…and John Oliver makes a good case for “now” as being the time:
You didn’t have to see every minute of Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony today to acknowledge it was some of the best political theater in many years. You might also think it was damnably condemnatory of his former boss, Donald Trump, who he called a racist, and a con man, and a cheat…which are things many Americans already believed about their president, but still: Cohen’s lied to Congress before and that needs to be kept in mind:
However, Trump has defended Cohen in the past:
Fact is, wasn’t so long ago that many Republicans stood by Cohen’s word…although he was saying other words at the time:
Today the Republican Party blasted him, despite their former close ties:
…but it was suggested the GOP had a reason for being out of sorts today:
Also, one must wonder why, if you can’t believe what you’re told by liars, how can you believe the president?
Now, Cohen got some support from outside the room, from other people who’ve worked for Trump who think he is a liar:
There was one difference today: Cohen was a liar…who brought some evidence:
And he teased that there’s even more he knows that he’s not allowed to talk about:
There was the goods on how the fragile-ego Trump planted a fake bidder at an auction so a portrait of himself would make news for the high bid of the event:
Not to mention having goods on a payment from Trump that might be the best evidence of all of his having committed a crime:
I was wondering how it was ethical for a lawyer to provide this kind of testimony against a client, but I didn’t know this:
So for my quick review: the Republicans didn’t cover themselves in glory today:
…and the whole event should be used as an object lesson on the value of your vote:
…even if Trump supporters want to ignore the documentary evidence (like the GOP members did):
The Congressional election just two weeks away will lead us down one of only a few possible paths. If the Republicans who control the House and the Senate maintain their majorities in both chambers, there’s no reason to think that they will then choose to start exerting more constitutional authority as a counterweight to President Trump’s apparent on-going violations of constitutionally-mandated behavior of a government official, or have any new political reason to begin to seriously challenge or even oppose their party’s leader. If they lose control of both houses, the Democrats would take command of the constitutional machinery that could restrict the president’s future activities and investigate or prosecute some of his apparent past crimes. If the GOP loses control of just one chamber, life will get more confusing…more confusing than it already is, and that’s saying something. Despite polling which shows less than half of the country approves of the president’s performance in office, the outcome for November 6 is unclear.
It’s no great pronouncement to say that American politics is polarized today, which by the way is not the same as having two major political parties with different opinions about the means to achieve goals…or which have completely different goals. As they say on the Internet, I’m old enough to remember when having opposing beliefs or values from other people did not mean that I was good and pure and true and a Real Loyal Patriotic American and that they were stupid and evil and dishonest and corrupt and traitorous. How’d we get from there to here?
Submitted for your consideration: the October 25th edition of The Daily, the podcast of the New York Times, which explores the premise that the 1994 midterm elections—in which the Republicans gained 54 seats in the House of Representatives to take control for the first time in 40 years—holds the seeds to the political divisiveness that rules the day today. Give it a listen: host Michael Barbaro talks with opinion writer Jennifer Senior about the 1994 midterm elections, which she covered as a reporter, and she interviews former congressman Vin Weber, a Republican from Minnesota who left Congress in 1993 but whose friendship and political alliance with Newt Gingrich made him a behind-the-scenes force in the 1994 elections which resulted in Gingrich becoming speaker of the House.
Without question, Gingrich and the GOP played a clever political game to maximize the party’s gain of seats beyond what is usual for the party out of the White House. They focused on wedge issues—they created the term “wedge issues,” I think—which were successful that day, and which have been driving wedges in our lives ever since. Whether or not the politicians were sincere in their stated belief in the positions they advocated can be argued, but as a tactic it worked beyond their expectations.
Was it a good thing to have done? Did Republicans of 1994 do the country a disservice in opening a rift in civil society that’s only gotten worse in the years since? Good questions to consider, I think…
I didn’t mean for it to happen, I swear…but I was driving home and had the radio on—yes, terrestrial radio; sue me—and before I could think to change the station or to flip over to the music on my phone, there it was. Like a regularly scheduled feature, I became conscious to the news report on what I think of as the president’s outrage of the day: the thing about which the president is feigning outrage and saying words that clankle off the ear as one tries to parse sense from nonsense. In today’s case he was accusing Google and other Internet sites of intentionally skewing their search results to feature news articles which cast him in a negative light. (It’s what we old guys in the news business would refer to as “bad news” from his point of view, and something that most people who live in the public eye know is coming their way, can’t be avoided entirely; Trump refers to this as “fake news” or sometimes “Fake News” or some other times “FAKE NEWS!”) What’s more, he was promising to “address the situation without providing evidence or giving details of action he might take.” Put that down as the shock of the day, right?
And it occurred to me, what would I find if I Googled “what the hell did Trump say today” and so when I got home I did just that.
I haven’t been keeping track of all of the surprising, strange, unusual, odd, bewildering, outrageous, incorrect, untrue, misleading, ridiculous, self-centered, tone deaf, racist, ill-intentioned things he has said…initially it didn’t seem like it was something that would happen very frequently, but then because I got so woefully behind the curve so goddamn fast it was pointless to try to catch up. But I don’t have to, because Matt Kiser’s already doing it. When I Googled “what the hell did Trump say today” the first entry returned was a link to What the Fuck Just Happened Today?, a selection of news headlines from Trump’s America with links to the source stories. (Click on the audio embed at the top of that page today and listen to a bit of Shep Smith’s incredulosity on the “Google story” du jour.)
Other fun stuff for sharing today:
…and this, which isn’t fun but is important to pass around to as many as we all can, since we live in Trump’s America:
Happy Birthday, you big ol’ wonderful U S of A, you!
Doonesbury Archive/Washington Post
More of the same, Mike. It just keeps coming and coming, crazy outburst after incomprehensible decision. An unprovoked trade war here, a cruel immigration enforcement policy there…how can we be expected to even keep up, much less resist? It’s too hard, right?
Yes, it’s hard, but not too hard. This isn’t over unless we let it be over. (“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”)
America can’t throw up its hands and quit because our president lies to us, unconstitutionally profits off of holding the office, threatens our alliances all over the world, and shows no signs of changing his behavior. There’s more and more of it every day, and it feels like we have no time to rest up from the onslaught from the White House, even a sliver of which would have been unimaginable before January 2017. In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick used the occasion of the separation of immigrant families at the border last month to encourage us all to speak up and not let Trump’s treatment of America become normal.
That we are finding ourselves unable to process or act or organize because the large-scale daily horrors are escalating and the news is overpowering is perfectly understandable. But we need to understand that and acknowledge it and then refuse it any purchase. Because to be overwhelmed and to do nothing are a choice.
It’s a choice, and it’s also a luxury, because the asylum-seekers at the borders cannot afford to go numb. Female victims of domestic abuse who are coming to the United States to save their own lives cannot afford to go numb. Teen girls denied access to reproductive care do not have the luxury of going numb.
There isn’t a lot we can control in the present time, but as any good counselor will tell you, we can absolutely control how we react to what’s going on around us. And this is the scene in the movie where even though you want to fall asleep in the snowdrift, you need to get up and walk around. If you decide to stop swimming and just drift for a while, you’re apt to wake up in a land you don’t recognize. Because “going numb” is the gateway drug to acceptance.
As David Frum wrote in January, reflecting back on the first year of Trump, “the unacceptable does not become more acceptable if it is accepted by increments.” It’s only easier to swallow and more apt to wear down our defenses. Don’t let other people tell you what to focus on. Choose for yourself. Sure, tune out that which makes you feel hopeless. But hold on to what motivates you to act. Find all the humans you can find who agree with you and make calls and register voters. Because if things continue on this way for people without funds, or with brown skin, or for women and children and the sick, there will come a time when we all have fewer choices. This is not yet that time. Get out of the snow bank, find the St. Bernard with the tiny flask of hope, and stomp around like democracy depends on it
You don’t have to be a member of Congress to fight back, although it sure might help if members of Congress started holding the president to account—that is part of their damn job. We can all start by being careful in the language we use in talking and writing about what’s going on, and not lazily repeating the words Trump uses that make him seem stronger and more rational than he really is. This is a spot where we all have to make an extra effort because the president has an advantage: our brains just naturally keep track of what is true and what is not, what makes sense and what’s just crazy talk, but he’s just spewing whatever he wants to be true at the moment he says it or Tweets it, with no effort at accuracy, or consistency, or even sensibility. Lili Loofourow calls it a “linguistic emergency” and urges us to stop reinforcing his defenses.
Sidestep every attempt he and his allies make to equate treating people badly with being strong, because their efforts to link those concepts are working. Neutral outlets are defaulting to his language for what he does—he’s “cracking down” on unions! He’s taking a “hard line“ on the G-7! Driving “hard bargains”! These all position him as powerful, which he loves. The trouble is, it’s wrong. In practice, Trump’s positions slip and slide all over the place. He never got that “hard bargain” he allegedly drove (though he sure got credit for driving it). His deals fall through, his policy shifts depending on whomever he spoke to last. It would be the height of irony if the weakest president on record managed to rebrand himself as the strongman he so badly wants to be.
A president’s lack of basic competence is worth accurately reporting on. And it must be reported on when there is nothing else of value worth reporting.
So why doesn’t this happen more? Two reasons: For one, I sense in much of the reporting on Trump a secret fear that maybe we’re missing something. He won, after all. And he keeps insisting that he’s strong despite all the evidence, so maybe there’s something we’re not seeing. This, as many have pointed out, is gaslighting. It’s why he always says he has a plan he won’t describe.
The second reason is that many news organizations still confuse neutrality with accuracy. Better to just report what he says and let the people decide, the thinking goes.
But that’s wrong. And that’s due to the power of language: Simply repeating his fantastical claims makes them seem less fantastical. What a president says usually matters a great deal. But because what Trump says usually bears no relation to the truth (or to what his own policies end up being) it therefore fails to inform the public, and is not worth repeating. He wants to propagate the story of a power he doesn’t have. We shouldn’t help him.
Jon Stewart made the same point, along with some others, when he visited his pal Stephen Colbert last week:
And remember, along with still having our votes to use this November, we in the resistance have one other advantage: unlike Trump, we have a sense of humor and can see the ridiculousness for what it is…all he has is a mirror. Sad.
Tom the Dancing Bug at go.comics.com