, typically upper-class white New York men, in comedic situations suitable also for TV and movies which did not overly challenge our social mores. Along with "Barefoot in the Park" and "The Out-of-Towners", he is best remembered for originating"The Odd Couple", a play about two men of opposite temperament living uncomfortably together in an outsized New York apartment. It was a huge success as a movie, then as a long-running TV series.
In the last 40 years or so, he remained prolific but not so relevant. Today, The Odd Couple would be a standard gay sitcom looking for a real hook. As a cultural icon, his logical successor was Woody Allen, who was much more provocative (I'd say funnier, too, at least in the early days). In the television sense, successors which show his influence would include "Will and Grace", "Frasier", and "Modern Family" .
McCain was a frequent subject in my blog since its beginning in 2005--I feared his political potential.
I view him as the best Republican Presidential candidate of the past 50 years--by which I mean the strongest, in terms of his temperament, personality, status as a war hero, ability to communicate, and even capability. Ironically, he lost quite decisively in his one Presidential general election contest (his Electoral College margin of defeat in 2008 was slightly less than the worst Republican defeat over that period, that of Bob Dole in 1996). He was defeated by the best Democratic candidate over that same time period.
I apologize for being relieved when Dubya's campaign sandbagged McCain in the SC primary in 2000, as I thought Bush would be the easier opponent for Gore to defeat. I was punished, severely, for that arrogance. As it turned out, McCain's weakness was also Hillary Clinton's:--lack of ability to lead the strategy of a Presidential campaign, to select a suitable running mate, and most importantly, to select the people to run it. Like Hillary, he was also unlucky: in choice of opponent in 2008, and in the circumstances which contributed to his defeat (in his case, the collapse of the economy during his 2008 campaign)
Top services to our country by John McCain:
1) His incredible heroism as a POW in the Vietnam War. Regardless of what you may feel about that conflict, his leadership (as the most senior captive) and willingness to give all for country and his comrades-in-arms were all that we could have wanted or deserved. More, in fact.
2) His principled opposition to Donald Trump, on policy (as with the ACA vote this year), on Trump's astonishing betrayal of our national interest in Helsinki, on his lack of ethics, morals, honor or dignity--all four of these last characteristics were right in McCain's wheelhouse (Navy term). If Trump wants to "act Presidential", he should ignore what he thinks that would be, and instead consider: what would John McCain do?
3) tie - His alliance with Russ Feingold to lead reform of campaign financing; and his alliance with the "Group of 8" to put forward bipartisan immigration reform. In the end, both of these efforts failed, but that's not on him.
5) His opposition to waterboarding and other human rights violations as a matter of US policy. He deserves full credit for a strong stance on this, but I rate it lower, as this wss a no-brainer for him based on his own experience.
His worst moments in public service are easy to identify: 1) His cheerleading for the Iraq war after 9/11; and 2) Getting tangled up in the Savings and Loan scandal in the late '80's (one of the Keanting Five). The latter showed his talent for survival, something he had demonstrated amply in his Navy career (surviving being shot down, and the incredible experience he had of surviving a tragic accident on the deck of the USS Forestal). It was these moments of escaping tragedy which provided him inspiration, as he fully recognized how fortunate he had been, and I would say that one could draw a line from the scandal to his willingness to do something about campaign finance.
Among all the plaudits, I read one critical one that accused McCain of being a "fraud". The author was referring to the fact that his "maverick" reputation was overstated by the press, who loved him because of the access that he granted them. I would say that McCain probably encouraged the hero worship, but, again, it wasn't his fault, but the journalists'. He was a straight-up "conservative" in the classic Republican mode: free trade internationalist (in the American nationalist interventionist sense), militarist, anti-welfare state, and he didn't pretend otherwise.
Actually McCain was--or at least, became--a man of undoubted integrity. Interestingly, the word has two definitions: the first relates to quality of ethics and morals, but the second is "complete or undivided completeness". That makes Trump a man of integrity, too--a complete asshole, as he has proven, once again, with his behavior toward McCain. As usual, his comportment has been an obscenity, though Drumpf's handlers have managed to reduce the damage which his gut wanted. That gut--it's hateful, and also something to hate. And I do.
As he was Trump's leading opponent within the Republican party, McCain's passing will facilitate the completion of its transition into a total Drumpfian nightmare, particularly in Congress. No one of the party will be left standing after 2018 who is bold enough to challenge the President, unless the defeat of the party is unambiguous this November.
In McCain's absence, it falls exclusively upon us survivors to commit to the complete obliteration of The Party of Trump as a national force. Whether it is replaced by a rump of moderates in a new organization, it becomes a permanent minority party of reaction and bigotry, or just disappears entirely, any of those would be a great outcome for the future of the nation and for humanity. And you shouldn't worry for the future of two-party democracy under those circumstances: if the Democrats didn't have these creeps to oppose, their unity would fracture very quickly. In the meantime, though, I will brook no divisiveness; there can be dissent about the best way to Depose Trump, but none on the objective, and ultimately unity must be maintained until the job is done.
Neil Simon
He was at the top of the heap of Broadway comedy scriptwriters for a period, which I would place in the '60s and early '70's. He produced sterling dialogue which favored characters, typically upper-class white New York men, in comedic situations suitable also for TV and movies which did not overly challenge our social mores. Along with "Barefoot in the Park" and "The Out-of-Towners", he is best remembered for originating"The Odd Couple", a play about two men of opposite temperament living uncomfortably together in an outsized New York apartment. It was a huge success as a movie, then as a long-running TV series.
In the last 40 years or so, he remained prolific but not so relevant. Today, The Odd Couple would be a standard gay sitcom looking for a real hook. As a cultural icon, his logical successor was Woody Allen, who was much more provocative (I'd say funnier, too, at least in the early days). In the television sense, successors which show his influence would include "Will and Grace", "Frasier", and "Modern Family" .
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
The Passing of Two Role Models
Aretha Franklin
She made her own path to fame and success. Her youthful background included a heavy dose of grounding in gospel music, but she then emerged as a young, single mother from an abusive marriage. And it took off from there, into the stratosphere.
She became an icon for black women, one who delivered her message of empowerment and strength though her formidable musical ability, maintained through the decades. And she gained that "respect" that she craved; the accolades she has received were more than well-earned.
At some point, not particularly early in her career, I realized what a powerful and positive message she embodied: I think it was "Freeway of Love". It showed off her distinctive phrasing and her powerful, clear musical voice. Less apparent were Aretha's community service and philanthopy, along with her skills in musical arrangement.
We have to recognize that there will be many more passing and retiring in the near future from that generation of popular musicians that reached fame in the '60's through the '80's.
Kofi Annan
He was Secretary-General of the United Nations for ten years, two full terms, around the turn of the last century, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 for his peacekeeping leadership.
I would suggest that he was everything that we could want from someone in that role, devoted to the success of the organization, speaking out for peace and for humanitarian causes, not a captive of the powerful nations whose agreement is always necessary for ascension to the job. During his tenure, the 9/11 attacks occurred, followed by the US' invasion of Iraq; Annan did not refrain from criticizing that war for violating the principles of the organization, which prohibits conflict except in self-defense.
Unlike previous Secretary-Generals, who were drawn from the diplomatic corps, Annan was raised from the U.N. Secretariat, a career functionary who earned universal respect for his dignified, calm demeanor. I had the privilege of meeting him on a few occasions, some 25 years before his terms at the top of the organization began, when he was responsible for UN human resources, a middle-level senior position several levels directly above my own short-term assignment in personal services for the UN community. In person, there was no mistaking his personal qualities or leadership potential.
She made her own path to fame and success. Her youthful background included a heavy dose of grounding in gospel music, but she then emerged as a young, single mother from an abusive marriage. And it took off from there, into the stratosphere.
She became an icon for black women, one who delivered her message of empowerment and strength though her formidable musical ability, maintained through the decades. And she gained that "respect" that she craved; the accolades she has received were more than well-earned.
At some point, not particularly early in her career, I realized what a powerful and positive message she embodied: I think it was "Freeway of Love". It showed off her distinctive phrasing and her powerful, clear musical voice. Less apparent were Aretha's community service and philanthopy, along with her skills in musical arrangement.
We have to recognize that there will be many more passing and retiring in the near future from that generation of popular musicians that reached fame in the '60's through the '80's.
Kofi Annan
He was Secretary-General of the United Nations for ten years, two full terms, around the turn of the last century, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 for his peacekeeping leadership.
I would suggest that he was everything that we could want from someone in that role, devoted to the success of the organization, speaking out for peace and for humanitarian causes, not a captive of the powerful nations whose agreement is always necessary for ascension to the job. During his tenure, the 9/11 attacks occurred, followed by the US' invasion of Iraq; Annan did not refrain from criticizing that war for violating the principles of the organization, which prohibits conflict except in self-defense.
Unlike previous Secretary-Generals, who were drawn from the diplomatic corps, Annan was raised from the U.N. Secretariat, a career functionary who earned universal respect for his dignified, calm demeanor. I had the privilege of meeting him on a few occasions, some 25 years before his terms at the top of the organization began, when he was responsible for UN human resources, a middle-level senior position several levels directly above my own short-term assignment in personal services for the UN community. In person, there was no mistaking his personal qualities or leadership potential.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Political Whoas
Shutdown City or Shakedown City?
Have you noticed how Trump's threats to shut down the government if the Congress doesn't give him enough money to build his stupid wall have disappeared? He is no longer on the offensive--and I do mean offensive--about immigration policy; the legal danger has thrown him, and he can barely think about doing his job. While I feel it's sad that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen will go to jail for their crimes--I am sad for anyone's misfortune, even if it were of their own making--I am encouraged that this thing will continue to distract the Maladministration and will reduce the harm that ImPotus can do.
If it came to it, I would be in favor of appropriating a small amount--a few hundred million or so--for an expanded prototype of the wall, a few kilometers wide. We can stop there--it would be Trump's Monument to Stupidity, and we could paint his ugly puss on the wall on both sides so that all could see, for time immemorial, what an idiot we once had for a President.
Meanwhile, I see the US economy, while currently very strong, on a path that will lead to a crash in the medium term. The Drumpfian trade policies are leading to inflation, and his jawboning the Fed against higher interest rates will paradoxically lead, fairly soon, to sharper interest rate rises if he gets his way. There is even the possibility that we will repeat the errors leading to the last crater, as consumer debt rises and collateralized loan obligations for weak mortgages, once again with layering to produce bogus investment-grade ratings, have returned to financial markets.
There is one essential result needed in the short run to guarantee his political demise: the Democrats must win control of the House (winning the Senate is a longshot). If that does not happen, people may become convinced that this mess has been endorsed by the voters. The House contest is a difficult one to handicap, but I like (and am backing up with my bets on predictit.org) an estimate of 225-235 Democratic seats, with a fairly wide margin of error. In that situation, it is critical that we understand the seats that are truly balanced on the edge. We are studying the many competitive races and trying to identify the ones whom I should give my (relatively small) contributions; now that the primaries are ending, I am becoming less concerned the money will be wasted on internecine party battles.
A couple of particular personal political bugaboos of recent weeks: I have been getting a bunch of emails daily from Danny O'Connor, the Ohio Congressional candidate who trails narrowly in the special election held recently. He is somewhat deceptively arguing he will need a bunch of money for a recount. The real deal is that the recount is not going to happen, or if it does, it will not put him into Congress. He should be more honest and say that he needs the money to win his rematch in November, which will ultimately matter more than the outcome of the special, though it will never have the same media attention. The other one concerns one of the key governor's races, in Arizona. There's a closely-contested Democratic primary coming to a conclusion, which has inhibited my getting involved; however, the importance of Arizona and Georgia, as potential breakthrough states for the Democrats in 2020 is paramount. I had thought there was even a dimension of even more critical importance there, which turned out not to be the case: if John McCain were to resign due to health or to die in the near future, that governor could appoint a Senator which could be decisive for the majority. Except...I have been advised that Arizona has a shocking law that the appointed senator must be of the same party as the previous incumbent. This elevates party membership to the level of state law--we are expecting a Democrat to appoint a Republican to replace him? If this ends up being a pivotal seat for a majority, there will be a huge issue, both constitutional and political.
Donnelly's Dilemma -
Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana exemplifies the political problem that McConnell has posed, through the nomination, and its timing, of Brettt Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. For several Democratic senators in states which had large Republican majorities in 2016, a difficult set of choices will present themselves.
Donnelly is in a tough race against a formidable opponent, and thus a prime target for the Republicans to pick up a seat. Everyone knows that Indiana went for Trump very solidly (10% margin). Not everyone remembers that Obama defeated McCain in the state, and therein lies the rub. Indiana can be a competitive state with a strong Democratic turnout; can Donnelly produce it?
The Republican voices pretend to be sympathetic for Donnelly's difficulties. "We know he'd want to vote the way his constituents want, but he's pressured by Schumer...." What they mean is, please give us this vote to beat you over the head--we need a campaign message.
Donnelly is trying to walk the high road, saying that he would make his judgment purely on the merits of the nominee. Of course. He is very likely to vote for confirmation with that positioning, as this was not some rash (or destructive) selection, but instead one based on careful preparation and designed to get 100% Republican votes for confirmation. If that happens, then Donnelly's vote can not be decisive (even if another Republican senator goes down; then the Pence tiebreaker would decide) and he would be free to vote "his conscience" (which, by this logic, would be to confirm).
On the other side of the scales is the weight of his obligation to the Democratic party and its leadership, which seeks to apply pressure in the reverse on some Republican senators who would differ with Kavanaugh on some big issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, but may feel compelled to maintain unity on their side. (As things stand, with no Democrats supporting the nomination, the Republicans would need to stay 100% united.)
Chuck Schumer has leverage as representing all the rest of the country's Democrats, who would like Donnelly to do the right thing in opposing this political ploy. To do less than resist is to help empower their despicable tactics.
In my view, this is not about overturning Roe v. Wade, as some more hysterical emails have threatened to me. One way or the other, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and he will push the court's decisions further in the direction of restricting access to abortion--without revoking the legal access now provided to women, at least in their first trimester. So, that is what is going to happen there, with the resulting damage to our society.
(Spoiler alert)The stage is set, and the timing of the climactic vote seems destined for the last week of September or first week of October. The critical vote will actually be the cloture one, to end debate, which now only requires a majority vote in this case. Here, Donnelly--and the other similarly conflicted senators, namely Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, Nelson, and McCaskill--must stand firm and make the Republicans vote unanimously to close off the debate. For this vote, the Democrats have all the merit of the argument: the process will have been rushed, without sufficient consideration, and the vote's premature timing forced for political reasons.
Unfortunately, I feel the Republicans will do it/ 50-49 for cloture, and then the final confirmation vote may differ substantially, when Democrats in weak political positions can argue the 'merits' of the candidate's qualifications.
So, I will judge Donnelly--who is a moderate, pro-life Democrat right in the center--by whether he stands with the party in the cloture vote. If not, he should lose all support from thinking Democrats, who must learn to punish their own DINO's. In this knife-edge year, it is not the right time to primary the Donnelly's of the times. But he must justify the support of Democrats, too, especially in his state, but also those outside--his national party organizations and email base--who are asked (constantly) for help.
Have you noticed how Trump's threats to shut down the government if the Congress doesn't give him enough money to build his stupid wall have disappeared? He is no longer on the offensive--and I do mean offensive--about immigration policy; the legal danger has thrown him, and he can barely think about doing his job. While I feel it's sad that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen will go to jail for their crimes--I am sad for anyone's misfortune, even if it were of their own making--I am encouraged that this thing will continue to distract the Maladministration and will reduce the harm that ImPotus can do.
If it came to it, I would be in favor of appropriating a small amount--a few hundred million or so--for an expanded prototype of the wall, a few kilometers wide. We can stop there--it would be Trump's Monument to Stupidity, and we could paint his ugly puss on the wall on both sides so that all could see, for time immemorial, what an idiot we once had for a President.
Meanwhile, I see the US economy, while currently very strong, on a path that will lead to a crash in the medium term. The Drumpfian trade policies are leading to inflation, and his jawboning the Fed against higher interest rates will paradoxically lead, fairly soon, to sharper interest rate rises if he gets his way. There is even the possibility that we will repeat the errors leading to the last crater, as consumer debt rises and collateralized loan obligations for weak mortgages, once again with layering to produce bogus investment-grade ratings, have returned to financial markets.
There is one essential result needed in the short run to guarantee his political demise: the Democrats must win control of the House (winning the Senate is a longshot). If that does not happen, people may become convinced that this mess has been endorsed by the voters. The House contest is a difficult one to handicap, but I like (and am backing up with my bets on predictit.org) an estimate of 225-235 Democratic seats, with a fairly wide margin of error. In that situation, it is critical that we understand the seats that are truly balanced on the edge. We are studying the many competitive races and trying to identify the ones whom I should give my (relatively small) contributions; now that the primaries are ending, I am becoming less concerned the money will be wasted on internecine party battles.
A couple of particular personal political bugaboos of recent weeks: I have been getting a bunch of emails daily from Danny O'Connor, the Ohio Congressional candidate who trails narrowly in the special election held recently. He is somewhat deceptively arguing he will need a bunch of money for a recount. The real deal is that the recount is not going to happen, or if it does, it will not put him into Congress. He should be more honest and say that he needs the money to win his rematch in November, which will ultimately matter more than the outcome of the special, though it will never have the same media attention. The other one concerns one of the key governor's races, in Arizona. There's a closely-contested Democratic primary coming to a conclusion, which has inhibited my getting involved; however, the importance of Arizona and Georgia, as potential breakthrough states for the Democrats in 2020 is paramount. I had thought there was even a dimension of even more critical importance there, which turned out not to be the case: if John McCain were to resign due to health or to die in the near future, that governor could appoint a Senator which could be decisive for the majority. Except...I have been advised that Arizona has a shocking law that the appointed senator must be of the same party as the previous incumbent. This elevates party membership to the level of state law--we are expecting a Democrat to appoint a Republican to replace him? If this ends up being a pivotal seat for a majority, there will be a huge issue, both constitutional and political.
Donnelly's Dilemma -
Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana exemplifies the political problem that McConnell has posed, through the nomination, and its timing, of Brettt Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. For several Democratic senators in states which had large Republican majorities in 2016, a difficult set of choices will present themselves.
Donnelly is in a tough race against a formidable opponent, and thus a prime target for the Republicans to pick up a seat. Everyone knows that Indiana went for Trump very solidly (10% margin). Not everyone remembers that Obama defeated McCain in the state, and therein lies the rub. Indiana can be a competitive state with a strong Democratic turnout; can Donnelly produce it?
The Republican voices pretend to be sympathetic for Donnelly's difficulties. "We know he'd want to vote the way his constituents want, but he's pressured by Schumer...." What they mean is, please give us this vote to beat you over the head--we need a campaign message.
Donnelly is trying to walk the high road, saying that he would make his judgment purely on the merits of the nominee. Of course. He is very likely to vote for confirmation with that positioning, as this was not some rash (or destructive) selection, but instead one based on careful preparation and designed to get 100% Republican votes for confirmation. If that happens, then Donnelly's vote can not be decisive (even if another Republican senator goes down; then the Pence tiebreaker would decide) and he would be free to vote "his conscience" (which, by this logic, would be to confirm).
On the other side of the scales is the weight of his obligation to the Democratic party and its leadership, which seeks to apply pressure in the reverse on some Republican senators who would differ with Kavanaugh on some big issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, but may feel compelled to maintain unity on their side. (As things stand, with no Democrats supporting the nomination, the Republicans would need to stay 100% united.)
Chuck Schumer has leverage as representing all the rest of the country's Democrats, who would like Donnelly to do the right thing in opposing this political ploy. To do less than resist is to help empower their despicable tactics.
In my view, this is not about overturning Roe v. Wade, as some more hysterical emails have threatened to me. One way or the other, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and he will push the court's decisions further in the direction of restricting access to abortion--without revoking the legal access now provided to women, at least in their first trimester. So, that is what is going to happen there, with the resulting damage to our society.
(Spoiler alert)The stage is set, and the timing of the climactic vote seems destined for the last week of September or first week of October. The critical vote will actually be the cloture one, to end debate, which now only requires a majority vote in this case. Here, Donnelly--and the other similarly conflicted senators, namely Heitkamp, Manchin, Tester, Nelson, and McCaskill--must stand firm and make the Republicans vote unanimously to close off the debate. For this vote, the Democrats have all the merit of the argument: the process will have been rushed, without sufficient consideration, and the vote's premature timing forced for political reasons.
Unfortunately, I feel the Republicans will do it/ 50-49 for cloture, and then the final confirmation vote may differ substantially, when Democrats in weak political positions can argue the 'merits' of the candidate's qualifications.
So, I will judge Donnelly--who is a moderate, pro-life Democrat right in the center--by whether he stands with the party in the cloture vote. If not, he should lose all support from thinking Democrats, who must learn to punish their own DINO's. In this knife-edge year, it is not the right time to primary the Donnelly's of the times. But he must justify the support of Democrats, too, especially in his state, but also those outside--his national party organizations and email base--who are asked (constantly) for help.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Icons of Corruption
...of the Judiciary: Brett Kavanaugh
There will be a shared pretense of Senators carefully considering the Supreme Court nominee's record, of interviewing him privately and publicly to hear his noncommittal responses, followed by both sides lining up around party lines for the final advise-and-consent approval. The notion of impartial justices ruling purely on principles of law has completely given way to political power plays, completing a transition evident late in the last century (bitter, partisan confirmation hearings) and confirmed by the historic disaster of the Bush v. Gore decision.
Kavanaugh is "qualified", in the sense of having the resume one would expect of a Supreme Court justice, applying typical vetting criteria (law background, practice as a Supreme Court clerk and as a senior judge). The most important criterion, though, is the political one, and that will determine how the votes will fall. Kavanaugh is a proven party hack (Bush acolyte, drafter of Clinton bill of impeachment) and thus is a fair replacement for Anthony Kennedy (another hack). Some analyses suggest he will be substantially further to "the right" than Kennedy--that will be seen in the fullness of time.. What I expect is that he, and Chief Justice Roberts as well, will behave themselves politically, trying in their decisions and opinions to temper the radical right-wing views of Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, in order to reduce public criticism of the Supreme Court and try to preclude its extremism becoming the basis for a wipeout defeat of their party in 2020 (and possible court-packing following that by victorious, vengeful Democrats).
The strategy of the timing of the Kennedy resignation and Kavanaugh nomination is a political one: it's designed to allow the Republicans to use the united (or near-united) Democratic opposition in the midterm elections to support their claim that it is Democratic obstruction which is impeding their ability to govern. Not very original, but it may well work to inspire more of their base to turn out and avoid serious damage in the 2018 election. This nasty piece of business (the confirmation) will wrap up before November, most likely in late September--that's something that Senators of both parties will be able to agree upon: for Mitch McConnell, it eliminates the risk of a bad election outcome preventing confirmation, and for Democratic candidates in close elections, it gets the distraction out of the way so they can campaign.
For those who insist on the importance of parsing nominees' public statements in the confirmation process, I would suggest focusing on Kavanaugh's answer to one question (which must be asked): Does your interpretation of the Constitution include an affirmation of individuals' right to privacy? That is the fundamental finding behind Roe v. Wade, and the question of a fundamental right to privacy is one which will come up in other, very important contexts throughout Kavanaugh's term in the Court. Kavanaugh is reputed to be "textualist", which suggests he would be negative on the question if he were to answer honestly (I don't expect him to do that, though--he will only betray his true views later, when it's too late.)
I see little chance that any of the Republican senators will defect from lockstep support of the second Drumpfian Supreme Court nominee. If none do, it may appear that certain vulnerable "Red State Democrats" up for re-election are off the hook, in terms of their votes being decisive. This notion led some Democrats to argue that these vulnerable candidates should be free to vote according to "their conscience"--more like their conscious evaluation of the net political benefit to go one way or the other. No doubt Manchin in W.Va., Heitkamp in N.D., Tester in Mont., McCaskill in Mo., Donnelly in Ind., and Nelson in Fla. will closely monitor polling of their constituents' preference on the confirmation vote (in crosstabs with party registration and intention of vote on the Senate race itself). and will let that data guide their individual consciences.
I don't get to vote on these races, except in response to the constant emails I get* asking for money (all of these incumbents are actively soliciting me through email except Heitkamp--she seems to be more interested in independents than Democrats). One thing I can guarantee all these candidates is that they will not get any more money from me if they vote to confirm. (I just surprised myself by making a contribution for Manchin in response to an attractive email solicitation, and Nelson and Donnelly have received money from me in the past.) For me, there is one factor that should override for any true Democrat: let's call it the "Merrick Garland factor".
In this regard, I have added one "litmus test" issue (in this case one specifically for Democratic Senators) to the short list of my absolute requirements for those seeking my support (most meaningfully, through my contributions): common-sense on guns (no one advocating more guns gets my support); no denying climate change; and openness to major electoral reform (gerrymandering, Electoral College, campaign financing limitation).
...Of the Executive Branch (Scott Pruitt)
A hallmark of the Drumpfian "philosophy" of governing is to appoint incompetents and destructive administrators to Cabinet positions. There are so many examples: Ben Carson at HUD, Rick Perry at Energy, Betsy DeVos for Education are three clear ones. Maybe the worst appointment of all (except for the non-Cabinet appointments of Michael Flynn, and then later John Bolton, as his National Security Adviser) was Scott Pruitt, who proved to be toxic in every way. Trump was tolerant of his wasteful spending and self-aggrandizing paranoia, positively supportive of his anti-environmental approach to environmental protection, but he ultimately became politically harmful. So he had to go, but the departure was eased for Drumpf by the fact that he will be able to replace him with a pollution industry lobbyist who was Pruitt's deputy. More damage to follow.
...Of the Legislative Branch (Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy)
The most serious corrupting influence on our Congress today is the emergence of massive PAC money, and worse, "dark money" from donors whose identities do not have to be made public. To be honest, this is a problem that plagues both parties and many candidates, and the necessity of constant fund-raising and placating major donors is more than a distraction from true legislative activity.
I am singling out Nunes and Gowdy for the disrespect they have engendered with their perversion of the Congressional power of investigation (which is supposed to be for the purposes of aiding legislation). Nunes has been colluding with the White House in trying to undermine the Mueller investigation through the House Intellligence Committee which he chairs, and Gowdy has made a fool of himself in the House Oversight Committee, first with the Benghazi investigation and now with the shameful attacks on FBI agents.
...in the White House itself (Trump Conflicts of Interest and the Russian Oligarchs)
As I have said before, with the Trump administration, there are no conflicts--only interests. I leave it to the investigative reporters to detail all the ways in which Trumpian greed intersects with Drumpfian policy (here and here are a couple of relevant links I can recommend). The key storyline is this: critical to the survival of the Trump enterprise, in the time around and since the Great Crater, has been the sale of high-end real estate to Russian oligarchs. For the buyers, this was a proven safe way to get money out of Russia and into legitimate assets: this is generally referred to as "money laundering". It is not that the purchase of US real estate is in any way illegal; it's more where the money came from that is shady and that makes these buyers shady. Most are connected with the regime of Putin, the biggest oligarch/money launderer of them all.
So, Trump Org. finds them good to do business with, and he isn't going to turn on these "friends"; instead he becomes an apologist for Russian provocations. He seems to have no problem with Putin's agenda item of trying to weaken the West and their alliances, as America's allies have snubbed Russia and coddled the Ukraine, which has gone back and forth but is currently antagonistic toward Russia. For its part, Russia has found Ukraine a suitable target for its expansion and disruption efforts.
Meanwhile, the Trump offspring are free to make hay from their political connection to the President, and they will make the most of it while they can. Other Trump cronies, like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, are wealthy enough, but still encouraged to find an angle to benefit if they so choose.
The Russia/Trump collusion to help the Republican win the 2016 election was just business: there was no intention to betray the US or even to break laws, just that there might have been a few statutory limitations that got in the way. Russian hacking of Democratic databases, and infiltration of Facebook, are only standard practice, the illegal parts generally deniable or protected by national boundaries, and the only interruption in the activity will be to build new cover when necessary.
This is what is going on; the only remedy seems to be the will of voters to defeat Drumpfites, if it can be mustered, this year and then again in 2020. All of what I say here will come out eventually (even without the Trump tax returns, though those will likely become part of the story), but I have no confidence at all that it will sway Republican voters, Republican legislators, or Republican judges from their great partisan suck-up to this petty dictator.
*Over 200 emails asking for money on June 30--every single one referring to their second-quarter deadline at midnight. When will they learn that I don't care about their deadlines? In fact, I would prefer to have lower numbers come out of those deadline reports from the Federal Election Commission, in order to reduce the dollar arms race.
There will be a shared pretense of Senators carefully considering the Supreme Court nominee's record, of interviewing him privately and publicly to hear his noncommittal responses, followed by both sides lining up around party lines for the final advise-and-consent approval. The notion of impartial justices ruling purely on principles of law has completely given way to political power plays, completing a transition evident late in the last century (bitter, partisan confirmation hearings) and confirmed by the historic disaster of the Bush v. Gore decision.
Kavanaugh is "qualified", in the sense of having the resume one would expect of a Supreme Court justice, applying typical vetting criteria (law background, practice as a Supreme Court clerk and as a senior judge). The most important criterion, though, is the political one, and that will determine how the votes will fall. Kavanaugh is a proven party hack (Bush acolyte, drafter of Clinton bill of impeachment) and thus is a fair replacement for Anthony Kennedy (another hack). Some analyses suggest he will be substantially further to "the right" than Kennedy--that will be seen in the fullness of time.. What I expect is that he, and Chief Justice Roberts as well, will behave themselves politically, trying in their decisions and opinions to temper the radical right-wing views of Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito, in order to reduce public criticism of the Supreme Court and try to preclude its extremism becoming the basis for a wipeout defeat of their party in 2020 (and possible court-packing following that by victorious, vengeful Democrats).
The strategy of the timing of the Kennedy resignation and Kavanaugh nomination is a political one: it's designed to allow the Republicans to use the united (or near-united) Democratic opposition in the midterm elections to support their claim that it is Democratic obstruction which is impeding their ability to govern. Not very original, but it may well work to inspire more of their base to turn out and avoid serious damage in the 2018 election. This nasty piece of business (the confirmation) will wrap up before November, most likely in late September--that's something that Senators of both parties will be able to agree upon: for Mitch McConnell, it eliminates the risk of a bad election outcome preventing confirmation, and for Democratic candidates in close elections, it gets the distraction out of the way so they can campaign.
For those who insist on the importance of parsing nominees' public statements in the confirmation process, I would suggest focusing on Kavanaugh's answer to one question (which must be asked): Does your interpretation of the Constitution include an affirmation of individuals' right to privacy? That is the fundamental finding behind Roe v. Wade, and the question of a fundamental right to privacy is one which will come up in other, very important contexts throughout Kavanaugh's term in the Court. Kavanaugh is reputed to be "textualist", which suggests he would be negative on the question if he were to answer honestly (I don't expect him to do that, though--he will only betray his true views later, when it's too late.)
I see little chance that any of the Republican senators will defect from lockstep support of the second Drumpfian Supreme Court nominee. If none do, it may appear that certain vulnerable "Red State Democrats" up for re-election are off the hook, in terms of their votes being decisive. This notion led some Democrats to argue that these vulnerable candidates should be free to vote according to "their conscience"--more like their conscious evaluation of the net political benefit to go one way or the other. No doubt Manchin in W.Va., Heitkamp in N.D., Tester in Mont., McCaskill in Mo., Donnelly in Ind., and Nelson in Fla. will closely monitor polling of their constituents' preference on the confirmation vote (in crosstabs with party registration and intention of vote on the Senate race itself). and will let that data guide their individual consciences.
I don't get to vote on these races, except in response to the constant emails I get* asking for money (all of these incumbents are actively soliciting me through email except Heitkamp--she seems to be more interested in independents than Democrats). One thing I can guarantee all these candidates is that they will not get any more money from me if they vote to confirm. (I just surprised myself by making a contribution for Manchin in response to an attractive email solicitation, and Nelson and Donnelly have received money from me in the past.) For me, there is one factor that should override for any true Democrat: let's call it the "Merrick Garland factor".
In this regard, I have added one "litmus test" issue (in this case one specifically for Democratic Senators) to the short list of my absolute requirements for those seeking my support (most meaningfully, through my contributions): common-sense on guns (no one advocating more guns gets my support); no denying climate change; and openness to major electoral reform (gerrymandering, Electoral College, campaign financing limitation).
...Of the Executive Branch (Scott Pruitt)
A hallmark of the Drumpfian "philosophy" of governing is to appoint incompetents and destructive administrators to Cabinet positions. There are so many examples: Ben Carson at HUD, Rick Perry at Energy, Betsy DeVos for Education are three clear ones. Maybe the worst appointment of all (except for the non-Cabinet appointments of Michael Flynn, and then later John Bolton, as his National Security Adviser) was Scott Pruitt, who proved to be toxic in every way. Trump was tolerant of his wasteful spending and self-aggrandizing paranoia, positively supportive of his anti-environmental approach to environmental protection, but he ultimately became politically harmful. So he had to go, but the departure was eased for Drumpf by the fact that he will be able to replace him with a pollution industry lobbyist who was Pruitt's deputy. More damage to follow.
...Of the Legislative Branch (Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy)
The most serious corrupting influence on our Congress today is the emergence of massive PAC money, and worse, "dark money" from donors whose identities do not have to be made public. To be honest, this is a problem that plagues both parties and many candidates, and the necessity of constant fund-raising and placating major donors is more than a distraction from true legislative activity.
I am singling out Nunes and Gowdy for the disrespect they have engendered with their perversion of the Congressional power of investigation (which is supposed to be for the purposes of aiding legislation). Nunes has been colluding with the White House in trying to undermine the Mueller investigation through the House Intellligence Committee which he chairs, and Gowdy has made a fool of himself in the House Oversight Committee, first with the Benghazi investigation and now with the shameful attacks on FBI agents.
...in the White House itself (Trump Conflicts of Interest and the Russian Oligarchs)
As I have said before, with the Trump administration, there are no conflicts--only interests. I leave it to the investigative reporters to detail all the ways in which Trumpian greed intersects with Drumpfian policy (here and here are a couple of relevant links I can recommend). The key storyline is this: critical to the survival of the Trump enterprise, in the time around and since the Great Crater, has been the sale of high-end real estate to Russian oligarchs. For the buyers, this was a proven safe way to get money out of Russia and into legitimate assets: this is generally referred to as "money laundering". It is not that the purchase of US real estate is in any way illegal; it's more where the money came from that is shady and that makes these buyers shady. Most are connected with the regime of Putin, the biggest oligarch/money launderer of them all.
So, Trump Org. finds them good to do business with, and he isn't going to turn on these "friends"; instead he becomes an apologist for Russian provocations. He seems to have no problem with Putin's agenda item of trying to weaken the West and their alliances, as America's allies have snubbed Russia and coddled the Ukraine, which has gone back and forth but is currently antagonistic toward Russia. For its part, Russia has found Ukraine a suitable target for its expansion and disruption efforts.
Meanwhile, the Trump offspring are free to make hay from their political connection to the President, and they will make the most of it while they can. Other Trump cronies, like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, are wealthy enough, but still encouraged to find an angle to benefit if they so choose.
The Russia/Trump collusion to help the Republican win the 2016 election was just business: there was no intention to betray the US or even to break laws, just that there might have been a few statutory limitations that got in the way. Russian hacking of Democratic databases, and infiltration of Facebook, are only standard practice, the illegal parts generally deniable or protected by national boundaries, and the only interruption in the activity will be to build new cover when necessary.
This is what is going on; the only remedy seems to be the will of voters to defeat Drumpfites, if it can be mustered, this year and then again in 2020. All of what I say here will come out eventually (even without the Trump tax returns, though those will likely become part of the story), but I have no confidence at all that it will sway Republican voters, Republican legislators, or Republican judges from their great partisan suck-up to this petty dictator.
*Over 200 emails asking for money on June 30--every single one referring to their second-quarter deadline at midnight. When will they learn that I don't care about their deadlines? In fact, I would prefer to have lower numbers come out of those deadline reports from the Federal Election Commission, in order to reduce the dollar arms race.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Sports Update
World Cup Knockout Rounds
48 of the 64 games have been played, and still we know very little about the ultimate outcome of the World Cup.
I posted my excuses for not seeing much of the first round in a comment recently; despite that, I am willing to stick my neck out a bit and look forward to the rest of the tournament. It is only after the first round that one can actually do this, because now we can see the matchups ahead. The big change in the outlook from what one would have foreseen going in was the unexpected elimination of Germany--kudos to Mexico and South Korea, who defeated them (and for that matter, Sweden, who were unlucky to lose to them).
The next two rounds can be thought of as little grouplets of four--teams need to get through two wins to make it to the semifinals, which is generally the mark of a successful World Cup campaign (unless you're for Brazil or Germany). The semifinal and the final are showtime; the drama is at the center. There is much less drama, or glory, in these next two rounds, but with no single team standing out, there will be the fog of battle, with four teams emerging.
Top Left grouplet (round of 16 games today) - What I would describe as an ugly group. France and Uruguay are two of the three teams who won all three games in the first round (Belgium is the other), but that means nothing now--it is more a reflection of the opponents they drew. Argentina barely survived, as they also barely made the field, but they are still there. And Portugal played the in the most exciting match of the first round (the 3-3 draw with Spain). This is a bloody mess; I would guess Uruguay gets through.
Top Right grouplet (Sunday) - Spain vs. Russia, in Moscow, is an interesting game; Spain should be a big favorite but Russia is playing well. The key game in the group should be the quarterfinal between Spain and Croatia, and I would lean toward picking the Croats, in an upset.
Bottom Left (Monday) - For me, the two teams that most look like world-dominating Cup winners are Belgium and Brazil, who should meet in the quarterfinal. If they get through their next games: I don't see Belgium having trouble with Japan, but the Brazil-Mexico game could be a highlight of the tournament. Let's go with Brazil from this group.
Bottom Right (Tuesday) - This is a fairly weak grouplet. England has looked good; they have a good test against Colombia, though Colombia may not have their star player, James Rodriguez. The winner of that match should be favored over the Sweden-Switzerland winner (two countries whose shorthand names always confuse). OK, England.
As for the look-ahead to the final, I would ask the reader: is Moscow part of Europe? If the answer is yes, then pick England, Croatia (or Spain/Belgium); if not, then the winner should be Brazil (or Uruguay or Colombia). This based on historical precedent of location of games/region of winner, which has been broken only once in recent history (2014, when Germany won in Brazil--that wasn't supposed to happen, ask any Brazilian).
The predominance of the European and Latin American teams in getting through the first round is obvious: no teams from Africa (Senegal deserved it but was edged out by Japan though a hinky tiebreaker), Japan the only one from Asia, and Mexico the single standout from the North America/Caribbean configuration. Old school.
MLB: The halfway point
The pennant races are a tale of two leagues with completely different stories: it is the best of times for the National League, with 9 or 10 teams battling for the five postseason spots. Nothing is assured, and there are some genuine surprises, like all three division leaders at this point (Atlanta instead of Washington, Milwaukee instead of Chicago, and Arizona instead of Los Angeles). Those three favored teams are also very much in the mix, though, and their proven talent may win out. There should be some exciting races which go down to the end.
It will be the worst of times for the American League, for which all five teams for the postseason are virtually assured, barring a collapse. There will be an attempt to hype the importance of the Yankees vs. Red Sox for first in the East, or for Houston vs. Seattle in the West, and currently there is a hype effort in favor of the Oakland A's chances, but the A's are seven games out from the second wild card spot. They are the only apparent challenger to the Assured Five (Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Astros, and Mariners).
The most interesting baseball story is the continuing emergence of exciting young players. This year the focus is on Ronald Acuna Jr. of the Braves and two-way start Shohei Ohtani of the Angels (I keep thinking Acuna-Ohtani, sounds like "Hakuna Matata"). Both are recovering from injuries right now but have shown huge potential. Rookie pitchers are taking longer to emerge (and Ohtani may have to give up on the pitching portion of his emerging stardom), but there are some strong second-year efforts from Blake Snell (Tampa Bay), Aaron Nola (Philadelphia), and reliever Josh Hader (Milwaukee).
In terms of hitting stars, many familiar names among the leaders (Trout, Harper, Judge, Betts, Arenado), but also some surprising ones--J.D. Martinez, Jesus Aguilar, Nick Markakis, Scooter Gennett. Overall, though the AL race looks dreary for the second half, the game looks healthy to me.
NBA Offseason Shuffle
The stasis at the top--Golden State vs. Cleveland in the Finals for the fourth year in a row--had to give way --thankfully--and the Warriors aren't going anywhere. So the question for this offseason is whether any team can brew up a viable challenger to them. Last year's effort--the Houston Rockets with MVP James Harden and Chris Paul came ever so close (the other synthetic effort, with Russell Westbrook, Carmelo Anthony, and Paul George on Oklahoma City, fell way short). The buzz is that the Lakers are trying to put together a super-team; I like the Celtics if they get one more star. The main pieces are Lebron James, who has once again decided to take his talents away from Cleveland; Kawhi Leonard, who somehow became disenchanted with the best franchise in sports, the San Antonio Spurs, and George. All (for next season) will be revealed soon.
Finally, the college basketball outlook for next season is starting to clarify, now that the NBA draft is over (who's left?) and the commitments from incoming freshmen/transfers are nearing completion. Kentucky is standing tall as the favorite, with yet another top freshman recruiting season, a key transfer, and a couple of valuable holdovers (despite having six underclassmen players drafted by the pros). That's pretty exciting for me and the other Wildcat fans.
48 of the 64 games have been played, and still we know very little about the ultimate outcome of the World Cup.
I posted my excuses for not seeing much of the first round in a comment recently; despite that, I am willing to stick my neck out a bit and look forward to the rest of the tournament. It is only after the first round that one can actually do this, because now we can see the matchups ahead. The big change in the outlook from what one would have foreseen going in was the unexpected elimination of Germany--kudos to Mexico and South Korea, who defeated them (and for that matter, Sweden, who were unlucky to lose to them).
The next two rounds can be thought of as little grouplets of four--teams need to get through two wins to make it to the semifinals, which is generally the mark of a successful World Cup campaign (unless you're for Brazil or Germany). The semifinal and the final are showtime; the drama is at the center. There is much less drama, or glory, in these next two rounds, but with no single team standing out, there will be the fog of battle, with four teams emerging.
Top Left grouplet (round of 16 games today) - What I would describe as an ugly group. France and Uruguay are two of the three teams who won all three games in the first round (Belgium is the other), but that means nothing now--it is more a reflection of the opponents they drew. Argentina barely survived, as they also barely made the field, but they are still there. And Portugal played the in the most exciting match of the first round (the 3-3 draw with Spain). This is a bloody mess; I would guess Uruguay gets through.
Top Right grouplet (Sunday) - Spain vs. Russia, in Moscow, is an interesting game; Spain should be a big favorite but Russia is playing well. The key game in the group should be the quarterfinal between Spain and Croatia, and I would lean toward picking the Croats, in an upset.
Bottom Left (Monday) - For me, the two teams that most look like world-dominating Cup winners are Belgium and Brazil, who should meet in the quarterfinal. If they get through their next games: I don't see Belgium having trouble with Japan, but the Brazil-Mexico game could be a highlight of the tournament. Let's go with Brazil from this group.
Bottom Right (Tuesday) - This is a fairly weak grouplet. England has looked good; they have a good test against Colombia, though Colombia may not have their star player, James Rodriguez. The winner of that match should be favored over the Sweden-Switzerland winner (two countries whose shorthand names always confuse). OK, England.
As for the look-ahead to the final, I would ask the reader: is Moscow part of Europe? If the answer is yes, then pick England, Croatia (or Spain/Belgium); if not, then the winner should be Brazil (or Uruguay or Colombia). This based on historical precedent of location of games/region of winner, which has been broken only once in recent history (2014, when Germany won in Brazil--that wasn't supposed to happen, ask any Brazilian).
The predominance of the European and Latin American teams in getting through the first round is obvious: no teams from Africa (Senegal deserved it but was edged out by Japan though a hinky tiebreaker), Japan the only one from Asia, and Mexico the single standout from the North America/Caribbean configuration. Old school.
MLB: The halfway point
The pennant races are a tale of two leagues with completely different stories: it is the best of times for the National League, with 9 or 10 teams battling for the five postseason spots. Nothing is assured, and there are some genuine surprises, like all three division leaders at this point (Atlanta instead of Washington, Milwaukee instead of Chicago, and Arizona instead of Los Angeles). Those three favored teams are also very much in the mix, though, and their proven talent may win out. There should be some exciting races which go down to the end.
It will be the worst of times for the American League, for which all five teams for the postseason are virtually assured, barring a collapse. There will be an attempt to hype the importance of the Yankees vs. Red Sox for first in the East, or for Houston vs. Seattle in the West, and currently there is a hype effort in favor of the Oakland A's chances, but the A's are seven games out from the second wild card spot. They are the only apparent challenger to the Assured Five (Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Astros, and Mariners).
The most interesting baseball story is the continuing emergence of exciting young players. This year the focus is on Ronald Acuna Jr. of the Braves and two-way start Shohei Ohtani of the Angels (I keep thinking Acuna-Ohtani, sounds like "Hakuna Matata"). Both are recovering from injuries right now but have shown huge potential. Rookie pitchers are taking longer to emerge (and Ohtani may have to give up on the pitching portion of his emerging stardom), but there are some strong second-year efforts from Blake Snell (Tampa Bay), Aaron Nola (Philadelphia), and reliever Josh Hader (Milwaukee).
In terms of hitting stars, many familiar names among the leaders (Trout, Harper, Judge, Betts, Arenado), but also some surprising ones--J.D. Martinez, Jesus Aguilar, Nick Markakis, Scooter Gennett. Overall, though the AL race looks dreary for the second half, the game looks healthy to me.
NBA Offseason Shuffle
The stasis at the top--Golden State vs. Cleveland in the Finals for the fourth year in a row--had to give way --thankfully--and the Warriors aren't going anywhere. So the question for this offseason is whether any team can brew up a viable challenger to them. Last year's effort--the Houston Rockets with MVP James Harden and Chris Paul came ever so close (the other synthetic effort, with Russell Westbrook, Carmelo Anthony, and Paul George on Oklahoma City, fell way short). The buzz is that the Lakers are trying to put together a super-team; I like the Celtics if they get one more star. The main pieces are Lebron James, who has once again decided to take his talents away from Cleveland; Kawhi Leonard, who somehow became disenchanted with the best franchise in sports, the San Antonio Spurs, and George. All (for next season) will be revealed soon.
Finally, the college basketball outlook for next season is starting to clarify, now that the NBA draft is over (who's left?) and the commitments from incoming freshmen/transfers are nearing completion. Kentucky is standing tall as the favorite, with yet another top freshman recruiting season, a key transfer, and a couple of valuable holdovers (despite having six underclassmen players drafted by the pros). That's pretty exciting for me and the other Wildcat fans.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Anthony Kennedy
The swing vote on the Supreme Court submitted his resignation today, going out as he went in: a Republican regular. He held back on his plan, waiting to see how he could be most useful to the party (staying in longer or going), and when Trump's White House asked him if he would resign, he gave them what they wanted.
Unlike most things the Trumpsters do, this was a carefully prepared plan. Trump has gone out of his way to ingratiate himself with Kennedy, and the White House, after consulting with Majority Turtle McConnell, decided to push the button.
It is a sad fact that the timing is more about giving the Republican, party something new to make their campaign around, motivating their still pissed-off base to show up, than it is out of concern that they have to move before the elections' result is reflected in the new Senate.
I really don't think that fear of a Democratic takeover drove the calculations, they were just making sure. And there is surely nothing the Democrats can do to block this right-wing takeover ploy, if the Republicans stick together. For Trump, that means picking a nominee who is smart enough not to give away his positions on ending abortion, undoing gay marriage, reversing Obamacare's constitutionality, and other outrages. The Democrats can not successfully filibuster this past the end of this Congress, though they could make the electoral campaign season difficult. But that would only hurt the many Democrats who need to campaign to protect their seats. So, unless Susan Collins and some other Republican will stand up against this nominee--I see a 49-49 vote as a possibility, with Pence the tiebreaker--Trump could indeed pick someone who is a party hack, like Kennedy.
Many Tea Party types were furious at Kennedy, who did not always vote with the four extremists (at least three, with Chief Justice Roberts the fourth) and go along with the right wing view. Many thought he was too unpredictable, but I would characterize him as very much a moderate Republican with libertarian tendencies. Just the kind of Republican who it is hard to find today, and it seems Kennedy was really a little less independent, a little more willing to play ball with his hack movement than he may have seemed.
He may be remembered for some decisions that enabled progress, but he will also be remembered for this craven retirement and for Bush v. Gore. Now the new swing vote will be Roberts, unless Trump goes for someone ideologically to Roberts' left. That would not be a bad strategy if the goal were a quick approval, but I really think the point is to drag it out and point to the Democrats' united, but futile, negative stance during the campaign. The Democrats will respond "Merrick Garland" and the public will say "Who?"
The Democratic organizations will cite this struggle as a reason to give them money. This argument makes no sense to me. All promises that anything Democratic supporters can do will make a difference are illusionary (except maybe those who reside in Alaska, Arizona, or Maine). The real point is that this must be the LAST Republican Supreme Court Justice. Ever.
Unlike most things the Trumpsters do, this was a carefully prepared plan. Trump has gone out of his way to ingratiate himself with Kennedy, and the White House, after consulting with Majority Turtle McConnell, decided to push the button.
It is a sad fact that the timing is more about giving the Republican, party something new to make their campaign around, motivating their still pissed-off base to show up, than it is out of concern that they have to move before the elections' result is reflected in the new Senate.
I really don't think that fear of a Democratic takeover drove the calculations, they were just making sure. And there is surely nothing the Democrats can do to block this right-wing takeover ploy, if the Republicans stick together. For Trump, that means picking a nominee who is smart enough not to give away his positions on ending abortion, undoing gay marriage, reversing Obamacare's constitutionality, and other outrages. The Democrats can not successfully filibuster this past the end of this Congress, though they could make the electoral campaign season difficult. But that would only hurt the many Democrats who need to campaign to protect their seats. So, unless Susan Collins and some other Republican will stand up against this nominee--I see a 49-49 vote as a possibility, with Pence the tiebreaker--Trump could indeed pick someone who is a party hack, like Kennedy.
Many Tea Party types were furious at Kennedy, who did not always vote with the four extremists (at least three, with Chief Justice Roberts the fourth) and go along with the right wing view. Many thought he was too unpredictable, but I would characterize him as very much a moderate Republican with libertarian tendencies. Just the kind of Republican who it is hard to find today, and it seems Kennedy was really a little less independent, a little more willing to play ball with his hack movement than he may have seemed.
He may be remembered for some decisions that enabled progress, but he will also be remembered for this craven retirement and for Bush v. Gore. Now the new swing vote will be Roberts, unless Trump goes for someone ideologically to Roberts' left. That would not be a bad strategy if the goal were a quick approval, but I really think the point is to drag it out and point to the Democrats' united, but futile, negative stance during the campaign. The Democrats will respond "Merrick Garland" and the public will say "Who?"
The Democratic organizations will cite this struggle as a reason to give them money. This argument makes no sense to me. All promises that anything Democratic supporters can do will make a difference are illusionary (except maybe those who reside in Alaska, Arizona, or Maine). The real point is that this must be the LAST Republican Supreme Court Justice. Ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
