Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman at the Washington Post: New Poll: Only 3% of Trump Voters Regret Their Vote.
"Only."
There is no comparison in this article to previous polling about voting regrets 60 days into a president's administration, quite possibly because such polling has never been done. (Which itself is telling.)
Without that comparison, we have no idea if three percent is historically a high or a low number. It just sits there without context. It's "only" three percent compared to one hundred percent.
The authors note that "media attention to the #trumpregrets phenomenon is very misleading. For Trump's supporters, any news reports that his first weeks as president have been rocky, unpresidential, or worse have hardly mattered. There is virtually no regret."
But there is also no mention in this article that Trump's approval rating now sits at 39 percent, having plummeted six points in nine days. How does that interact with voting regret? Is one a clearer measure of support for Trump than the other?
It is indeed foolish to overstate the abandonment of Trump by his hardcore supporters. But it's misleading to suggest that three percent is a virtually incidental number.
Three percent of Trump's popular vote total of 62,979,636 translates into 1,889,389 people.
One headline is: "Only 3% of Trump Voters Regret Their Vote."
Another is: "Almost Two Million Trump Voters Regret Their Vote Only 60 Days into His Presidency."
Three Percent
Question of the Day
Which animated character best represents you, however you would define that?
Your Best Photograph
If you're a photographer, even if a very amateur one (like myself), and you've got a photo or photos you'd like to share, here's your thread for that!
It doesn't really have to be your best photograph—just one you like!
Please be sure if your photo contains people other than yourself, that you have the explicit consent of the people in the photos before posting them.
* * *
Here's one I took a few months ago of the light from a very pink sunset reflecting off our white fence.
I've never seen it awash in a pink glow like that before or after, so I was very pleased to capture this moment.
A Long Time Coming
Sarah Kendzior has another terrific piece today, about the confirmation that Trump's campaign is under investigation for collusion with the Russians: At Long Last, a Forum Where Trump Cannot Escape the Truth.
Since July 27, 2016—the day Mr. Trump told Russia at a news conference that they would be rewarded for releasing Hillary Clinton's e-mails—Mr. Trump's primary mode of public communication has been Twitter. He held no news conferences between July, 2016 (the same month, as Mr. Comey revealed Monday, that his campaign fell under FBI investigation) and his inauguration. Even after taking office, pressers have been rare. Instead, Mr. Trump tweets, reducing everything from threats to foreign countries to domestic conspiracy theories to ruminations on The Apprentice, all in 140 characters or less.There is much more at the link; I highly recommend reading Sarah's piece in its entirety.
Twitter has proven an ideal medium for a narcissistic liar under federal investigation. Mr. Trump's tweets cannot be ignored: he is the President, and every tweet has the potential to tank stocks and inflame foreign powers.
But it is difficult for journalists to challenge the tweets directly. Mr. Trump's Twitter is a press conference without a press.
...During the hearing, that power began to wane. From the opening questions, focusing on the President's tweeted fabrications about a wiretapped Trump Tower, to the midway debunking of his own tweet about the hearing, the medium no longer became a tool of propaganda, but a means of self-indictment.
...Flagrant lies are how autocrats flaunt power: it is not merely the message of the lie that matters, but its shameless delivery, as it implies that both public reaction and truth itself are irrelevant to the regime's hold.
On Monday, that grip loosened as Mr. Trump encountered a narrative he could not spin. The President has a new reality TV show; only this time around, reality itself is the star.
Reaching this point has indeed been a long time coming. On Twitter, Matt McDermott published a terrific thread documenting how the Clinton campaign tried in vain last summer to raise the alarm about Russian intereference. They were right, and they were roundly dismissed—in some cases even openly ridiculed.
They were also accused of trying to "distract" from the DNC leaks, by pointing out evidence that a foreign government was meddling in our election.
Last July, I wrote this piece: The Real Story of the DNC Email Leak is Trump's Terrifying Ties to Russia. It may be hard to believe, looking at that now, how much of the information currently being investigated was available way back then. But it was. At the time, I wrote:
If what comes out of this story is somehow, once again, that Hillary Clinton is History's Greatest Monster, then we are well and truly fucked.Welp.
Because right now, the only person standing between a man who is possibly (and likely) compromised by a foreign government, and whose aides have already changed the Republican platform in a way that benefits that government, is Hillary Clinton. And hers is the only campaign raising that alarm.
If you look at that and think it's her campaign doing the distracting, I despair for our collective future. I really do.
The people and the press had a chance to pay attention to this stuff when we still had a chance of averting the U.S. president being investigated for collusion with a foreign government. But nearly everyone took a hard pass, and now he's the sitting president, and here we are, in a situation so unprecedented that we're not even sure how to wrap our heads around it.
And the cynical partisans of the GOP Congressional caucus are tasked with accountability, and have no desire to actually hold anyone accountable. Because their only loyalty is to the preservation of power, not to this country. That should be abundantly clear by now.
Relatedly, this is the thought that won't abandon its post at the forefront of my thought:
@sarahkendzior What's freaking me out about being at this point is how we may not have reached it if TrumpCo weren't so utterly reckless.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 21, 2017
What I mean by that is: We may never have come to this place if Trump and his staff and his associates had not brazenly flaunted the law and our democratic norms. If they'd better concealed their miscreancy, we might not have arrived at the precipice of truth.
(As if to prove my point, as I was writing this, I saw a Washington Post piece on new documents that reportedly show former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort "laundered payments from the party of a disgraced ex-leader of Ukraine using offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan." The piece notes: "The documents were left behind in a safe, [Serhiy Leshchenko, lawmaker and journalist] said, adding that Manafort's signature and his company seal were proof that the documents were authentic.")
It was a long time coming, but it may never have come at all, if Trump et. al. hadn't made it impossible to ignore.
Because there were so many people in positions of power who desperately wanted to ignore it.
That should shake us all, no matter how this turns out.
Check Out These Badasses!
[Content Note: War on agency.]
Women dressed as handmaids are protesting anti-abortion bills at the Capitol. #FightBackTX #txlege pic.twitter.com/w5EQfBqNtG
— PPTV (@PPTXVotes) March 20, 2017
2 DPS officers, Senate door guy & sergeant at arms have positioned themselves around a group of #handmaidstale activists in Senate #txlege pic.twitter.com/UC54ZlULQd
— Alexa Garcia-Ditta (@agarciaditta) March 20, 2017
Catherine Pearson at the Huffington Post: Women Wore 'Handmaid's Tale' Robes to the Texas Senate Floor.
On Monday, the Texas Senate considered several abortion-related bills, including Senate Bill 415, a regulation that would effectively ban a safe and common procedure used for second trimester abortions, which anti-choice legislators have taken to calling a "dismemberment abortion ban." It passed and will now head to the House.Not all superheroes wear capes. BUT SOME DO.
The Senate also inched forward with SB 25 ― a bill that would effectively allow doctors to lie to pregnant [people] if they detect a fetal anomaly and are concerned their patients might opt for abortion. It will likely head for a final vote on the floor this week.
But in the Senate chambers on Monday, a group of Texas women were having none of it. The activists arrived decked out in full red robes, an homage to characters in "The Handmaid's Tale," Margaret Atwood's classic (and distressingly relevant) feminist tome.
Among the women who participated were two of my friends (whose identities I'm sharing with their permission): @meadowgirl and @ohthemaryd (who, as some of you may recall, has guest-posted at Shakesville on several occasions). These women are genuine badasses, and I am so proud to know them.
Looking at the pictures on social media of their visible but quiet protest, I got chills at the way their still, silent presence was like a haunting of the legislators conspiring to take away their rights.
They were specters and witnesses.
Republicans, we see you.
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
We Resist: Day 61
One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.
So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.
Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.
* * *
Here are some things in the news today:
Ron Nixon at the New York Times: U.S. Limits Devices for Passengers on Foreign Airlines From Eight Countries.
Passengers on foreign airlines headed to the United States from 10 airports in eight majority-Muslim countries have been barred from carrying electronic devices larger than a cellphone under a new flight restriction enacted on Tuesday by the Trump administration.That last line is important, because how could this remotely be defended on a security basis if American-operated carriers are excluded? Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman explain at the Washington Post:
Officials called the directive an attempt to address gaps in foreign airport security, and said it was not based on any specific or credible threat of an imminent attack.
The Department of Homeland Security said the restricted items included laptop computers, tablets, cameras, travel printers, and games bigger than a phone. The restrictions would not apply to aircraft crews, officials said in a briefing to reporters on Monday night that outlined the terms of the ban.
The new policy took effect at 3 a.m. E.D.T. on Tuesday, and must be followed within 96 hours by airlines flying to the United States from airports in Amman, Jordan; Cairo; Istanbul; Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia; Kuwait City; Casablanca, Morocco; Doha, Qatar; and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
It applies only to flights on foreign carriers, and not American-operated airlines.
It may not be about security. Three of the airlines that have been targeted for these measures — Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways — have long been accused by their U.S. competitors of receiving massive effective subsidies from their governments. These airlines have been quietly worried for months that Trump was going to retaliate. This may be the retaliation.This, they add, is a form of "weaponized interdependence." That is, Trump is exploiting the fact that we now "live in an interdependent world, where global networks span across countries, creating enormous benefits, but also great disparities of power. As networks grow, they tend to concentrate both influence and vulnerability in a few key locations, creating enormous opportunities for states, regulators, and nonstate actors who have leverage over those locations."
These three airlines, as well as the other airlines targeted in the order, are likely to lose a major amount of business from their most lucrative customers — people who travel in business class and first class. Business travelers are disproportionately likely to want to work on the plane — the reason they are prepared to pay business-class or first-class fares is because it allows them to work in comfort. These travelers are unlikely to appreciate having to do all their work on smartphones, or not being able to work at all. The likely result is that many of them will stop flying on Gulf airlines, and start traveling on U.S. airlines instead.
As the Financial Times notes, the order doesn't affect only the airlines' direct flights to and from the United States — it attacks the "hub" airports that are at the core of their business models. These airlines not only fly passengers directly from the Gulf region to the United States — they also fly passengers from many other destinations, transferring them from one plane to another in the hubs. This "hub and spoke" approach is a standard economic model for long-haul airlines, offering them large savings. However, it also creates big vulnerabilities. If competitors or unfriendly states can undermine or degrade the hub, they can inflict heavy economic damage.
If you're thinking: That does not seem like a reasonable or just way for the U.S. president to behave, you are correct! It is not. And it will further erode what little remaining shred of moral standing the U.S. has around the world.
Which, in turn, makes us less safe.
So it's extra rich that the Trump administration is trying to pass off this shit as a security measure.
* * *
David Nather at Axios: Trumpcare Gets a Makeover, But Not an Extreme One. "So after all of that talk about big changes to the House Obamacare replacement bill, Republican leaders skipped some of the biggest ones they could have made. They did give some concessions to conservatives and moderates in the manager's amendment [pdf] they released last night, but they also did a lot of punting. ...The biggest actual changes the House GOP is making: States can now choose Medicaid per capita caps or block grants; there will be an optional Medicaid work requirement (with extra federal funds for states that do it); there will be a more generous Medicaid inflation adjustment for the costs of elderly and disabled; Obamacare taxes get repealed a year earlier. The punty change: A reserve fund to beef up the tax credit, especially for the low-income elderly, but no actual change to the tax credit. That's up to the Senate. What they left out: It doesn't end the Medicaid expansion earlier, as conservatives wanted."
In short: It's still garbage.
Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman at the New York Times: Trump's Weary Defenders Face Fresh Worries. (Boo hoo.) "By the afternoon the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, had systematically demolished [Trump's] arguments in a remarkable public takedown of a sitting president. Even a close ally of Mr. Trump, Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and the House Intelligence Committee chairman, conceded that 'a gray cloud' of suspicion now hung over the White House by the end of the day's hearings. ...But it's the obsessiveness and ferocity of Mr. Trump's pushback against the Russian allegations, often untethered from fact or tact, that is making an uncertain situation worse."
Meanwhile... Reuters: Rex Tillerson Will Reportedly Miss NATO Talks for China Meeting and Visit to Russia. "US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip an April meeting of NATO foreign ministers for a visit by the Chinese president and will travel to Russia later in the month, US officials said on Monday, a step allies may see as putting Moscow's concerns ahead of theirs. ...Trump has often praised Russian president Vladimir Putin, and Tillerson worked with Russia's government for years as a top executive at Exxon Mobil Corp and has questioned the wisdom of sanctions against Russia that he said could harm US businesses."
David Leonhardt at the New York Times: All the President's Lies. "The big question now is not what Trump and the White House are saying about the Russia story. They will evidently say anything. The questions are what really happened and who can uncover the truth. The House of Representatives, unfortunately, will not be doing so. I was most saddened during Comey's testimony not by the White House's response, which I've come to expect, but by the Republican House members questioning him. They are members of a branch of government that the Constitution holds as equal to the presidency, but they acted like Trump staff members, decrying leaks about Russia's attack rather than the attack itself. ...Our president is a liar, and we need to find out how serious his latest lies are."
Peter Stone and Greg Gordon at McClatchy: FBI's Russian-Influence Probe Includes a look at Breitbart, InfoWars News Sites. "Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as 'bots,' to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said. The bots' end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. ...Investigators examining the bot attacks are exploring whether the far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia's operatives."
Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker at the Washington Post: Trump Faces His Hardest Truth: He Was Wrong. "James B. Comey—the FBI director whom Trump celebrated on the campaign trail as a gutsy and honorable 'Crooked Hillary' truth-teller—testified under oath Monday what many Americans had already assumed: Trump had falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping his headquarters during last year's campaign. Trump did not merely allege that former president Barack Obama ordered surveillance on Trump Tower, of course. He asserted it as fact, and then reasserted it, and then insisted that forthcoming evidence would prove him right. But in Monday's remarkable, marathon hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey said there was no such evidence."
Derek Hawkins at the Washington Post: Andrew Napolitano Reportedly Pulled from Fox News over Debunked Wiretapping Claims. Fox News has reportedly pulled legal analyst Andrew Napolitano from the air over his baseless claim, repeated by [Donald] Trump, that British intelligence officials spied on Trump at the request of President Barack Obama. Napolitano, a regular face on Fox News, has not appeared on the network since Thursday and will not be a guest in the near future, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press reported Monday, citing anonymous sources. ...The move would distance Fox News from allegations that British officials, as well as National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers, have denounced as false."
In other news, Mother Jones' Russ Choma and Andy Kroll continue to hammer away on Trump's conflicts of interests: The Trump Organization Says It's Vetting Deals for Conflicts—But Refuses to Say How. "Robert Weissman, president of the good-government group Public Citizen, says the Chen deal raises questions about whether any real vetting happened. 'Here, where we actually need extreme vetting, it appears to be absent,' he says. 'It's absolutely unclear if [Bobby Burchfield, a Washington-based corporate lawyer serving as the Trump Organization's outside ethics adviser] or anybody else is doing anything pursuant to what they alleged they would do. And if they are, we don't know what it is. But we should not presume it's happening.'"
NBC News: Trump's Business Is in Violation of New York City Law. "Donald Trump's business, The Trump Organization, is in violation of New York City law, NBC News has learned. The Trump Tower skyscraper located at 725 Fifth Avenue—where [Donald] Trump and Melania live in the penthouse apartment and his two eldest sons work in offices just below—is not registered this year with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, a spokeswoman for the department confirmed on Tuesday. Property owners of certain residential buildings are required by law to register annually by Sept. 1, but Trump Tower's registration expired in 2016 and The Trump Organization never renewed it."
[Content Note: Islamophobia] Tom Namako, Hannah Allam, and Talal Ansari at BuzzFeed: An Anti-Muslim Leader Says She's Going to the White House. "Brigitte Gabriel, one of the most influential anti-Muslim leaders currently in America, said Monday evening she has a meeting at the White House. Gabriel—who once said 'every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim'—founded the group ACT for America in 2007. The White House said that it did not have any information regarding a meeting with Gabriel." I'll bet.
What have you been reading that we need to resist today?
On Gorsuch
Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation hearing continues today, and I'll be frank with you: I feel pretty depressed about it. I'm (possibly unduly and definitely uncharacteristically) pessimistic that anything will stop his confirmation. Which is making it difficult for me to even pay attention to it.
Part of it is just the lingering agita that Merrick Garland was denied his opportunity to have a confirmation hearing. His seat was stolen. The rank injustice of that still bothers me, to put it mildly.
Part of it is the demoralization at the thought of this jerk (or some other jerk, if it weren't him) being nominated to the Court, and bringing with him all of his jerk positions.
And then there's the part where Gorsuch perfectly embodies what I call the perfidy of civility. He presents himself to the committee as a calm, measured person, despite the fact that he is a gross extremist who will roll back rights for marginalized people, given half a chance.
In this morning's session, for example, he glossed over his radically regressive views with this garbage, responding to a question from Senator Dianne Feinstein:
Gorsuch to Feinstein at SCOTUS confirmation hearing: "The bottom line ... is that I am a fair judge" https://t.co/tfZS7cf7sJ
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 21, 2017
GORSUCH: Senator, the bottom line, I think, is that I'd like to convey to you, from the bottom of my heart, is that I'm a fair judge. And I think if you ask people at the Tenth Circuit, "Is he a fair judge?", you're gonna get the answer that you got yesterday, from both Senator Bennet and Senator Gardner. And from General Katyal. And the same answer you got from Senator Allard and Senator Salazar ten years ago. And, Senator, I can't guarantee you more than that, but I can promise you absolutely nothing less.The saccharine tone he uses. From the bottom of my heart. He's a fair judge. Ugh.
FEINSTEIN: Okay.
Fair to whom, exactly?
But this is how it goes. A conservative with extremist, harmful views shows up in a suit with a tidy haircut and promises that he's a nice guy, and a fair guy, and we're meant to believe his transparently dishonest treacle, instead of letting his atrocious record inform us about who he really is.
It's a sham. And I hate every second of it.
How Politics Works
Last night, I spent my evening at a meeting of the local Democrats, who are preparing for an election this year. It was a good turnout, and everyone was pretty confident about our chances of regaining a governing majority.
Some of the candidates were there, and they introduced themselves with short, unprepared statements. But mostly, the discussion was about phone banking, door-to-door canvassing, social media, voter registration, pushback against gerrymandering, get out the vote efforts, and covering the polls on primary and election days.
We talked about the different ways we could volunteer: Donate money or talents, host a fundraiser, campaign door-to-door with the candidates, host a barbecue and invite our neighbors to meet the candidates.
All the many ways to do outreach; the best ways to fit our circumstances and strengths.
In a local election, in a small town, there is no grand media strategy. The candidates have to get themselves in front of people, to make their case. And then it's about getting people to the polls, for an election they may not even know is happening.
This is the stuff that makes politics happen.
The thing is, Iain and I were the youngest people there, save for a young Black woman and a young Black man, who are running for the school board.
There wasn't a single young white person running for office or even showing up.
Now, I've heard an awful lot the past two years from young white people (especially) about how they want to change the Democratic Party. They're angry about the way things are done; they think the party isn't progressive enough.
And as I looked around that room last night, I thought: Welp, this is where you're supposed to be. But none of y'all were there.
This isn't a scolding; it's an invitation. Be your future.
Change happens from the bottom up, not the top down. Many of the pressing issues in your community will be solved (or not) based on who is elected at the local level.
And local issues necessitate their own understanding of effective solutions. Breaking up the banks did not come up as a potential solution to the local school funding crisis.
That's not snide. It's a serious observation about the limitations of exclusive focus on national politics.
Further to that point, I will (again) recommend this terrific piece by Josie Helen on who's responsible for mass incarceration: "If you want to fix mass incarceration but you don't know the name of your local district attorney—or you don't know when the primary is, or who is opposing them—you are making the biggest mistake you can make as a voter and as a responsible citizen."
It's but one example of many that highlight the import of local politics.
With federal funding for so many critical community programs on the chopping block, it's going to be more important than ever for progressives to get involved in local politics, to help our communities. To support the candidates who will make decisions that affect those communities.
I have volunteered my time and talents for local candidates. I have marched with candidates in local parades. I have offered my home to host fundraisers and cook-outs. I have posted signs in my yard. I have shown up, as and when I can.
Sitting in a church eating Oreos and talking about the mechanics of local elections, as I did last night, is not as exciting as being part of a screaming throng at a massive Bernie rally. But this is how shit actually gets done. It's boring and it's work.
If you're someone who wants to see change in politics, do the work. Show up.
This Is Not Normal
Annie Karni at Politico: Ivanka Trump Set to Get West Wing Office as Role Expands.
Ivanka Trump, who moved to Washington saying she would play no formal role in her father's administration, is now officially setting up shop in the White House.There is much more at the link.
The powerful first daughter has secured her own office on the West Wing's second floor — a space next to senior adviser Dina Powell, who was recently promoted to a position on the National Security Council. She is also in the process of obtaining a security clearance and is set to receive government-issued communications devices this week.
In everything but name, Trump is settling in as what appears to be a full-time staffer in her father's administration, with a broad and growing portfolio — except she is not being sworn in, will hold no official position and is not pocketing a salary, her attorney said.
Trump's role, according to her attorney Jamie Gorelick, will be to serve as the president's "eyes and ears" while providing broad-ranging advice, not just limited to women's empowerment issues. Last week, for instance, Trump raised eyebrows when she was seated next to Angela Merkel for the German chancellor's first official visit to Trump’s White House.
...People close to Ivanka Trump said that she sees nothing unusual about the arrangement — it's simply how she has worked with her father for years, as a senior official at the Trump Organization and as Donald Trump's partner on "The Apprentice."
But in the White House, the unprecedented arrangement for a child of the president has raised new questions about potential conflicts of interest — and about why Ivanka Trump can't simply join the administration as a government employee. Her husband, Jared Kushner, serves as an official senior adviser in the White House and was sworn in, but his hiring also raised questions of whether it violated anti-nepotism laws.
This is not normal, and it should not be normalized. Ivanka Trump has no business getting a White House security clearance or meeting with foreign dignitaries. Her husband has no business being a senior adviser in the White House. Her brothers have no business still running their father's company and striking business deals while he is president.
As Aphra noted yesterday, there are members of the press losing their shit over Chelsea Clinton writing a children's book and at the mere thought of Chelsea Clinton running for office.
Imagine being someone who's still railing about the "Clinton dynasty" while Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself & his adult kids
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 20, 2017
There is a legitimate dynasty worth worrying about in this country. Their last name, however, is not Clinton.
And the issue is not merely the valid concerns about nepotism, conflicts of interest, and access to state secrets. It's also that this is further evidence of Trump's deeply paranoid and authoritarian style. Dictators who trust no one often elevate their children to prominent leadership positions, because they are more easily controlled and prioritize loyalty to their parent over loyalty to country, or anything resembling good governance. Note that Ivanka will reportedly "serve as the president's eyes and ears."
This is extremely worrying. And it may seem a small thing compared to the dozens of other subversions of democratic institutions and introduction of fascism, but it's more important than it may appear.
We should not accept this. It is not normal.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Diverkat: "What's your favourite snack?"
I go through stages, where I can't get enough of one thing or another when I reach for a snack. For awhile, it was baby carrots. Now, it's navel oranges.
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by flowers.
Recommended Reading:
Nina: Trump's Budget Proposal Threatens Global Development and Health
Amie: Three Reasons Why Criminalizing Pregnant Women for Drug Use Is a Bad Idea
Catherine: [Content Note: Cissexism; trans hatred; gender policing] Yes, Gender Is a Spectrum and Yes, Trans Women Are Women Full-Stop: Why Both These Things Are True at the Same Time
Kimberly: Here's Why the Land Privatization Movement Is a Feminist Issue
Ellen: [CN: Racism; erasure] Why Are Asian Americans Missing from Our Textbooks?
Tressie: Why Would an HBCU Partner with a For-Profit Law School?
Mike: [CN: Racism; appropriation] Iron Fist, Marvel, and the Virtue of Canon
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
Unforgivable
2. The Trump campaign WAS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION during the campaign and voters were NEVER told. Truly staggering. Game-changer.
— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 20, 2017
Further to this, voters were led to believe that Clinton *was* under criminal investigation during the campaign, a week before the election. https://t.co/W5GUVUVC35
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 20, 2017
I honestly don't know what's going on with FBI Director James Comey. Watching him today, what I saw was a man who is intolerably glib about the enormous role he played in deciding this election.
I'm not sure if he doesn't appreciate what he's done, or whether he just doesn't care, but, either way, I cannot even look at him or listen to him without being filled with a feeling I can only describe as rage-grief.
The "Odd" Persistence of Substance-Free Sexist Attacks
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
This morning, I read a notably nasty and substance-free attack on Hillary Clinton, other members of her family, and her supporters, written by Will Rahn of CBS News (h/t Shaker Eastsidekate). Its title, "The Odd Persistance of Clinton, Inc," immediately tells us two things: Hillary Clinton cannot exist as her own person, but must be subsumed into her family identity (so we can hold everything that Bill Clinton has ever done against her as well!) and (b) the use of "odd" to further sexist narratives is alive and well.
I don't think I'm being unfair when I say it can be summed up as: "Why won't Hillary go away? And Chelsea had better not start getting any ideas." I mean, how else do you explain an opening like:
The Clintons, America’s foremost would-be presidential dynasty, are apparently sticking around. Chelsea Clinton has new children’s book in the works. It’s called “She Persisted,” a title provided by kid favorite Mitch McConnell.
Yes, they're "sticking around," as opposed to taking up residence in an abandoned fishing village on the coast of Newfoundland with no access to internet, tv, telephones, shortwave radio, or semaphore flags, all in order that people like Will Rahn don't have to deal with occasionally hearing about them. How inconsiderate! And the evidence of their evil "dynastic" ambitions are...Chelsea is writing a children's book. How objectionable! How sinister! How... "odd"!
Chelsea's Twitter followers are discounted (only some of them are "actual human beings,") her age is mentioned (she's "closing in on 40"), and her professional accomplishments downplayed (she's never had "what many would consider a real job") in order to argue that the only thing she's qualified to do is "run for office one day."
Is there a point to this nastiness? I mean, other than to demonstrate once again, how very accomplished a woman has to be to be considered...unqualified. A man with an undergraduate degree from Stanford, two master's degrees (one from Oxford and one from Columbia) and a doctorate (in International Relations from Oxford) might be qualified to do, oh, something. And a man with work experience at an investment firm, NBC News, Columbia and New York University, as well as extensive experience at a major international charity, on many boards, consulting, and oh yes, playing a major role on a presidential campaign, might be said to have real work experience. But, oddly, a woman with that resume (she's also written a book for middle schoolers) has no qualifications, so STAY IN YOUR LANE, Missy!
It's almost as if there's a double standard at work, or something!
But wait, that's just Chelsea! Hillary has also had the absolute temerity to speak in public! She said she wants to "come out of the woods!" Holy Walden Pond, Batman, we can't have that.
Ran informs us that there are two movie projects in the works about Hillary Clinton and complains that "we've been threatened with" a film about the 2016 election as well. In case you happen to be one of those folks who knows that Clinton was judged one of the most honest politicians in America, Rahn reminds you that no, no, this woman is a dirty liar, via snarking on a proposed movie regarding her time in Alaska:
Being Hillary, she’s told a few different versions of the story over the years, which should provide the screenwriter with a little extra room for creative license.
Ah yes, of course! Because she's not actually a robot, and occasionally tells stories the way humans do, with different words and memory lapses and things like that, she's a fucking liar! THANKS FOR REMINDING US!
Rahn is just puzzled, puzzled, that anyone would consider making a film about the woman who has ranked at the top of Gallup's Most Admired Women list a record number of times. It must be because the only people who want to know about her are moneyed elites:
I’m no actuary, but if “Hillary Clinton: Fishmonger” costs very little to make, and everyone on the Upper West Side buys a ticket to see it, maybe it could make a modest profit?
For the record, I'm no inhabitant of the Upper West Side (let alone an actuary, or a " political correspondent and managing director, politics, for CBS News Digital"). But I would watch the fuck out of "Hillary Clinton: Fishmonger."
Rahn just can't imagine why anyone would be interested:
For whatever reason, [enthusiasm for Clinton] persists.
He questions the very existence of Clinton supporters, outside of:
the high-professional class Рthe urbanites who work in, say, publishing and the movie industry. The ones who can spend a few million on a ghostwriter for Chelsea and an ing̩nue to play Hillary.
Again for the record: I do not have a million to spare, or even a thousand or a hundred, really (the dog's medical bills kinda wiped that out). But I exist, I like Hillary Clinton, I admire her, I am interested in her, and yes, I care about how she might be portrayed in popular culture. And I am not alone.
We are feminists of all sizes and creeds. We are white people and people of colour. We are cisgender, trans, and genderfluid. We are straight, we are L, we are G, we are B. We are people with disabilities and without. We are poor, middle class, and (yes) some of us are well-off or even wealthy. We are in Georgia and Indiana and Texas and, yep, New York. We are people of all genders, we are HIV positive and negative, we are immigrants and native born, we are so many different things.
We are little girls lighting up when we meet a woman who dared to run for president. We are middle-aged women who have seen this shit too often before, an overqualified woman losing out on a job to a vastly underqualified man. We are older women who have dreamed so long of equality, and who appreciate the fight that Hillary has been in her entire life.
And for all of us: this is not the first time we've seen a man earning a paycheck for publishing a sexist, substance-free screed in which a woman has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good.
It has to be some of the laziest journalism in existence to simply posit that Clinton's supporters just don't exist outside of a few wealthy enclaves, and that you just can't imagine why anyone would want to hear from Hillary, or Chelsea, ever again. How about logging on to the Twitter? How about reading a blog or two, how about getting out of your own bubble and actually talking to someone who would (like me) be pretty stoked for a decent movie about Hillary Clinton's young activist days? We exist, we're here, and we're not invisible.
Perhaps that's it. Perhaps that's why Mr. Rahn is in such a nasty mood. Not only do those old ladies Hillary and Chelsea not know that they need to shut up and disappear, but neither do those who support them and, yes—like them. Liking women is still a radical act.
For "whatever" reason, we persist.
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
We Resist: Day 60
One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.
So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.
Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.
* * *
Here are some things in the news today:
As you may recall, I have been saying for some time now that the most present national security threat outside the U.S. is the escalation in East Asia. On Friday, in case you missed it, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson threatened "preemptive action" against North Korea, Pyongyang threatened war, and Trump responded by casually taunting North Korea and China on Twitter. So, everything's fine. (Everything is not fine.)
Lisa Rein and Juliet Eilperin at the Washington Post: White House Installs Political Aides at Cabinet Agencies to Be Trump's Eyes and Ears. "Most members of Trump's Cabinet do not yet have leadership teams in place or even nominees for top deputies. But they do have an influential coterie of senior aides installed by the White House who are charged—above all—with monitoring the secretaries' loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration. This shadow government of political appointees with the title of senior White House adviser is embedded at every Cabinet agency, with offices in or just outside the secretary's suite." This is not normal.
Austin Wright and Martin Matishak at Politico: Comey Confirms FBI Probe into Trump-Russia Collusion. "FBI Director James Comey confirmed Monday the FBI is investigating Russia's meddling in the presidential election, including possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee at a hearing that the bureau normally does not comment on the existence of counterintelligence investigations, but that he was authorized to do so in this case because of the extraordinary public interest." Rage. Seethe. Boil. This fucking guy.
Russia probe that Comey confirmed was, as best we can tell, in effect before Nov 8. Fair to ask why he didnt think voters deserved to know
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) March 20, 2017
Meanwhile, Republicans on the committee are doing their damnedest to deflect and run interference for Trump. Trey Gowdy questions Comey about leaks. Devin Nunes wonders if the Clinton campaign shouldn't be investigated for ties to Russia. The long and the short of the hearing is this:
Just so we're clear: There's an investigation into whether president's campaign colluded w/ Russia to win. His party responds by deflecting.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 20, 2017
Republicans are not only uninterested in the investigation. They are actively working to protect Trump from it. This is rank disloyalty.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 20, 2017
The GOP's only loyalty is to the preservation of power. Their loyalty to country is utterly nonexistent. That should be abundantly clear.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) March 20, 2017
And this, of course, is from what they are trying to protect Trump, at all costs:
Intell hearing today - bottom lines so far: 1)Trump campaign under investigation and 2)Trump tweets about Obama are bogus.
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) March 20, 2017
[Content Note: Sexism] Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress: SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch Faces Extraordinary Sexism Allegation from Former Student. "Jennifer Sisk, a Denver attorney who took a class taught by Gorsuch at University of Colorado law school, wrote to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claiming that Gorsuch said firms should engage in illegal and sexist hiring practices. ...The judge, according to Sisk, 'argued that because many women left their companies we all knew women who purposefully used their companies.' Gorsuch also allegedly 'outlined how law firms, and companies in general, had to ask female interviewees about pregnancy plans in order to protect the company.' According to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal law banning sex discrimination in employment [prohibits] 'covered employers from basing hiring decisions on pregnancy or sex. Thus, an employer may not refuse to hire a woman because she is or expects to become pregnant.'"
[CN: Water contamination] Yessenia Funes at Colorlines: A Water Crisis Like Flint's Is Unfolding in East Chicago, Indiana. "And [lead is] not just in the dirt—it's in the Garza's drinking water, too. This is because East Chicago, a predominantly Black and Latinx city of nearly 30,000, is located on the USS Lead Superfund Site. ...Some homeowners' backyards had lead levels higher than 45,000 parts per million, far beyond the federal limit of 400 parts per million." Fucking hell.
[CN: Homophobia] Andy Towle at Towleroad: Georgia GOP Lawmakers Add Anti-LGBT Provision to Adoption Bill in Sneak Attack. "George GOP lawmakers made a sneak attack on LGBT people on Thursday, adding a discriminatory provision to an adoption bill pending in the state legislature. The Georgia Voice reports: 'In a shameful act of political maneuvering, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee just tainted a good adoption bill by adding a blatantly discriminatory amendment that seeks to allow adoption agencies—even ones that receive public funding—to discriminate against same-sex couples and refuse to work with prospective LGBT parents,' Jeff Graham said in a statement from the organization Georgia Unites."
[CN: Bigotry] Mike Stark at Rewire: Right-Wing Media Is a Domestic Threat to the Republic. "Rosenwald suggests that talk radio's power will continue to be a dominant force until the nuts and bolts of elections are dismantled and rebuilt with a more resilient design that increases the diversity of powerful voices heard in Republican primaries. If he is correct, the United States of America faces a threat from within unlike any it's ever known. The fact is, conservatives control virtually all levers of the federal government, and the vast majority of the states. Talk radio and conservative propaganda work to their immense benefit; they cannot—and should not—be expected to level the playing field."
What have you been reading that we need to resist today?
The Lessons We Won't Learn
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
My pal Eric Boehlert points to yet another New York Times piece about satisfied Trump voters in small towns, noting it is, by his count (and I trust his count, because he's been all over this dynamic), the ninth time the Times has run a piece like this since the election.
if it's a day ending in "y"....NYT travels to small town in red state to gather quotes abt how great Trump is https://t.co/sKqPvzoRjN
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) March 20, 2017
by my count, this is 9th time NYT has done this since election. and no, NYT never did this for Obama in 2009
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) March 20, 2017
That's just the New York Times. Other newspapers have run similar pieces, and they have become a feature on public radio and cable news. I will never forget the piece CNN ran on Valentine's Day in which they interviewed small-town Trump voters talking about progressives like we are monsters.
Terrific CNN segment on Trump supporters who believe progressives don't GAF about family, don't work long hours, & don't help other people.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) February 15, 2017
I'm guessing that, somewhere in the world, there exist stories and segments about unhappy, fearful, and angry Clinton voters, but I haven't seen them. If they do exist, they sure aren't being given the prominence that stories about Trump voters are.
Even the stories about regretful Trump voters are framed to suggest there were no enthusiastic Clinton voters. Following are a couple of cool passages from a Playboy article headlined: "Abandoned by Both Sides, a Secret Society of Trump Regretters Begins to Build."
The person who runs the "I Regret Voting For Donald Trump in 2016" Facebook page...says that while s/he has spoken to a lot of people, many are unwilling to publicly admit they regret voting for Trump.No, you've made a terrible mistake, dude. You and all the other people whose failure to make any meaningful attempt to understand who Donald Trump really is was outmatched only by your failure to make any meaningful attempt to understand who Hillary Clinton really is.
Zach Wilson used to be one of them. A 26-year-old Bernie Sanders supporter living in Chicago, Wilson found the Facebook page by chance. Wilson didn't vote for Trump because he liked him. He voted for Trump because it was a "fuck you" to the Democratic National Committee, which he perceived as having screwed over Sanders in the primaries. But Wilson never thought Trump would win, and on Election Day, he fell into shock. Now, as he hears about more hate crimes allegedly incited by white supremacists reenergized by Trump's victory, Wilson's negative feelings have transformed into a tremendous sense of guilt. "I started to think about [my vote] as a fuck you to minorities and to women," he tells Playboy, obviously disturbed.
In our initial Facebook messenger conversations, Wilson wanted to remain anonymous. By the time we spoke on the phone, however, he decided to go on the record as a sort of way to make amends. "I feel like I deserve to get shit on," Wilson says. "My friend pretty much told me to think with more empathy, and to try and live with more empathy. I feel like one of those fucking people who had a concentration camp up the hill from them but just went about their lives because it was out of mind." Wilson is now reading Origins of Totalitarianism.
...Prior to the election, one of Trump's biggest advantages was that many believed he was too inexperienced to be capable of enacting any real policies, unlike Clinton. While he might have campaigned on radical ideas, his lack of political know-how would presumably prevent him from following through on any of it. Such was the thought of Jeremy Burrage, a 36-year-old social worker from Alabama and a life-long Democrat who supported Sanders fervently. He prepared himself to bite the bullet and vote for Clinton on Election Day, but had a sudden change of heart at the last second. "At the end of the day I felt trapped. I didn't want to vote for Hillary," Burrage says. "I should have voted third party, but for whatever reason, I pulled the lever for Trump."
Burrage began to regret his vote once Trump started building out his Cabinet with people on the extreme right, many of who had no credentials to lead their departments. During our interview, Burrage says several times that he's scared. In order to keep that stress in check, he now stays away from the news as much as possible. "Some of the things he was saying was so outlandish, which I didn't see as happening," he says. "Now I just don't know what to do. I think we've made a terrible mistake."
He couldn't bring himself to vote for Clinton "for whatever reason." Just another mystery lost to the sands of time, I guess!
Let me put this as bluntly as I possibly can: Privileged people who couldn't see past their own feelings of aggrievement in order to empathize with women and/or people of color ahead of this election are telegraphing pretty damn clearly why they couldn't vote for Clinton.
Just like it was easier to ignore the realities of marginalized people in their communities and country than wallow in their own dogshit entitlement, it was easier to uncritically absorb decades of misogynist narratives about Clinton and assume they were true than do some fucking homework.
Kudos (I guess) to the dude who's now reading Origins of Totalitarianism, but maybe he should have spent 51 minutes (by Medium's estimate) reading these two pieces by Michael Arnovitz last June. Or 4 minutes reading this piece by Matt Hodges. Or 1 minute reading anything that was written by people who know a little something about Hillary Clinton's actual record.
Which is complicated. Like politics is complicated. Extremely so.
Being the leader of a country the size and influence of the United States is complicated. And of all the lessons we collectively refuse to learn from the 2016 election, perhaps this is the most frustrating: People who make sweeping promises and pretend that governing is as easy as wanting something badly enough don't make good presidents.
Hillary Clinton said that shit is complicated, and had complex policy proposals that reflected that complexity. She didn't make sweeping promises, and she detailed a progressive agenda that was attainable in incremental degrees that were achievable.
Her incrementalist approach was incessantly and mendaciously framed as (for example) "she doesn't want universal healthcare," or "she won't fight for universal healthcare," as opposed to what it actually was: She knows that universal healthcare simply isn't possible right now.
Trump (and Sanders) got lots of credit and gushing admiration for "telling it like it is," but when it was a woman who was legitimately telling it like it is, and crafting policy to address those realities instead of making promises that no president could possibly keep, the response was FUCK YOU, LADY.
Really, it just comes down to the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one running for president rather than dictator. She knew she'd have to work with Congress and a divided public, not just wave a scepter and command the defense budget be reallocated to the Department of Free Shit.
That was her fatal flaw: Running for the presidency as though she wanted to actually be a president.
Now we read these articles about people who are belligerently unaware of the impending horrors that await them, or people who are suddenly, far too late, aware and appalled by the horrors that await them.
And they still haven't learned the most important lesson about themselves: That they eagerly preferred to listen to men who told them what they wanted to hear than a woman who told them the truth.
Two Things to Watch Today
1. The House Select Intelligence Committee is holding a hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Among today's witnesses who will be testifying is FBI Director James Comey. That will begin at 10:00am ET, and will be streamed on C-SPAN.
2. Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation hearing begins today. The Senate Judiciary Committee members and Gorsuch will deliver their opening statements. That will begin at 11:00am ET, and will also be streamed on C-SPAN.
Relatedly: Trump's morning tweetshitz were typically measured and sagacious lol j/k.
In case you're wondering why he's ranting and raving about polls again, it's probably because Gallup found that his approval has hit a new low of 37 percent and his disapproval has hit a new high of 58 percent. Lookin' good, Trump.
