Tag Wikipedia

In the matter of the new-but-same-old president, I have a few thoughts; let the sharing begin

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Presidential inaugurations are historic moments. I watch them all, even when it is a president I didn’t vote for, and I’ll watch this one, too. Here are a few things I’ll be thinking about.

The man who will take the oath of office as president of the United States this Monday has the support of only one-third of Americans who were eligible to vote in the last election.  The other two-thirds either voted for someone else (most of them for Kamala Harris) or didn’t vote at all.  According to data gathered by the University of Florida Election Lab, and neatly organized for even easier reading here on Wikipedia, the 156.3 million Americans who voted in November are less than 64% of all those Americans who were eligible to vote in that election.  The majority of citizens who did cast ballots, 77.3 million, voted for Donald Trump; that number of people is only 31.59% of the Americans who were eligible to vote in that election.  To Trump’s credit, there have been only three winners of presidential elections since 1980 (the period covered by this research) who got a higher percentage of votes from among all those eligible: Joe Biden in 2020 (33.78%, from 81.2 million voters), Barack Obama in 2008 (32.58%, 69.4 million votes) and Ronald Reagan in 1984 (32.47%, 54.4 million voters).

The hardest truth, I think, is this: 88.3 million Americans who were eligible to vote…didn’t.  Put another way, of those who had the right and privilege to participate in their own governance, 36% did not…either could not vote for some reason, or could not be bothered to.  That’s more than who voted for Trump, more than who voted for Harris.  Even though that is still the second-best participation rate in the period studied, trailing only the 2020 election.

Some of the youngest folks who voted this past November would have been as young as 10 when Trump was elected the first time, so they wouldn’t have been paying attention to the 2016 campaign or maybe remember some of those highlights. I found this handy reminder list on Twitter, and share it here as a public service.

Although the announcement came from TFG (now meaning “the felon guy” rather than “the former guy”), I do not believe for one instant that the man who eight years ago lied about the crowd size at his first inauguration to protect his fragile ego is the same guy who now made the very sensible decision to bring this year’s ceremony indoors to protect people from the cold.  In fact it is the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies which plans and executes these events, and I can completely see it not taking public credit for this choice so as not to be seen as bigfooting an incoming president, especially this one.  I’m not buying that the guy who four years ago encouraged Americans to risk their safety to commit violence at the Capitol as part of his attempt to overturn an election is the same guy who is looking out for others when he says “I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th”.  Also, I think it should be “it will be dangerous conditions” rather than it is.  And also just by the way, who taught this nitwit the rules of capitalization?

— George Conway (@gtconway.bsky.social) 2025-01-17T18:54:25.940Z

It was disheartening to see the tenuous relationship with the concept of “truth” exhibited by some of the Trump Cabinet nominees during confirmation hearings.  To be fair, Republicans and Democrats are just as adept as MAGA persons are when it comes to the kabuki dance of non-answer answers to pointed questions, finding it a preferred alternative to perjury.  I accept the validity of politely refusing to provide a speculative answer to a hypothetical, or for judicial nominees to refuse to express an opinion about a case that might come before them some day.  But to say, for example, that some of Pam Bondi’s responses strained credulity is to really streeeetch the definition of “strained.”  Am I really expected to believe that Bondi did not/does not know certain facts of life, as reported by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:

  • Did she hear Donald Trump’s telephone call to Georgia’s secretary of state asking him to find more votes? No, she never listened to it.
  • Did she hear Trump’s comments about prosecuting Liz Cheney? She never heard that.
  • Does she know about Trump’s pledge to prosecute Jack Smith? She does not.
  • His threat to go after Merrick Garland? No idea.
  • What does she think of Kash Patel’s much-vaunted enemies list? Oh. Did he say that on TV?
  • Patel’s threats to shutter the FBI? She doesn’t know.
  • Pardons for those convicted for the Jan. 6 insurrection? She dare not judge a matter that may come before her.
  • And did Trump lose the 2020 election? Biden is the president.
  • No really, did Trump win the 2020 election? She saw some STUFF on the ground in Pennsylvania.You have NO idea.
  • What does she know beyond a shadow of a doubt? There was a “peaceful transition” after the 2020 election.

Or her flat-out refusal to acknowledge that a part of the law is in fact a part of the law:

Padilla: Will you defend birthright citizenship as the law of the land?Bondi: I will study birthright citizenshipPadilla: You're asking to be considered for Attorney General and you still need to study the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) 2025-01-15T18:29:45.201Z

I really wish that in cases like this senators would at least stand up for themselves and the prerogatives of the Senate even if they won’t call bullshit on behalf of their constituents or their country. Some day, when a nominee refuses to answer a direct question in these ways, I would love the senator to respond by saying “Thank you. The lack of candor displayed by your refusal to respond to my question, and your refusal to participate in this Constitutionally-mandated procedure in good faith, means I will not vote to confirm your nomination and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you for coming.”

TikTok

— Nick Anderson – political cartoonist (@andertoon.bsky.social) 2025-01-17T22:16:24.157Z

The truth shall set you free – Episode 2

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Maybe this really isn’t very complicated at all.  Maybe, a growing number of Americans don’t trust the mainstream news media because they don’t like what they see and hear and read, and they don’t understand what journalism is supposed to do.  I first encountered this phenomenon as a journalist way back at the beginning, by which I mean about 1980.

As a kid I somehow understood that the “news” I read in the newspaper and heard and saw on radio and television was intended to inform and educate me about what was happening in the world, not to promote any certain politicians or favored views of the world.  And that’s not to say that news didn’t (or doesn’t) cast some politicians and views of the world favorably, if you consider the ones who were not in the news in the first place for accusations of law-breaking and dirty dealing.  Watergate happened when I was in high school – both the crimes and the reporting that uncovered the crimes – and Woodward-and-Bernstein were making “investigative journalist” a career goal for more and more college students, although that’s not specifically what attracted me…I was looking for an alternative after I decided, as someone who really didn’t enjoy college, that it would take too long to go to law school.  Later I realized I made a mistake turning my nose up at “college” the way I did.  Later I also came to realize that all good journalism involves “investigating” and the term of art was more a promotional pitch than an accurate description of a exclusive branch of the practice.

After having worked for a year on the college newspaper as a reporter and editor (followed by life-affirming experiences as a lunch-rush sandwich maker in a fast food restaurant and then overnight cashier in a self-serve gas station), I got a part-time job in the news department at a local country music radio station.  They needed someone else to cover school board meetings since their reporter was the daughter of the school board president, and someone to write and anchor short on-the-hour newscasts on weekend afternoons and evenings.   That’s what had me on the air reading the first UPI bulletin about the assault on Congressman Leo Ryan and his traveling party at Port Kaituma in Guyana before the news the next day of the massacre at Jonestown.  Before long I was covering city hall and a municipal election while still a student, then going full-time after graduation.  Nine months later I took a job at another station in town (for more money) as a reporter and anchor, lucky to have a terrific friend and mentor there (Olin Murrell, the late musician you may have heard of) who kept my focus on a clear and fair presentation of the stories that made up the daily news.

Olin also hosted the live evening call-in talk show on that station, and late in 1980 he gave me a chance to try it out: be the ringmaster who conducted interviews and managed an open discussion of any topic, able to articulate my opinion and be devil’s advocate with callers as they expressed their opinions, so as to generate a discussion and hold the attention of an audience.  A few years ago I characterized my outlook at that time as “left of center but not crazy; I had more than one caller who complimented me for being funny and so reasonable…for a liberal.”

It was those conversations with a caller named Irene that were the first direct exposure I can remember to the accusation that the news media is liberal and biased against conservatives.  It seemed to be drawn from a false belief that no person who believed in the Conservative cause and ideals – think Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority – would ever express an opinion contrary to that company line.  It was as if, first, they did not believe that any reporter was capable of quarantining the influence of their personal beliefs when reporting the facts of a story, and second, that any facts reported that did not gild Reagan’s lily must be wrong or have been intentionally distorted to make him look bad.  And this was long before the rise of “alternative facts” or “fake news” and today’s growing mainstream distrust of mainstream reporting.  Where does that come from?

In a thoughtful piece in Slate this month, Ben Mathis-Lilley lays out the case that an economic impact on legacy media from online sources that do not prioritize fair and responsible reporting has made it “increasingly difficult to sustain a media outlet whose business mostly involves the costly process of nonpartisan fact-gathering and reporting.”

That’s especially true at the local level, where newspapers often simply don’t exist anymore—but it’s also true nationally, where the country is headed in the direction of having one reportorial omnipublication (the New York Times) and a few others that are mostly for people who work in business. Concurrently, the right wing has developed its own media apparatus, while social media and streaming platforms now allow public personalities to build their own audiences directly.

Where that mostly leaves the participants in media (defined broadly) is trying to hustle up a career by selling a strong perspective on the world—by having a dramatic and emotionally satisfying explanation for everything that’s happening everywhere. Its marker of success is being able to headline your own podcast or subscription-driven Substack newsletter, and it runs on opinion “takes,” which cost relatively little to produce, but have to compete for space and eyeballs on Google results, X and Bluesky, and Apple News. And in many cases, the more a take reinforces readers’ existing beliefs, the better it does. It’s a truism and a Paul Simon lyric for a reason: All else being equal, people prefer to hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest.

So, if even the media outlets which are not ideologically bent one way or another are pushed to publish quick, emotional opinions about the news – rather than to report and present “the news” itself – in order to remain profitable and stay in business, it shouldn’t be surprising that more and more Americans have come to believe, through their own experience, that there is a lot of opinion included in mainstream “news.”

What this often (though not always!) rewards is pandering to simple, polemical worldviews—Everyone else is stupid, they’re all lying to you, this or that particular group is responsible for everything in the news that is upsetting—rather than uncertainty or curiosity. It’s a good time to be a person who says everything is bullshit. (Which, to be clear, is a take I usually agree with. There’s lots of bullshit out there!) At the same time, groups that feel like they’re under attack will look for their own messengers to deliver polemical responses which reject every criticism and assign blame somewhere else; this is what “stanning” is. (Crucially, the political center is just as subject to these incentives as everyone else; there are centrism stans, too, who find “illiberalism” at the scene of every crime.) It is a polarization-optimized discourse. And everything it touches gets a little dumber and more difficult to trust.

For a detailed explanation of how the rise of online “news” has threatened the existence of mainstream reporting, check out Phillip Longman’s “How Fighting Monopoly Can Save Journalism” in the first quarter’s Washington Monthly.  It has a thorough background of how digital players have stripped mainstream journalism of its income and contributed to the growth of opinion journalism; I found it very educational with both scary and hopeful aspects:

[With politicians of both parties] repealing or failing to enforce basic market rules that had long contained concentrated corporate power, policy makers enabled the emergence of a new kind of monopoly that engages in a broad range of deeply anticompetitive business practices. These include, most significantly, the cornering of advertising markets, which historically provided the primary means of financing journalism. This is the colossal policy failure that has effectively destroyed the economic foundations of a free press.

An extension of the attitude I first heard from Irene some 45 years ago is evident in our next president, who has a long record of attacking as corrupt and/or unfair any source of information that does not praise him.  That combative attitude is present in Republicans at lower levels of government, too, many of whom (I’m talking about you, Ken Paxton) have taken to refusing to even engage with the “hostile media”…and then pander to their supporters by later attacking those outlets over stories in which they didn’t get a chance to defend themselves!

I think most people want a reliable source for news that is not biased for or against certain politicians or any particular view of how the world should be.  Like the folks in a rural southeastern Colorado county who volunteered to pay more to keep their weekly newspaper from shutting down, from losing their only source of what was happening where they live.  If journalism can find a way to better provide that, affordably, we can still have the educated populace that is critical to our survival as a free people…as Ronald Reagan himself said it, in 1981: “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, as Jefferson cautioned, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

There only is one choice

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

For most of us our daily habits are set at an early age.  From whether you get up early or late, to what you like to read and when in the day you like to read it, whether you give to charities or attend religious services, whether you watch a particular local television station or you bite your fingernails or use profanity or can’t save your money, once you get into the habit of doing something it’s usually hard to stop.

When I was a teenager I got interested in government and politics.  Don’t know why.  I studied journalism in college and worked on the school paper and then in radio and (public) television news, so on top of it already being a habit it became a professional responsibility for me to stay informed.  Even after I left daily journalism for government/industrial video production and public affairs I still kept tuned to the news of government and politics.  Can’t shake it, even when I wish I could.  Like now.

Americans have many different political philosophies about the proper role of government in our society…we in fact have the Constitutional freedom to disagree with one another, and with the people in power, about how things should be and should be done.  (Not everyone in the world has that freedom, and those of us who had the good fortune to be born Americans shouldn’t take that for granted.)  Even when the differences are extreme, from the silly to the dangerous and possibly the un-American, everyone has the right to their beliefs.  But that doesn’t make it less disheartening to see a not-insignificant percentage of my fellow citizens supporting the candidate in yet another race for president who stands for greed and self-aggrandizement, who lies as easily as he breathes, who is prone to being manipulated by enemies and opponents and openly fawns over despots, and who does not and never has had the best interests of our country – our whole country – as the goal of his efforts.  You want to turn your head and ignore the ugly reality, but you can’t.

Don’t take my word for who the former guy is and what might happen if he were to win a second term.  Retired U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal cites the need for character in a man or woman who seeks to lead our country, and he says there is one major party candidate who doesn’t have what it takes.

As a citizen, veteran and voter, I was not comfortable with many of the policy recommendations that Democrats offered at their convention in Chicago or those Republicans articulated in Milwaukee. My views tend more toward the center of the political spectrum. And although I have opinions on high-profile issues, like abortion, gun safety and immigration, that’s not why I made my decision.

Political narratives and policies matter, but they didn’t govern my choice. I find it easy to be attracted to, or repelled by, proposals on taxes, education and countless other issues. But I believe that events and geopolitical and economic forces will, like strong tides, move policymakers where they ultimately must go. In practice, few administrations travel the course they campaigned on. Circumstances change. Our president, therefore, must be more than a policymaker or a malleable reflection of the public’s passions. She or he must lead — and that takes character.

Character is the ultimate measure of leadership for those who seek the highest office in our land. The American revolutionary Thomas Paine is said to have written, “Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.” Regardless of what a person says, character is ultimately laid bare in his or her actions. So I pay attention to what a leader does.

(snip)

Each of us must seriously contemplate our choice and apply the values we hope to find in our president, our nation and ourselves. Uncritically accepting the thinking of others or being swayed by the roar of social media crowds is a mistake. To turn a blind eye toward or make excuses for weak character from someone we propose to confer awesome power and responsibility on is to abrogate our role as citizens. We will get — and deserve — what we elect.

I’ve thought deeply about my choice and considered what I’ve seen and heard and what I owe my three granddaughters. I’ve concluded that it isn’t political slogans or cultural tribalism; it is the best president my vote might help select. So I have cast my vote for character, and that vote is for Vice President Kamala Harris.

Ms. Harris has the strength, the temperament and, importantly, the values to serve as commander in chief. When she sits down with world leaders like President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, representing the United States on the global stage, I have no doubt that she is working in our national interest, not her own.

Or, how about the 111 “former national security and foreign policy officials who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump, or as Republican Members of Congress” who earlier this week announced their endorsement of Kamala Harris.  Yep, more Republicans endorsing the Democrat.  Not just saying, like Mike Pence did, that they will not vote for Trump but refusing to say they will vote for Harris.  They have reasons they state plainly why they believe Trump is not fit for office.

We believe that the President of the United States must be a principled, serious, and steady leader who can advance and defend American security and values, strengthen our alliances, and protect our democracy. We expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but we believe that she possesses the essential qualities to serve as President and Donald Trump does not. We therefore support her election to be President.

We firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump. As President, he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interest above American interests, and betrayed our values, democracy, and this country’s founding documents. In our view, by inciting the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and defending those who committed it, he has violated his oath of office and brought danger to our country. As former Vice President Pence has said “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”

Donald Trump’s susceptibility to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, unusual affinity for other authoritarian leaders, contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior, and chaotic national security decision-making are dangerous qualities – as many honorable Republican colleagues and military officers who served in senior national security positions in his administration have frequently testified. He is unfit to serve again as President, or indeed in any office of public trust.

A copy of their full letter is here; read all the names.

But there’s more.  Not only do these people clearly see the dangers we face if Trump wins another term, but they cite reasons to vote for Harris.

* Consistently championed the rule of law, democracy, and our constitutional principles;

* Pledged to “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” and to honor and respect those who wear the uniform;

* Committed to sign the bipartisan Border Security package, drafted under the leadership of Republican Senator James Lankford and other Republicans, which would hire 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel and provide more resources for law enforcement but was opposed by Donald Trump to avoid giving President Biden any political advantage;

* Supported a strong NATO to stand up to Russia and protect European and American security and been firm in her support of Ukraine;

* Declared her intention to ensure that the United States will meet the economic and military competition with China;

* Declared her intention to “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself” and “to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists”;

* Demonstrated that she can engage in orderly national security decision-making, without the constant drama and Cabinet turnover of the Trump Administration; and

* Committed to appoint a Republican to her Cabinet in order to encourage a diversity of views and restore a measure of bipartisanship and comity to our domestic politics.

Not that they support her position on all issues; they don’t.  But they are realistic:

…any potential concerns [about positions advocated by left wing Democrats] pale in comparison to Donald Trump’s demonstrated chaotic and unethical behavior and disregard for our Republic’s time-tested principles of constitutional governance. His unpredictable nature is not the negotiating virtue he extols. To the contrary, in matters of national security, his demeanor invites equally erratic behavior from our adversaries, which irresponsibly threatens reckless and dangerous global consequences.

In short, Donald Trump cannot be trusted “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” We believe that Kamala Harris can, and we urge other Americans to join us in supporting her.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, are among a growing number of prominent Republicans who are endorsing Harris: people who’ve devoted their careers to the Republican Party, but who are speaking out against their party’s candidate in this election.  (They can always choose the Republican next time, right?)  Their position, if I may paraphrase, is that they do not agree with all or most of what the Democrats stand for or want to do, or how they want to do it, but believe it would be far worse to turn Trump loose in the White House again…and in our electoral system, no other candidate has a chance of winning.  The same feeling is true of many of those on this list, compiled by the New York Times editorial board, of former close associates of, and some relatives of, Trump, some of whom were caught saying what they really think of him.  It ain’t pretty.

Do you really want to vote for a candidate who you know is lying to you?  Who has proved to us over time that he’ll say anything – whatever he wants to be true in any given moment, or whatever he thinks will help him – because he doesn’t think we’re smart enough to see through it?  Who right now is campaigning to get back in power by making up a scary scary world that he promises he can fix with the snap of his tiny tiny fingers?

In Donald Trump’s imaginary world, Americans can’t venture out to buy a loaf of bread without getting shot, mugged or raped. Immigrants in a small Ohio town eat their neighbors’ cats and dogs. World War III and economic collapse are just around the corner. And kids head off to school only to return at day’s end having undergone gender confirming surgery.

The former president’s imaginary world is a dark, dystopian place, described by Trump in his rallies, interviews, social media posts and debate appearances to paint an alarming picture of America under the Biden-Harris administration.

It is a distorted, warped and, at times, absurdist portrait of a nation where the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to deadly effect were merely peaceful protesters, and where unlucky boaters are faced with the unappealing choice between electrocution or a shark attack. His extreme caricatures also serve as another way for Trump to traffic in lies and misinformation, using an alternate reality of his own making to create an often terrifying — and, he seems to hope — politically devastating landscape for his political opponents.

No matter how many times the “reality-based” media research and confirm that there is no truth to these outrageous claims – post-birth abortion?  Immigrants come from the same “asylum” as Hannibal Lecter?  “I alone can stop” whatever imaginary horror he’s conjured? – he runs them out there over and over again.  Do you really want as president a man who lied to your face more than 30,000 times during his first term in office (Washington Post)?  I mean, he even lied about Oprah, for crying out loud!

I had been considering saying, c’mon, you gotta vote for Harris because she is not Trump…because, being not Trump seems like a great qualification in this election.  We all lived through his term in office; don’t you remember what it was like?  Do you want that again?  Or maybe worse, now that he’s gotten a keep-me-out-of-jail-free card from the Supreme Court.  (Funny, right, that not one of the other 45 American presidents ever claimed the critical need for immunity from prosecution, not even the ones that proved they could have used it.  What does this clown have mind for a second term that leads him to believe that having immunity from prosecution would be handy to have?)

Even if you have to hold your nose while doing it, I say vote for Harris: it’s the only thing that you and I as individuals can do to stop Trump, and I believe that is crucial.  No candidate is perfect (assuming you can’t vote for yourself!), and we each of us always have to make a choice as to which of the candidates available will do the best job for our country as a whole, and who offers a personality and political worldview closest to our own.  A candidate who we trust will try to do the right thing.  No, we don’t know everything about Kamala Harris as a potential president, any more than we knew everything about every other president before he was first elected, but she is not a total stranger.  And, we know what she is not.

Fingers crossed, hoping for the best

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

A few thoughts while waiting for the New York jury to return a verdict in the business fraud/election interference trial of you know who:

I hate it every time a news report refers to Donald Trump’s “Hush Money Trial.”  Not only is it inaccurate and lazy, but it plays into his overheated claim that he’s being persecuted, that there was no crime committed.

  • It is NOT against the law to have sex with a porn actor.  Of the many things it may be (and you have your own list of the things that it is), “against the law” is not one of them.  I pray we don’t return to an age in this country where it is against the law for consenting adults to engage in some non-hurtful behaviors.
  • It is NOT against the law to pay hush money.  Blackmail is a crime, for the person committing it; it’s not illegal for you to pay money to keep someone from telling a secret about you.
  • It is NOT even a crime to use your private company’s funds to pay that hush money, provided your paper trail does not lie about the use of the money.  Your investors or directors probably won’t like it much and may take action against you, but it’s not business fraud.  (And if Trump is SOOO rich, as he claims, why didn’t he just write a check himself and not get the company money involved?  I know, hindsight is 20/20.)

BUT, if you doctor your company’s books to falsify the record about why the money was spent – like, saying it was “legal fees” when it was really reimbursing an employee for fronting you the hush money to conceal a private matter – that IS a crime.  It is business fraud in New York, and that is the crime the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting.  It became a major felony when, in this case, the fraud was committed to advance another crime: improperly interfering with the 2016 presidential election by covering up information that could harm Trump’s chances.  (Man, isn’t it hard to get your head around the idea that it was Trump and Republicans who actually were committing the election fraud, not the liberals and the illegals?)

Lately I’ve been running across many clever, funny, and to-the-point posts that take the varnish off of efforts to obscure what Trump has done, and what he promises to do if elected.  On ABC’s This Week George Stephanopoulos had a terrific summary as the current trial began.

GOnN-WNXcAAD5my

Last week Jennifer Rubin had a good roundup of Trump’s pratfall-filled week leading up to the trial’s closing arguments, including his not-unexpected cop-out when it came to fulfilling his repeated promise to testify in his own defense (something that I know no defense lawyer wants a client with a total lack of self-control and a well-documented history of serial lying to do).

Finally, Trump predictably chickened out of testifying. He repeatedly boasted he would testify, but like so many other attempts to look tough, this one fizzled into the ether. The episode underscored his cowardice and fragility. At some level, he likely knew that if he had taken the stand, he would have wound up either perjuring himself, digging his own legal grave or both.

What explains these serial debacles? This is who Trump is. He cozies up to neo-Nazis and white nationalists, so naturally he attracts aides with the mind-set to borrow material from fascists. He has contempt for women and tries to please his white Christian nationalist base at every turn; unsurprisingly, he has no idea where to stop and how far is too far. And he bullies his lawyers, insisting on making dumb arguments and calling witnesses he thinks are swell but who implode under examination. (And because he surrounds himself with disreputable charlatans and yes-men, one can hardly be surprised when they reveal their true character.)

For all Trump’s braggadocio, it may be that he just isn’t all that bright, cannot think strategically beyond the moment and lacks any common sense. Without aides or family members empowered to stop him from colossal missteps, he racks up the blunders. And perhaps like a good many bullies, he really does fear taking a punch.

GONmYbbWgAAAmpP

GOR52y_X0AA1_J_

Trump’s family, which finally began to trickle in to the courthouse to act like they support him, joined in the family business – lying to our faces – when Eric Trump clearly and cleanly misstated the facts:

And beyond the current trial, the situation has become severe enough to get the historian and documentarian Ken Burns off the political sideline; he had this warning to America during a commencement speech at Brandeis University.

https://twitter.com/Mollyploofkins/status/1794455333764538763

Just a couple more..I can’t resist:

https://twitter.com/AnnieForTruth/status/1795772810520117719
https://twitter.com/TheReelRandom/status/1795769741593714898
https://twitter.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1795848109752217919

The real majority rules

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

It only lasted a moment.  An instant, perhaps.  But the spark grew into a happy realization: the U.S. House of Representatives can do something constructive after all, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary it has piled up since January 2023.  The headline on the email that popped in yesterday afternoon was “House approves $95 billion foreign aid bill” and it turns out that the speaker of the Republican-majority House accomplished it by working with Democrats to outvote the extreme MAGA wing of his own party.

It’s the sort of thing that almost never happens anymore.  Dating back to the mid-1990s, Republican speakers have rarely allowed full floor votes on bills that weren’t already supported by a majority of their own party.  Even in cases where a majority of the full House – Republicans and Democrats and independents – supports a proposal, no final vote is permitted; that keeps the opposition party from looking good by passing legislation with the help of a few renegades from the majority party.  In recent years it has also allowed smaller groups of GOP members with extreme views to prevent more moderate members – in concert with the hated Democrats – from passing legislation that the extremists oppose.  That has prevented a full House vote on, among many other things lately, a bill to send more American military assistance to Ukraine to support its war with Russia.

Part of the story here is what happened to change Speaker Mike Johnson’s mind on helping Ukraine.

When the House passed a $40 billion emergency funding bill for Ukraine in May 2022, support for Ukraine was largely still a bipartisan issue. But a little-known conservative congressman from Louisiana was one of the 57 Republicans to oppose it.

Now, just six months after his unlikely elevation to speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R-La.) has pushed through a $60 billion effort to bolster’s Ukraine arsenal, along with funding for Israel and the Indo-Pacific.

The move marks a major victory and dramatic turnabout for the speaker who is trying to gain control of a bitterly divided Republican conference. The far right is fiercely against Ukraine aid — 112 Republicans, just over half of the conference, opposed it on the House floor Saturday and he had to rely on unanimous Democratic backing — and Johnson’s decision to greenlight a floor vote could come at great political cost. He could very well lose his job as speaker over it.

(snip)

“Look, history judges us for what we do,” said an emotional Johnson, holding back tears and with a quivering lip at a news conference last week in response to a question from The Washington Post. “This is a critical time right now, critical time on the world stage. I could make a selfish decision and do something that’s different, but I’m doing here what I believe to be the right thing.”

The Washington Post story goes on to explain Johnson’s evolution, which seems to boil down to the fact that he learned more about the situation and the stakes.  Good on him, an extreme conservative and evangelical, for not turning Speaker Johnson (1)his back on real-world, secular evidence that he might have been wrong in May 2022; maybe there’s a bit of accepting the responsibility of being a leader at work here, too.  “One Republican House member recalls: “I’ll never forget Johnson one time said, ‘I’ve gone from representing my district only to representing the entire [House] and the country.’ For someone to go from where he was to where he is now as quickly as he did … is remarkable.”

The other part of the story is the happy realization that brightened my afternoon: the evidence that the MAGA wing can be defeated, that the ignorant and selfish isolationists will not win if the rest of us stand up to them.  When we have leaders who put the best interests of the whole country first, who are serious about supporting America’s role as a leader of the whole world, a rump faction cannot take control.  And I do mean “rump.”

I also take this as an example of what the founders of Axios wrote about recently, the idea that American society and politics are not as irretrievably broken as it seems.

Here’s a wild thought experiment: What if we’ve been deceived into thinking we’re more divided, more dysfunctional and more defeated than we actually are?

Why it matters: Well, there’s compelling evidence we’ve been trapped in a reality distortion bubble — social media, cable TV and tribal political wars — long enough to warp our view of the reality around us.

The big picture: Yes, deep divisions exist on some topics. But on almost every topic of monthly outrage, it’s a fringe view — or example — amplified by the loudest voices on social media and politicians driving it.

  • No, most Christians aren’t white Christian nationalists who see Donald Trump as a God-like figure. Most are ignoring politics and wrestling with their faith.
  • No, most college professors aren’t trying to silence conservatives or turn kids into liberal activists. Most are teaching math, or physics, or biology.
  • No, most kids don’t hate Israel and run around chanting, “From the river to the sea.” On most campuses, most of the time, students are doing what students have always done.
  • No, most Republicans don’t want to ban all abortions starting at conception. No, most Democrats don’t want to allow them until birth.
  • No, immigrants who are here illegally aren’t rushing to vote and commit crimes. Actual data show both rarely happen — even amid a genuine crisis at the border.
  • No, most people aren’t fighting on X. Turns out, the vast majority of Americans never tweet at all.
  • No, most people aren’t cheering insults on Fox News and MSNBC in the evening. Turns out, less than 2 percent of Americans are even watching.

Reality check: But our politics are hopelessly divided, Jim and Mike! You’re naive!

  • Yes, current politics, and particularly the House, seem hopelessly dysfunctional. But this flows in part from majorities so narrow that fringe figures can hijack institutions, again particularly the House, and render them dysfunctional.
  • The actual dysfunction runs much deeper for structural reasons, such as redistricting, low voter turnout in off-year elections and geographic sorting (Democrats in cities, Republicans in rural areas).

(snip)

This new poll by the AP and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows a striking amount of agreement on some very big topics. Roughly 90% or more of Americans — Republicans and Democrats — agree the following rights and freedoms are extremely or very important to a functioning America:

  • Right to vote.
  • Right to equal protection under the law.
  • Right to freedom of religion.
  • Right to freedom of speech.
  • Right to privacy.

Hell, almost 80% think the right to own a gun is important to protect.

The last Republican candidate for president to win a majority of the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2004…barely, at 50.7%.  The last before that was the first George Bush, with more than 53% when he beat Michael Dukakis in 1988.  The guy at the top of the GOP ticket in the last two elections won less than 47% of the popular vote each time; in 2020 one-third of the voting age population didn’t vote at all, and almost 40% blew off the election of 2016.  Which means he was actually voted for by roughly 30% of Americans, at best: less than half of a bit more than half of the country.  Thirty percent is not close to a majority.  The MAGAs are loud and obnoxious, but they are not the voice of America.  It’s time we remember that, and promise to do the thing that they fear the most: vote them out!