McCarthy is voted out of the speaker position

Of course there is going to be lots of drama in Congress when there is just barely a majority. Add in grandstanding fantasy-based reps, and it will be even more nail biting. 

Some of the play-by-play of the debate and the vote. A day before the vote, before Gaetz' motion to vacate was even filed, a pundit writes that McCarthy had fucked up all the goodwill he might have had from the Dems. Two days before the vote, this was the lay of the land, just after the surprise continuing resolution that avoided a government shutdown. 

The reasons why the Dems didn't save McCarthy's bacon. The less fun official version of it. A list of who's angry at whom, with the most interesting resentment in the second half of the article. Moderate GOPers thought the Dems would save McCarthy. The bipartisan ProblemSolvers caucus may actually dissolve over this, which would be a shame. 

The editorial board of WaPo recommends that House Dems vote present so that the new speaker doesn't have to make so many promises to the holdouts. We'll see...

My analysis

My own prediction was that the Dems would save McCarthy because they need him to pass appropriation bills and/or CRs, or there will be a shutdown of unknown length, and certainly longer because this leadership issue has to be settled first. That's what I thought and I was wrong. Reality didn't follow my logic, so I've been trying to understand the reasons. 

Here's my guess now: The Dems didn't think McCarthy was going to be able to deliver compromise appropriation bills. He was going to cave to the rightwing and pass big cuts, and then it would be a stalemate. There's a good chance that's how it would have played out. Well, in that case, you might as well dump McCarthy and try someone who might be more open to reality. Based on how McCarthy behaved, they had little to lose. 

Plus there is the issue of timing. If Dems were hoping to ax McCarthy, they can't do it at their convenience. They have to do it when a GOPer raises the motion. So if everything gets settled, maybe there's no disgruntled GOPer to make the motion and follow through, so the Dems have to continue dealing with McCarthy for months more and maybe straight through to the 2024 election. "Nobody trusts Kevin" was a quote I read from more than one representative. When enough in the House feel that way, you are OUT.

There have been so other twists and turns on this issue. A couple GOPers said they would nominate Trump. That's ludicrous because Trump doesn't have the work ethic or temperament for the job. But he's also a glutton for attention, so he said that he'd consider it for a short time. That set off warning sirens and the possibility has been shut down. Now on Friday, Trump has endorsed the slimy Jim Jordan for speaker. This is a major liar, a J6 coward, and a former coach at Ohio State University who didn't report all the sexual harassment that was going on. The other major contender is the next in the GOP leadership, Steve Scalise. I hate to think a scumsucker like Jordan can win. If he loses, it is a slap in the face to Trump, so all the more reason for it to happen. 

To be continued in the Extras...

Image: Newsmax

Extras. Trump was nominated as speaker back in January too with hilarious results. Lots of ridicule on certain networks. 

The end of Liz Cheney, a morality tale.

 (Originally May 7) Liz Cheney is soon to be removed from her leadership position in the GOP hierarch in the House. Her unforgivable error was to vote for Trump's impeachment and be vocal about it. She was trying to hold Trump accountable for his part in the failed coup on Jan. 6. 

She survived one vote shortly after the impeachment by over 2-to-1. Now it looks like Kevin McCarthy has thrown her under the bus and will let others run her over repeatedly. 

Why the change? I don't know. Maybe it's jockeying in the deep GOP circles, as people have to swear loyalty to Trump (and his lies) or they get dumped. I can believe Trump-support is that strong in some places. However, in general I think Trump will get weaker and he'll continue to get weaker. He doesn't have much of podium, and his program of whining about the election will look more and more immature as time goes on. I think this will shrink the GOP because a lot of people in the US are smarter than that, and will want some results instead of just resentment whines 24/7. 

But with people who remain in the Republican party, Trump may be a post you latch on to. Rally around him.... in the absence of actual policy and issues. This should cost the GOP in the midterms, but that's not a certainly at all. It depends on what the Dems are doing. Are they have their own crazy moments, or is sanity holding sway?

It looks like Cheney will be replace by another token woman, Elise Stefanik from upstate New York. She's been a good GOP barbie, repeating all the requisite lies. I doubt she'll be able to lead in anything other than continuing to sell out and cash in. Liz Cheney cashed in on being a GOP woman in Congress, so why not someone else. It's not like Cheney got the position because she was well known for her scruples. 

Image: glitternight.com

Extras. Mitt Romney was booed at a convention in Utah. When he came to the podium to speak, there was lots of clapping and warm response, but the boos were in that background and didn't stop until a party leader admonished the crowd. Not good Mormon behavior folks. 

Update 6/30/22. Liz Cheney is getting some very thorough revenge. She's doing great in the hearings about Jan. 6. Very poised and on-point, without grandstanding. June 28 was particularly devastating with a top aide of Mark Meadows spilling a lot of stories not heard before. GOPers wanted to relegate Cheney to the ash heap, but she's not going there. 

Don't let a pandemic stop the partisanship

Very few people are letting go of partisanship. Some examples: GOP senators want to increase the quarter-trillion dollar small business loan fund because it was exhausted in about 2 weeks. But they don't want to allow Pelosi any of her projects that would help other sectors, like state governments and hospitals. So no deal. Our way or the highway, I guess.

Republican-leaning folks are protesting lockdowns in various states, and getting encouragement from Trump. Are the protesters considering the implications in terms of life and health? Are they asking for a plan? Or are they stomping their feet was though this was all a hoax? Michigan had the biggest protest so far, and here's the view from a Michigander of the divisions within the state. It's the equivalent of 'Let 'em die.'

Election Looming

So let's strip away the dressing and lay it bare. Republicans are desperate to get the economy back on track because it was looking quite good and greatly helped their chances in the upcoming November elections.

But where are the Democrats in this? Some Republicans suspect that the Dems are gleeful over this disaster if it dooms Trump's chance at reelection, and maybe also hands the Senate to the Dems. That's a suspicion, but would any Dems in office actually try to worsen the epidemic or the economy for the electoral advantage? That's pretty bloodthirsty. However, it's clear from many comments I read that it's exactly what some Republicans think. Good luck trying to prove otherwise. It's a nasty accusation that they won't be able to back up, but they throw it to cause the suspicion and to blacken their opponents.

Dems aren't going to be completely honest either. Most aren't giving Trump credit for closing down a lot of the travel from China. They are giving him a hard time for his lack of leadership, but he richly deserves that. There was a lot of time wasted not getting prepared for this epidemic. There were warnings and information coming in to those paying attention that this virus was spreading quickly around the world, starting with areas with more travel.

This is largely a rant, so I'll follow my rules for rants, whatever they might be today. I haven't seen Dems trying to gain political advantage except for pointing out that the economy might be wrecked and the stock market is way down, so Trump can no longer claim successes with them. That's a bit weak on the causation, but fair on the result. Trump can't claim good things about the economy now because we are in a massively different situation, and it's not one caused by the Dems. It's partially caused by this black swan event, and partially by Trump's poor handling of this black swan event.

I've seen Republicans make all kinds of different arguments trying to avoid the obvious. This is fucking terrible for Trump's reelection prospects. One pundit I read has written for years that presidents will tend to get reelected unless there's a major crisis or a war that's not going well. If there's a crisis, well, the president might well be toast. This appears to be crisis beyond Trump's ability to manage. Maybe not, but probably. So Trump is clearly in trouble. I hope that isn't in dispute among the honest.

Not His Fault!

Some of the ludicrous stuff that Trump supporters have been saying: It's no worse than the flu! Trump was being impeached [so that makes it the Dems fault???]. The Chinese lied to us. Dems attacked Trump for blocking flights. Trump did a lot of things to prevent the spread. It's a lie that the National Security pandemic team was dismantled. It's a bunch of fearmongering. Don't panic. Don't buy up all the toilet paper, you idiots. Dems said we'd have a million people dead by now but it hasn't happened, so they're complete liars. Trump did take it seriously. Lockdowns aren't necessary. Lockdowns will ruin the economy just to save a few lives. Dems don't care about people losing their jobs and businesses. Dems love this, that we're all dependent on the government giving us money to survive. The suicide, murder and abuse rates are already shooting up. People aren't going to be able to take this lockdown for very long. Just wash your hands - no need to shut down the economy. It's only bad in dirty places that have Democratic governors and mayors; the rest of us shouldn't have to shut down. It's because of poor Dem hygiene practices. The governors are happy with Trump's leadership. The governors are in mutiny. This death rate isn't higher at all. Lots of deaths are labeled as covid but that's to get extra money... or make the GOP look bad. Go check your hospital and see if it's overwhelmed, or is it just a hoax? <--- And I didn't even get into the arguments about testing or personal protective equipment (PPE).

Yes, I have seen a conservative saying each one of these. I'm not making up any of them.

Dems are bashing Trump regularly, and not completely honestly either. They don't say that any leader, GOP or Dem, would be facing very difficult circumstances. Decisions have to be made with imperfect information, and not all of them will be right. So the impulse to attack everything Trump does is wrong, but many Dems are still doing that, just today bashing Trump for putting a hold on immigration. If lockdowns make sense, so does a hold on immigration, duh!

So there is reasonable cricism of Trump, and a lot of it, and there is stupid criticism of him.

Anti-News, Anti-Science

A big problem is that a lot of people won't believe information that doesn't come to them except from their stilted media. So if Fox News isn't telling them this pandemic is real, they aren't going to believe it even with the availability of reports from Lombardy, Spain, New York City, Seattle, and New Orleans. It gets even worse than that. They won't believe anyone who says something similar to MSM or experts. They are very effectively vaccinated against believing anything from anyone remotely associated with the suspect media and politicians. So they will never be convinced short of nearly dying or having someone in their family nearly die.

This total resistance to anything from experts or MSM media means that there will always be a cadre who can mutually reinforce each other. They will also fight the most sensible, well-supported information. They will attack good idea, good arguments, and good people simply because they are always on the offense, and think anyone with different ideas is brainwashed. I'm seeing so much of this.

I see Trump supporters who think that anyone who criticizes Trump over his handling of covid-19 is gleeful that people are dying by the thousands. Many people are feeling vindicated that Trump is so clearly out of his depth. I'm among those who thought that Trump would be a disaster if he ever had to handle a major crisis, and now that's exactly what he has to do, and he is handling it as poorly as we always suspected he would. There is no 'rising to the challenge' from him.

Covid flips the campaigns

Sadly, we're in this situation as the US presidential campaign heats up, so the stakes are very high. Prior to this pandemic, it looked like Trump had a very good chance of being reelected based on the economy if nothing else. But this huge crisis and the economic toll, his chances are diminished a lot, and his supporters know this. Trump and his supporters are desperate to reverse the economic losses, which accounts for their push to reduce stay-at-home orders and reopen states as soon as possible, whether it is safe or not, whether there are good plans in place or not. Reopen Now!! is what a lot are saying, and they aren't interested in evaluating the risks and rewards. Are Dems desperately trying to prevent this for electoral advantage? Not that I know of, but GOPers accuse them of this. This is also playing out in the issue of vote-by-mail.

Planning for how to handle a pandemic wouldn't generally be easy, but this one is harder than the last. This virus spreads more easily, kills somewhat more people, is mutating (not unusual), affects several organ systems, is a type of virus that isn't conducive to a vaccine, and perhaps not to immunity through antibodies either. This might be a long slog, like it was with HIV, except that this can affect many more people, but luckily our technology is much more advanced.

Advanced or not, we are in some uncharted territory. We haven't had a pandemic like this in a hundred years, and our expectations have risen very high in terms of the safety we expect. What would it be like, being on the team that has to plan the reopening of a state or country, knowing that there is no cure, no certain prevention, and more danger of death that we're accustomed to?

Image: theweek.com

Extras. A program for small businesses to continue to pay workers ran out of money in just two weeks. The parties in Congress took several extra days to sort out how to provide more funds, partly because Dems wanted to fund other groups and GOPers wanted to limit it. Both stances are based on constituencies. GOPers only want to support businesses, and Dems want to support hospitals, states, and businesses that are very small. Dems were holding the money for business ransom, trying to force Republicans to help broader groups. The GOP mostly won this time. Dems were only able to get aid earmarked for the very small businesses.

Some examples of conservative media and what they are saying about Dems reveling in this pandemic. Most are from Rush Limbaugh  (archive  here). Time series: Limbaugh1, Limbaugh2, Limbaugh3, Limbaugh4, Limbaugh5, Limbaugh6, Limbaugh7. This started with Limbaugh saying it was nothing but Dems hope it will be something  (CHECK), then it's well under control but Dems are going try to spin that Trump lied about it being under control, it's something that isn't in control but it's being weaponized against Trump. It's not just Limbaugh, it's also Townhall. Columbia Journalism Review looks at this.

Aid to red states - Good. Aid to blue states - waste. Same as with hurricane relief.

Opinions about which drug is most effective against covid are based on partisanship. That makes no sense because it should be based on test data, right? But there's the chloroquine and the remdesivir camp, and data be damned!

Opinions on masks could be based on partisanship. <Eye roll> More of that proud animosity to those wimpy scientists, liberals, and SJWs.

April 28, over 59K deaths, and someone is still declaring this a hoax.

GRAND REOPENING - COMING SOON - RIGHT HERE!!!!

Well, after all those quickly executed shutdowns and lockdowns, it was inevitable that we would need to have reopenings, but hopefully they would be orderly and well-planned. I first asked myself about this on 3/29/20, and I'm glad I did. Since we luckily avoided having everywhere in crisis, every state had some spare capacity to start planning reopening. Now some of those plans are being released and going forward. This is something to celebrate, though in a sober manner with good social distancing and hygiene practices. Yes, we dodged a bullet, and didn't have the level of outbreak that northern Italy had. Congrats to us and the people who urged wise steps.

So here are a somewhat random assortment of reopening plans. The first one out of the gate was Georgia. Not well organized, but instead managed like a political football. Trump was encouraging opening (LIBERATE!) as soon as possible, and under threat from mass protests, though the mass protests didn't actually happen. In that atmosphere, Georgia went big and bold, which means foolhardy. Trump then reversed his support and mildly criticized the plan, which I think is going ahead anyway.

Texas is being more cautious than Georgia with a phased plan to open stores, restaurants, libraries, museums, and theatres at 25% capacity starting on May 1. The second phase starts on May 18. Counties with 5 or fewer cases can open at 50% capacity.

Mike DeWine, governor of Ohio and a leader in taking charge and not waiting for Trump, sets out some conditions based on hygiene and social distancing. However, he backed down on face coverings 'cuz Merrikans don't like them. Also, the plan was to coordinate with other regional governors, but Michigan's governor hadn't put together a plan in time.

The leadership by the federal government is minimal, as it generally has been, except when it comes to underwriting programs (mostly for businesses). The federal guidelines expect the states to set up testing, tracing (sure!), supplies of protective equipment, etc. Well, if states have all that responsbility, the federal government can shove their guidelines where the sun don't shine.

Well, interesting times. Stay tuned for sure!

THIS WILL BE A DEFACTO CLEARINGHOUSE FOR REOPENING POSTS, COMMENTS, AND UPDATES.

Image: wtol.com

Extras. How New Mexico avoided disaster. New Mexico again, but the epidemic is heavy in Gallup and the Navajo lands, with good video. A critique of how New Jersey handled its shutdown--Hoboken did it early and provides evidence of the doubling time being around 3 days.  New Zealand (yes, I know, not a state in the US) did great. Hokkaido (northern Japanese island) opened to soon and too aggressively and had to close again.

Views of workers in the US about safety and other issues.

Still new cases, still new hospitalizations. Why is this happening during the shutdown? Answer: Many are essential workers.

Florida has plans for major theme parks to reopen, but their management doesn't seem quite so eager.

Surge of covid cases in Texas, located in the panhandle. How will this go? On 6/26/20, the governor had to close bars back down. Also no elective surgery in the most populous counties. Very typical epidemiological measures.

A region in China sees about a dozen new cases, and they lock it down.

Missouri and Maryland had packed venues during Memorial Day weekend. Will we be seeing the consequences in a month or two? Bars in Texas were allowed to reopen, and the mayor of Houston is worried.

California has had a rather tight lockdown, but cases haven't slowed. What to do next?

The governor of N. Carolina (a dem) has slowed down the reopening and is telling people to damn-well wear a mask.

An article focusing on psychological reactions and why liberals and conservatives aren't responding the same to covid-19.

A lot of southern states are seeing surges in covid cases. How will this affect the presidential election? This includes Texas. More information about cases in southern Texas and half of Florida. How Texas fumbled its reopeening to create a surge of cases. When medicine and politics clash, some politicians are going to prioritize their candidates and their parties. Kelly Anne Conway makes Trump the cautious sage of reopening?!?!

Battles over school reopenings in Texas and California. Of course it's going to happen. Sickout by teachers and staff closes Arizona schools. 

And then the colleges... Lots of unnecessary mixing by college students doing the party thing. Lots of colleges. I couldn't list them all. 

Anti-mask militants get angry in Idaho. Yes, the absurdity of the existence of militants against masks. 

And a hair salon owner sets up and embarrasses Nancy Pelosi. And denies she set up Pelosi while appearing on Fox News. I'm not falling for that. 
 

And as summer ended and cool weather came, so did a surge in covid. This isn't unexpected for a respiratory virus. Increases nearly everywhere, and surges in some places. Here's a surge in El Paso TX.

Trump craves attention but avoids real leadership

As I've written before, Trump loves to have media and public attention on himself, but he doesn't generally know how to lead. So he'll say things like he has a wonderful healthcare plan when he doesn't even have an inkling of a plan. The words, soundbites, and coverage matter to him, not reality like an actual plan.

When it came to responding to the covid pandemic, Trump was true to his stunted form. He had no plan. But when governors started taking action, Trump jumped into the fray to grab the attention yet again. Now Trump is trying to monopolize the attention on an reopening plan. He probably barely has a clue on what it should be, but that matters less to him than the attention. So he claims that his 'authority is total' on Monday, and walks it back a bit on Tuesday. He tweets about 'Mutiny on the Bounty' regarding governors on Tuesday, and then it drops. He says he'll adjourn Congress on Wednesday, but that's more fluff. He may not remember a particular Supreme Court ruling, but I do.

(By the way, pushback from Fox on Trump's claim of total authority: minimal.)

The federal government is putting together a plan. Some of it leaked to the Washington Post, and it's rather bare bones. Information campaign through May 1, then focus on increasing manufacturing of testing kits and protective equipment through May 15, then phased start to reopening schools and childcare. I can't say I agree with that last one. I'd reopen adult venues first. They are easier to close if infections spike and cause less disruption to fewer people. Schools should be later in the reopening, in my opinion. I haven't seen any scientific reasoning to open schools earlier. The reasoning behind opening schools was to have childcare for workers who'd be getting back to work. But I'm concerned about schools being vectors for transmitting the virus.

Image: runnelscountyregister.com

Extras. Covid virus moves more readily in the air, up to 13 feet. And it coats lots of surfaces, like door knobs and the soles of people's shoes. It's all over hospitals, even in the pharmacy where no patients are. Trump of course continued his strategy of capturing the newscycle, often through outrageous tweets.

Update 4/29/20. What was Trump doing before he got serious about the epidemic? Leaving it to Jared Kushner, who is another person to make decisions based on instinct instead of information. Also, a political strategist says not to defend Trump over the covid issues, just bash China. 

The Republicans Strike Back... they hope.

Republicans are fighting against the Ukraine scandal and subsequent impeachment inquiry with all they have. They continue to push the theory that the FBI, CIA, and other departments were/are full of corrupt Dem-sympathetic officials who have illegally targeted Trump. The Horowitz Inspector General (IG) report was supposed to blow it out of the water. That didn't happen. Now the investigation by US attorney John Durham is supposed to unmask this deep state conspiracy. 

I doubt it will happen. As we saw with the Mueller investigation and IG report, almost all of the big pieces leaked well before the reports were published. So Durham will probably not have anything beyound the known bits on Comey, Strzok and Page, McCabe, Bruce Ohr in the State Department, and how the FBI used the Steele dossier. I doubt there will be any smoking gun showing that the Trump campaign was set up by the FBI or CIA, with a phony approach by Mifsud that they orchestrated. I predict that will turn out to be true as reported, that Mifsud offered info on Hillary Clinton, and the campaign was interested. That Papadopoulos drunkenly mentioned it to an Australian diplomat, who eventually reported it through channels to the FBI. 

Their grand hopes of indictments and perp walks of these heinous Dem-leaning traitors isn't going to happen. But we shall all see.

Image: youtube.com

Extra. This column points out how the GOPers are using slander as a counterattack. Lt. Col. Vindman who was injured in Iraq--has a grudge against Trump and is lying. Also, he's a never-Trumper, meaning he isn't loyal. Not loyal  to Trump--to me, it sounds like Trump thinks he's running a banana republic.

Update 2/28/2020. I never specified why I think there won't be perp walks of conspirators among the FBI/CIA/etc. There are two reasons: 1) There wasn't a conspiracy. 2) The inestigators, as much as they hope to find evidence of a conspiracy, will not manufacture evidence, i.e. lie and fabricate a case. No fake evidence and no real evidence, so no perp walks. Sorry, folks. No, not sorry. 

Weather-gate and Trump's stubbornness

Trump lies again and again. This isn't a surprise by now, but it's getting dumber. Trump made a mistake by saying Alabama was in range of a hurricane. Instead of correcting his mistake, or just letting it go, he doubled down repeatedly. It got too much media coverage because it was such foolish behavior. Even cowardly agencies under his thumb got involved.

It's hard to say what was the worst part of this unnecessary debacle. It wouldn't have been at all bad if it had ended with this (after Trump erroneously said Alabama could be hit):

[The] Birmingham office of the National Weather Service, in response to a flurry of calls and inquiries, issued a correction on Twitter, saying, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian." -- GQ magazine

But, nooooo, Trump couldn't let that stand. He couldn't admit even a tiny mistake. He had to blather (incorrectly) that Alabama had been a very likely target in the storm, including nonsense that there was a 95% chance of Alabama being hit at one point in the modeling. That was Trump being his usual fucking egotistical maniac self. 

Then Trump marked up an official weather service map to include Alabama. This is almost like changing the answer key on a test. Trump is so divorced from the truth that he'll pretend official information doesn't say what it says. And of course he used it as another skirmish in his war on the media, particularly CNN. 

This is all a game to Trump. The guy has no respect for truth or science, just for power. I'm absurdly eager for a break from this stupidity.

Wait, where did that black line come from?

Image: newshounds.us

Update 9/9/19. A number of officials in the weather/oceanic agency are loudly standing up for the scientists and accurate reporting and are pointing out how the mealy-mouthed communications supporting Trump are wrong. It looks like they are daring Trump to fire them. I don't think they'll be fired because it would be too obvious. How will Trump react? We'll see.

Update 9/11/19. An opinion column on this debacle with a some new info. The Secretary of Commerce ordered the support of the naked prez on pain of beheading, or similar. Sigh. Truth is not an option. 

The first question to ask on a story about Trump

I figured something out about Trump. He loves to capture the newscycle. Because of this, he frequently says incredible things just to grab headlines. Most of it isn't serious and fades within a day or so. But he still does it and it's very effective in capturing the newscycle for him.

Here is an example. It's a fairly quiet end to a week that started with lots of speculation about the Mueller report and Trump firing his secretary of Homeland Security and other related positions. So what is the top news today?

Trump Wants to Bus Migrants to Sanctuary Cities

This is why I think it's a fake story: it's on a buzzy issue. It's a slap in the face of one of his favorite enemies. It's not an acutal policy announcement, but it looks like an action. (It won't be. Announce first, worry about planning later.) If you think about it hard, you realize it's probably not at all likely to happen. He didn't deliver it in a written speech in front of a teleprompter (that indicated more serious announcements).

Sometimes Trump will grab the newscycle just is an outrageous claim or insult. I'll try to remember to add some examples. But it's the same sort of tactic. Be outrageous, capture the newscycle, don't worry because few will remember.

If I was in the news biz, I'd have a weekly column about the crazy stuff Trump had done. I wouldn't give him a headline for something like this. Instead, I'd put it on the weekly list and save it for Saturday or Sunday:

Crazy Trump Stuff

This week, we have five items.
#5 ...
#4 ...

Sigh.

Image: observer.com

The symbolism of the wall

Trump promised his loud rallies a wall on the border with Mexico, and that Mexico would pay for it. His fans ate it up, though it's hard to tell if they really believed it. The wall was supposed to close the 'open border.'

I'm not at all an expert on the border. I don't know if a wall will be effective, or just an expensive boondoggle. Very few in the US have the information to make an educated decision on that. Instead, they have grandstanding which has turned the wall into a symbol.

On one hand, the wall will close border to illegal crossings. Crime will drop. Drug smuggling will drop, Human trafficking will drop. Illegal immigration will drop. Deported criminals will stay safely away from the US. The US will finally have meaningful control of this problem area.

On the other hand, the wall is immoral (I'm not sure why, but maybe because it closes the US as a necessary refuge). The wall won't be effective because people will tunnel under, cut through, climb ladders and go over, fly in, and cross with illegal papers. It'll be harmful to migratory animals, cost way more than projected, ruin the landscape, and result in the loss of land to many landowners.

Wall proponents point to the wall on the West Bank of Israel, and how effective it's been. It's 440 miles long due to numerous jogs and fingers to enclose Jewish settlements on West Bank territory. Much of it is concrete slab, though some is stacked barbed wire thickets and some simple barbed wire fencing.

The US-Mexican border, in contrast, is nearly 2000 miles long. Jogs wouldn't be needed, but monitoring and maintaining that stretch is still a massive job. Some of the terrain is reportedly difficult to traverse and build on, so may be a natural barrier.

But the argument is not so much about the plausibility and efficacy of a wall. It's a back-and-forth, without hard data or expertise, of two factions that don't know much but adhere tightly to their positions. Is the wall necessary and effective for controlling negative outcomes associated with the border, or is it immoral, pandering symbol that we shouldn't spend $1 on (as Nancy Pelosi said). So what is an argument where there are no facts being used? A shouting match maybe? I'm not interested in shouting matches. Get me some experts, real experts, not fake ones. Thank you.

Israel building a border wall

Image: presstv.com

Extras. Trump's reelection slogan will be "Finish the Wall," which will continue the pattern of symbolism without substance.

A test for Congress

I've been neglecting my blog, and I'm sorry. One reason is that the political situation isn't changing much. The players are staying the same with the same faults and strengths (mostly faults). The Dems continue to want to tax and spend, the GOP continues to want to spend and cut taxes, and Trump continues to bloviate with no substance behind it. Same old same old.

So Trump experimented with a shutdown, and that didn't work out so well for him or the GOP. He ended the shutdown by taking a deal to reopen government at status quo for three weeks. My sister (a federal worker) got to return to work and a paycheck.

During the three weeks, the less stubborn people in Congress would try to work out a deal, and Trump would perhaps throw bombs, but not have the power to nuke them as they worked.

I wasn't at all sure that the people chosen for the negotiation teams would be able to do it. Remember the epic failure of the sequester-alternative committee in 2011? That could certainly happen again, but it didn't. Cooler heads prevailed, and they made a deal.

Predictably, Trump wasn't happy with the results. Dems have a surprisingly strong hand because they can wait out the GOP, who are desperate to make a deal and not get blamed for another shutdown. The Dems were able to make a rock-bottom offer to the GOP, hold their breath, and the GOP negotiators blinked and accepted. (My guess, but the details of the deal will probably bear it out.)

That's how it's gone for the past 7 years. GOP is slow to negotiate, the clock ticks away, and the GOP have to take a crummier deal than they'd get if they'd laid out their positions at a reasonable point in the negotiation process.

If I ever see the GOP negotiating early, I'll let you know. Until then, the GOP can continue to expect unfavorable deals on everything that they can't pass via reconciliation. With the Dems controlling the House, that is everything for the next 1.9 years. My prediction: continued choking by the GOP. Same old same old.

Image: thedhakapost.com

Extras. An inside account of the negotiation, which worked because it was delegated to members of Congress who had respect for one another rather than adversarial relationships. The leaders kept out of the way, mostly. The deal almost fell apart on a poison pill (restricting the number of beds for deportees in process), but that was dropped.

Update 12/2/19. I've been saying for a long time that many of the Republicans can't or won't negotiate. This article shows it again, with GOPers in the Senate doing almost nothing beyond confirming judges and keeping the money moving around (that is, avoiding shutdowns). For the pressing problems in the country, nothing is being done. The problems remain, and the debt keeps rising. Sigh.

October links: too many

GOPers learn to negotiate. The GOPers in Congress learned and managed to fund the government. No shutdown. Trump was out of the loop.

Lying scummy politics. A scummy, lying trick in a campaign ad. Chris Collins, indicted for insider trading, gives a completely false translation of his opponent's words.

A lying scientist. Cornell

Trump outrageous again. I think it's part of his plan. In love with NK dictator.

Revision of a critique on conservatism. Maybe it is a lot of paranoia. This is a very good read--maybe the most important in several months.

Dangers in US-China relations. Link.

Coerced sex is legal. If done by police.

Russia investigation update. A Trump operative considered using phony accounts. Buried in this article: sentencing for Manafort and Flynn. Does that mean the investigation is almost over? I'm guessing yes. You don't sentence your informants until they have fulfilled their side of the bargain.

Famous for 15 minutes. A mom screws up against #metoo. Funny.

California voter registration. Always curious about this black hole.

Climate change links.

Anti-democracy. Georgia puts voter applications on hold.

Antifa and Nazis are still fighting, but I lost the link.

Image: aip.org

Trump administration in disarray - Not news

Trump got a double-whammy last week. A new book by Bob Woodward was leaked. It detailed many cases when Trump's advisers got fed up with his egotism and lack of focus on important national and international issues. Also, an adviser went to the New York Times with similar stories. The NYT allowed the person to write an anonymous editorial.

None of this is new. There have been leaks about Trump not understanding issues from the beginning of his presidency, when Pence (possibly) had to tell Trump that Mike Flynn was compromised and had to be fired. Trump seemed to think he could shut down the investigation into his campaign's connections to Russia, but found out he doesn't have the power to stop investigations.

So, really, it's not news that Trump is frequently at odds with his advisers. We don't need a recitation of the scores of episodes. Vox has a fascinating discussion about who leaked to Bob Woodward, based on clues from the book itself. His main sources are all former advisers with the exception of Linsday Graham, the senator.

It seemed likely that  Trump would blow a gasket over the twin strikes on his credibility. However, Trump actually handled it pretty well (except for his reaction in the first 24 hours). He took the stand that the NYT is steeped in fake news, and he's actually doing very well as president if you look at economics and policy initiatives like trade. He said that with seeming confidence, as though he was prepared with a strong defense that he found believable.

The motivation behind the anonymous NYT editorial is muddy. If you have to sneak around to stop Trump for doing stupid actions, why would you tell him and the entire country? Trump isn't strongly going after the leaker in his midst. No high profile lie detector tests. No one claiming to be the leaker, no one blowing the whistle on a fellow adviser. I think this leaker may not be identified. If so, he'll just be one of many leakers. Can't name them all, and definitely can't fire them all. Got to live with them.

Image: washingtontimes.com

Extras. Trump's advisers didn't know what White House counsel Don McGahn (a public employee, not a private lawyer) told Mueller in extensive interviews. Oh, more disarray. Surprised?

Reverse auction in Congress

This is an explanation I developed in my comments on political threads, but I'm finally writing it here. On many issues, the GOP leadership has the choice of two negotiation partners. It can negotiate with the House Freedom Caucus (a more conservative group) or it can negotiate with Dems.

Both the Freedom Caucus and the Dems will try to barter votes for concessions. The GOP will be able to play them off against each other and lower the degree of concessions.

This dynamic was first apparent when the GOP were late again getting to the appropriations bills last September. Dems helped them out by providing votes to pass a clean continuing resolution to keep funding as is. In December, it was the Freedom Caucus' turn to provide the votes, with a clean bill again being passed.

Neither the Dems nor the Freedom Caucus gain much in these clean bills. Many of them want to use their leverage (their votes) to gain concessions. Dems want protection for DACA young people (children brought to the US as illegal aliens). The Freedom Caucus has a big roster of wants, including no concessions on DACA, tougher immigration measures, and more military readiness.

With the 1/19/18 appropriation deadline coming up, both the Dems and the Freedom Caucus were vying to be the partner. The Dems thought they had a deal, but it fell apart. The Freedom Caucus swooped in and made a deal for almost a clean bill--few demands at all. That bill passed the House just one day before the deadline.

The Freedom Caucus agenda is a better fit in general for the GOP. But this is complicated by the slim GOP margin in the Senate, and some very independently-minded GOP senators. Several senators, such as Lindsay Graham and Jeff Flake, want to do an immigration reform deal that is more liberal than what the rest of the GOP senators want. (This is how the Dem deal fell apart. The Dems negotiated only with Lindsay Graham, and the deal was spiked by Trump.) Do Graham and Flake have to willpower to stand strong and send the Freedom Caucus deal to defeat? I rather doubt it.

I think Graham and Flake will have to settle on a lesser immigration deal in the near future, or maybe no deal at all. Democrats have been threatening a filibuster and hinting at a government shutdown if they don't get a deal on DACA. I predict any shutdown will fail. The Dem leadership probably realizes this, so I don't think they would attempt anything more than a token shutdown at most.

Shutdown threats are a blunt instrument, and not useful for getting major changes in potential legislation. Making an advantageous deal is going to be hard for the Freedom Caucus or the Dems. The best deal may be for them have secret talks with as many allies in the GOP establishment as possible, be prepared to make concessions, and then take what they can get. However, this strategy is certain to piss off true believers among the supporters, and get the politicians labeled as sell-outs. But that's the breaks when you negotiate from a position of weakness and you aren't the only potential partner. If someone is ready to trip you and underbid you, you need to be ready to do the same.

Image: nbcnews.com

Quick summary: Repeal FAIL

This is an important issue, but I don't have a bunch of time to spend on it. The Senate failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. McConnell proposed, negotiated, twisted arms, and pulled bills from votes. It was a big embarrassment, so McConnell and the Senate made a last ditch effort TO DO SOMETHING (never a good situation).

McConnell had the Senate voting on bills or amendments within an hour or so of when their text was released. So much for 'a deliberative body' or not 'ramming it down their throats.' John McCain, with stitches on his left eyebrow and newly diagnosed with brain cancer, flew in from Arizona as a necessary vote to start debate-athon.

Two days later, McCain was one of three GOP senators who killed the effort. Maybe it was doomed anyhow. The conservatives vowed that they needed a fuller repeal, with more taxes gone. They folded pretty quickly. The moderates wanted assurances that Medicaid funding wouldn't disappear--this is a higher priority to senators as state-wide representatives, as I mentioned before.

McConnell promised his colleagues that the bill would go to conference, and their concerns would be addressed in the future. Paul Ryan didn't promise that. What is the promise of a politician like McConnell?

A lot of senators who were leery voted for the measure based on these assurances, but McCain didn't, and that was the killing stroke.

Image: kitv.com

Extras. What next? Maybe some bipartisan negotiation.

Short: The cynicism of the GOP

This issue is too important not to have its own post. The Washington Post pointedly tells how very cynical the GOP is in its push to do something-anything about ACA. Mitch McConnell wants the Senate to start considering an ACA repeal, and they don't even have the text of the bill. They don't have the text of proposed amendments. He made promises on an earlier bill that certain parts, if enacted, will never be implemented.

On Thursday night, McConnell finally released the text of the bill most likely to pass. He's trying to talk senators into passing it--promising that it will fail in the House, and ultimately a different version will be available. This is amazing, and probably a bait-and-switch, or bait-and-not-switch-as-promised. Four senators, including John McCain, threatened not to vote for the measure "unless there was a guarantee the House wouldn't pass the Senate bill." PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't give us what we vote for! Please, someone else kill this, but not me!

I can't believe that a senator has to pray that his vote isn't final. He has to hope someone else will block the bill, and he can get away with a yes vote that he despises. I'm not sure how many senators are planning to vote yes and hope no. They are hoping that their bill won't be passed by the House. But will they feel betrayed if the House turns around and passes the bill they just voted for? This is exactly what I expect will happen. What a cynical game they are playing, the culmination of 7 years of cynical bombast.

Extra. A good summary.

Fraud about voter fraud

From this article, I learned that I need to watch out for the GOP commission that is investigating voter fraud. Why? Because the head of the commission, Kris Kobach of Kansas, has already investigated voter fraud and found very little of it, but he hasn't publicized that finding.

It doesn't make sense to hide the info that voter fraud isn't common... unless you really like the narrative that it is common. Trump likes the narrative. Apparently, Kobach is fine with the narrative too because he's not pushing back against it. Maybe Kobach hopes he can find major fraud elsewhere, even if he didn't find it in Kansas. Personally, I'm not convinced that California, for example, does a good job policing its voter rolls. I tried to sign up to vote in California a few years ago, and probably would have been successful if I didn't bail at the last minute of the online process. No, I'm not going to commit the fraud of registering to vote in California just to find out if it's possible. Maybe California has tightened up, but I haven't seen any evidence of that, or any reports of what they do to investigate ineligible voters. To be clear, I have looked for evidence, but haven't found any published information about California's efforts to prevent voter fraud.

So maybe the commission investigating voter fraud will find a bit of fraud, or a moderate amount, or maybe even a huge amount (doubtful). So far, though, it's barely started, and it's already sputtering. Its first request for cooperation from the states was horribly mismanaged. The commission asked for private info such as birth dates and partial Social Security numbers without ensuring confidentiality. In fact, it was planning to have the information publicly available. They have got to be kidding--putting everyone's name, address, and birth date up in public. That's an immediate FAIL I have to wonder how professional this commission is going to be, and my hopes aren't high.

Image: youtube/Licitus Veritas Invictus

Extra. I didn't know that there has already been a nation-wide effort to investigate and punish illegal voting. The results: about 60 convictions in 4 years. Not millions, not thousands, not even hundreds. Pretty paltry. I hope this commission finds nearly the same number of illegal votes and is honest enough to report it without hyperbole.

Predicting Trump's victory a year ago

OK, the headline is a bit of an exaggeration. The historian/researcher, Norm Ornstein, didn't predict Trump would be the nominee, but was well ahead of the curve in seeing the potential. In this article, Ornstein reports:

"Going back to last April and May [of 2015], every poll of Republicans showed 60-70 per cent support for outsiders and insurgent candidates and 20 per cent or less for establishment figures."

So, if Ornstein was right about this, maybe he has a good sense of what is wrong in the GOP. To paraphrase him from elsewhere in the article: GOP politicians made pie-in-the-sky promises, their constituents believed them, and the constituents are now driven by anger and disgust at those conventional GOP pols. Thus we have Trump.

In a different article (which centers mostly on Reince Priebus, national chairman of the GOP), we may see a hint of how Trump capitalized on this rage:

"He explained the genesis of his heterodox views. 'I'm not sure I got there through deep analysis,' he said. 'My views are what everybody else’s views are. When I give speeches, sometimes I’ll sign autographs and I’ll get to talk to people and learn a lot about the party... When I made my [announcement] speech at Trump Tower, the June 16 speech, I didn’t know about the Gang of Eight. … I just knew instinctively that our borders are a mess.'"

So perhaps Trump mostly channels the anger he hears from the Republican base. If so, by what means does he hear it? It is through careful discussions, focus groups, polling, broad reading in the media? [That's just a joke. I strongly doubt that Trump is methodical like that.] More likely it's through a hodge-podge of twitter, talk radio, and God knows what else. 

So what we have again is a politician making promises to the GOP base. Will Trump succeed where the others didn't? I'd like to say there isn't a chance in the world, but the world has been topsy-turvy for a while now. So perhaps I shouldn't predict anything. 

Image: style.people.com

Update 7/19/16. Norm Ornstein has some more predictions in this article. I hope I remember to check them in a year or so. 

The unknown territory of a contested convention

Supposedly the last contested convention was the 1976 GOP convention. I don't remember it, That means I have no compass for guessing what will happen at the GOP convention if no candidate collects a clear majority.

So here's the closest thing to signposts that I've found. Bernstein writes that the delegates and the candidates will run the convention. The candidates are pretty well known by now, but what about the delegates? Who are they, who are they loyal (or disloyal) to, and what will their motivations be? Perhaps Cruz has enough on-the-ground infrastructure to ensure that his delegates are loyal, but can Trump? I can't even guess.

Another possibility (likely is my gut feeling) is that Trump and Cruz together will control the convention. Any establishment hopes for avoiding Awful#1 and Awful#2 will be dashed. My guess is that Cruz will be offered and will accept the nomination for vice-president. I didn't think of this myself, but once I read it, it seems absolutely perfect. They've been buddies before. They can go back to being buddies with all smears forgotten in mists of amnesia. They will share their hatred of the RINO, lying, feckless establishment, and their absolute certainty of victory... If I watch, I'll want to puke.

To avoid puking, I'd like to pretend that the GOP establishment and good sense will prevent this. But looking at the disarray in the GOP leadership, I can't imagine it will happen. It's quite hopeless. We'll be looking at a convention and a general campaign without precedent in my lifetime. So hold on tight.

Image: waregeneology.com

Extra. Read about the 1976 GOP convention, which was contested. Ford was ahead of Reagan, but neither had a lock. Nonetheless, there were clear signals early that Ford would win. 

Short:Characteristics of Trump supporters

There are questions flying around about whether the US is on the edge of its own Nazi era, with Trump playing the part of Hitler. I see the similarities. It bears close scrutiny, and action as needed. However, luckily, it doesn't yet look too much like Nazism, so I'd say 'no' for now.

Nonetheless, the sociologists (not socialists, or national socialists) are also out there watching and collecting data. One group, based on 1000 phone interviews, found Trump supporters were more common among those with these traits:

• Being economically discontent
• Preferring a populist/outsider
• Having a preference for authority
• Wanting pushback against other groups

That last characteristic sounds like it could be code for 'racist.' It certainly sounds like group-based resentment against not just a single group but multiple groups. This sounds pretty ugly to me. I certainly hope that the ugliness is a turn-off to a clear majority of Americans.

Image: abcnews.go.com

Extras. Another analysis of Trump supporters (with nice graphs). Key characteristics: strong identity as traditional GOPer, conservative Christian, and white. A demonstrator who charged at Trump on stage was smeared in a false-flag video as supporting ISIS. Naturally, Trump retweeted the link to the video. Trump is definitely not in the truth or fact-checking business. How Trump saved himself from bankruptcy by conning others--not surprising considering his moral level.

Questioning whether Ted Cruz is an extremist

I've seen Ted Cruz labeled an extremist so many times, and that's generally my own impression, but I forgot to actually ask the question whether he is an extremist. Does Cruz actually hold extreme positions? His most well-known position was being against Obamacare, which is so common among Republicans that it can't be called extremist. So I wondered about extremist positions--whether he's advocated truly extreme positions such as deporting or locking up large numbers of people, establishing religious tests for civil rights, overthrowing the current government by insurrection, or some such.

I don't remember any policy position like that. But where did the impression of extremism come from then? It could be his rhetoric, such as calling Obama an apologist for Islamist terrorists. That's an extreme thing for an elected official to say out loud. It's more typical of political shock-jocks, not those who are supposed to be responsible, judicious, and fair.

Looking at Cruz's rhetoric, it's easy to find violations of the norms. He'll imply that Obama is a totalitarian, or that former senator Chuck Hagel was in the pay of North Korea. He'll advocate carpet bombing in the Mideast, as though carpet bombing didn't mean killing or wounding every living person in the effected area. It's the equivalent of say "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

His associations are scary. His father, Rev. Raphael Cruz, who frequently campaigns with Ted (making it hard for the son to distance himself) says such things as Obama is trying to destroy Christianity in the US. Other extreme associations include supporters of Uganda's death penalty for homosexuals.

Cruz's tactics aren't mainstream. When the GOP in Congress was voting in vain to repeal Obamacare, Cruz encouraged the 'defund Obamacare' strategy, though perhaps it was rhetoric and not meant to be seriously followed as a strategy. Nonetheless, it led to a government shutdown, and Cruz got much of the credit and/or blame.

I'm not sure I can point to other tactics that might be considered extreme, so I guess Cruz's extremism is primarily in his rhetoric and somewhat in his associations. But there's plenty of that. Just Google it.

Image: wrongforminnestoa.com

Extras. Quite the catalog on Ted Cruz at Right Wing Watch. Outlawing abortion without a constitutional amendment? Totally possible. Here are those 8 outrageous quotes. A fake Cruz quote, so don't trust memes.