;)
The Commentariat -- January 28, 2018
Afternoon Update:
Jeet Heer of the New Republic (Jan. 26) on the "paranoid style in American politics." Now, as it did in the era of Joe McCarthy, that paranoid style begins at the top & has some prominent adherents.
"American Hustler." Franklin Foer, in the Atlantic, pores through years of e-mails written by Paul Manafort's daughters. "When Paul Manafort officially joined the Trump campaign, on March 28, 2016, he represented a danger not only to himself but to the political organization he would ultimately run. A lifetime of foreign adventures didn't just contain scandalous stories, it evinced the character of a man who would very likely commandeer the campaign to serve his own interests, with little concern for the collective consequences." A long piece.
*****
For anyone hoping for what safari humorously calls in today's Comments, a "potentially transformative" SOTU address, let's see how the President* chose to begin SOTU week:
Kyle Balluck of the Hill: "President Trump, in two late-night tweets on Saturday pitched his immigration plan while slamming Democrats, saying they are only interested in obstruction. Trump called his fix for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program 'wonderful'.... 'I have offered DACA a wonderful deal, including a doubling in the number of recipients & a twelve year pathway to citizenship, for two reasons: (1) Because the Republicans want to fix a long time terrible problem. (2) To show that Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it!' he said. 'Democrats are not interested in Border Safety & Security or in the funding and rebuilding of our Military. They are only interested in Obstruction!' he added in a subsequent tweet."
If you get to what's most essential and important and, I think, really damaging to our country, beyond just the confines of this administration, it's this attack on our democratic institutions and particularly the Department of Justice. It is a firm tradition at the Department of Justice that the White House just has absolutely no involvement in criminal investigations or prosecutions, period. It seems like there are almost weekly efforts to try to get DOJ to open up a case on his former political rival.... The near daily attacks on the FBI -- we've never seen anything anywhere close to this before. -- Sally Yates, former acting director of the Justice Department, whom Trump fired ...
... The "Trump Justice Department." Ashley Parker, et al., of the Washington Post: "On Wednesday, as Republicans were clamoring to make public a secret document they think will undercut the investigation into Russian meddling, President Trump made clear his desire: Release the memo. Trump's directive was at odds with his own Justice Department, which had warned that releasing the classified memo written by congressional Republicans would be 'extraordinarily reckless' without an official review. Nevertheless, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly relayed the president's view to Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- although the decision to release the document ultimately lies with Congress. Kelly and Sessions spoke twice that day ... and Kelly conveyed Trump's desire, a senior administration official said.... The intervention with Sessions ... marked another example of the president's year-long attempts to shape and influence an investigation that is fundamentally outside his control. Trump, appearing frustrated and at times angry, has complained to confidants and aides in recent weeks that he does not understand why he cannot simply give orders to 'my guys' at what he sometimes calls the 'Trump Justice Department,' two people familiar with the president's comments said." ...
... Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: We all know that Trump is an obstreperous, ignorant authoritarian, so it is not surprising that he came into office unaware of the fundamental concept of an independent judiciary. "Concepts" are not his thing. Neither are inconvenient facts. (This is a guy who, after all, said in 2016 that as president, he would uphold the nonexistent Article 12 of the Constitution.) But staff must have explained to him 370-some times since he took the oath that the president must keep his mitts off the Justice Department. And yet. After more than a year on the job, he "does not grasp why he cannot simply give orders around [his] guys" at the "Trump Justice Department." "Unfit for office," you say? ...
... Along Those Same Lines. Jordan Bhatt of International Business Times: "Donald Trump is refusing to visit the UK unless Theresa May can ensure that he is not met with protests. Bloomberg revealed that Trump complained in a phone call to May about the 'negative coverage' he has received in the British press. May told the US president that that was how the UK media operated and she could do little to change it. Trump went on to say that he would not visit the UK unless there were guarantees that he would not be met with protests. Advisers who had been listening to the phone call are reported to have been 'astonished' at the demands." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Among the other fundamental liberties Trump doesn't get: freedom of assembly. All modern representative democracies have some form of baked-in guarantee of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Trump is not just a huge embarrassment on the world stage, he's a danger to society -- even without controlling the nuclear football. Argumentum ad Hitlerum is no longer a fallacy.
The Abdication of Asia. Ben Wescott of CNN: "In just one year, US President Donald Trump has changed the way Asia looks at the United States. The cornerstones of American power in Asia, Japan, Australia and South Korea, all lost a little faith in their longtime close ally and protector in 2017.... No military assets have been withdrawn, no embassies closed, but the lack of interest expressed by a US administration focused on 'America First' has deeply shaken its status in the region.... Uncertainty about America's commitment to the region has prompted local leaders to strengthen ties with each other, to prepare for the day when the US no longer has their backs." --safari ...
... Max Greenwood of The Hill: "President Trump said that he 'deeply respects' the people of Africa and pledged 'strong and respectful relationships' with the continent's nations in a letter sent to African leaders this week. The letter ... comes after allegations emerged that Trump demanded in a meeting with lawmakers this month to know why the U.S. should admit immigrants from 'shithole countries,' including African nations." --safari
** Matthew Yglesias of Vox: "President Donald Trump's first non-Fox television interview in a long time, conducted with CNBC's Joe Kernen from Davos, Switzerland, is in many respects weirdly devoid of substance. And much of the substance that's there consists of misstatements of fact. But lurking in that is an important insight: Trump is holding the office of president, but he's not doing the job of president. He seems to have no real idea what's going on, even with his own signature policy moves.... Listening to him talk is interesting from an entertainment perspective ... but it conveys no information about the world, the American government, or the Trump administration's policies." --safari
Amy Sorkin of the New Yorker: Robert Mueller's "most consequential questions for Trump might not be about Russian influence over American voters but about the power that the President of the United States believes he has to control, or to abrogate, the rule of law.... If Trump thinks that Mueller can be scared off by the prospect of being fired ... [as Trump as either threatened or actually fired other top Justice Department officials], he will have misunderstood not only the laws that restrain any President but the terms of his own employment. This time, Trump could be the one to lose his job."
Jacqueline Thomsen of the Hill: "Russian bots on Twitter retweeted President Trump hundreds of thousands of times during the last months of his presidential campaign, Twitter told Congress. The company revealed to lawmakers on Thursday that the Russian-linked accounts had retweeted Trump nearly 470,000 times from Sept. 1 to Nov. 15, 2016. The accounts retweeted Hillary Clinton less than 50,000 times during the same timeframe."
Alex Isenstadt of Politico: "Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn on Saturday stepped down as Republican National Committee finance chairman, according to three senior Republicans briefed on the decision. The decision followed a Friday report in the Wall Street Journal alleging that Wynn engaged in sexual harassment. Wynn, 76, was ... Donald Trump's handpicked choice for the finance position.... 'Today I accepted Steve Wynn's resignation as Republican National Committee finance chair,' said RNC chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, who spoke about the Wynn situation with the president on Saturday morning...." ...
... Judd Legum of ThinkProgress: "For 24 hours, the Republican Party said nothing. The silence was particularly remarkable in light of the GOP's reaction to reports in October that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted numerous women. The same day the first report was publish, the Republican Party demanded the Democratic Party and all Democratic officials return money from Weinstein, who was a major donor to Democrats.... The statement was released to press [by the RNC] but does not appear on the GOP website or Twitter account. It was also not posted to Twitter by [Ronna Romney] McDaniel.... It doesn't even make an oblique mention to the importance of women to the Republican Party.... The GOP demanded Democrats return every cent from Weinstein.... Thus far Republicans are keeping Wynn's money -- and keeping their mouths shut." --safari: Some could claim a case of hypocrisy here, but that concept is only reserved for principled Democrats. Republicans are just plain ratfucking scoundrels: hypocrisy need not apply. ...
... Victoria Cavaliere and Joe Sutton of CNN: "The board of directors of Wynn Resorts has formed a special committee to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct made against the company's founder and CEO Steve Wynn." ...
... Ruby Cramer of BuzzFeed: "Not only was [Hillary Clinton's faith] adviser, Burns Strider, not pushed out [of her 2007 presidential campaign after allegedly harassing a young female staffer] -- he thrived after her campaign, landing a senior role at a super PAC preparing for her next presidential bid. In that job, he exhibited the same kinds of inappropriate behavior toward women who worked there, particularly two young female subordinates. In at least three separate instances between 2007 and 2015, women who worked for the Clinton campaign or the pro-Clinton PAC said that Strider, 52, harassed them at work." Cramer provides the disturbing details. ...
... ** Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post unloads, appropriately on Hillary Clinton: "... classically, infuriatingly, this episode and its aftermath exposes, once again, the trademark Clinton failure to take personal responsibility; the allergy to owning up to error; the refusal to cede any ground, no less apologize; the incessant double-standarding, with different, more forgiving rules for the Clintons and their loyalists." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Of course I didn't know of Burns Strider's behavior -- and Hillary's response to it, I am not surprised. Marcus perfectly captures the essential Hillary -- a smug, pompous person who privileges her allies & sickophants (not a misspelling) over ordinary Americans. I know many of you are fans. I voted for her, of course, but I am glad she is not my president. ...
... Even Maureen Dowd Gets It: "It's a shattering moment for the country, when many of the institutions that gave America its identity as a smart, brave, generous, fair country -- the presidency, Congress, sports, faith, Hollywood, big business -- seem corroded and immoral." Mrs. McC: This is another of Dowd's trademark gossipy columns, but she does hit some of the "highlights" of where we are. I think a lot of people voted for Trump in the vain hope he might grow into the office ("I can be so presidential") over Clinton, whom they intuitively knew would not. ...
... So Does This Guy, sort of:
Dirty Laundry? Emily Hazzard of ThinkProgress: "On Friday, a federal judge rejected a request to hide details of rental properties affiliated with Jared Kushner's real estate empire.... Kushner still owns a stake in, and collects income from, at least one of the companies in the suit, according to his last financial disclosure filed with the federal government. And those Kushner-owned companies are fighting to keep their investors secret.... Under the order issued Friday, the companies have to file the unsealed information about their investors in federal court by Feb. 9. The information could provide the public with a rare look into how the companies are structured." --safari
Beyond the Beltway
Susannah Bryan of the Florida Sun-Sentinel: "Hallandale Beach [Florida] Mayor Joy Cooper [D], who was removed from office Friday after being snared in an FBI sting, solicited illegal campaign contributions not only for herself but for two political allies, court documents say.Gov. Rick Scott suspended Cooper on Friday, a day after she was arrested and accused of accepting contributions funneled through Alan Koslow, a once prominent attorney who has since been disbarred after a conviction on federal charges. In August 2012, undercover agents handed Koslow a Dunkin' Donuts bag filled with $8,000 in cash -- all in $100 bills, investigators said in court records." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Electing Democrats & women will not solve all our problems.
Way Beyond
Robert Tait of the Guardian: "Miloš Zeman, the Czech Republic's populist president, has been narrowly re-elected in a tense contest against a liberal challenger, marking a victory for anti-immigrant, far-right forces in the country and potentially tilting its politics in an anti-western direction.... Zeman, who is a vocal supporter of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and who has promoted ties with China, has called for referendums on the Czech Republic's membership of the EU and Nato.... His electoral triumph appeared to be due to strong support in the provinces and far-flung areas, while his opponent scored heavily in the major cities, particularly Prague." --safari
Joshua Eaton of ThinkProgress: "An oil tanker carrying nearly a million barrels of ultra-light crude oil burned for days in the East China Sea before sinking on Jan. 14, killing all 32 crew members. Now, the disaster threatens to become the worst oil spill in 35 years, according to a report Friday by Reuters -- potentially devastating reefs and fishing grounds and polluting seafood from the region.... The ship was carrying 34 million gallons of ultra-light condensate -- a form of oil that is extremely toxic, highly flammable, and difficult to detect." --safari...
...Here's the Reuters piece with some great graphics showing the potential impacts of the spill. --safari
News Ledes
New York Times: "Ingvar Kamprad, a Swedish entrepreneur who hid his fascist past and became one of the world's richest men by turning simply-designed, low-cost furniture into the global Ikea empire, died on Saturday at his home in Smaland, Sweden. He was 91."
New York Times: "Mort Walker, the creator of 'Beetle Bailey,' a comic strip about an Army private who malingered his way through seven decades at Camp Swampy to the consternation of his commanding officers and the delight of his fans in the armed forces and beyond, died on Saturday at his home in Stamford, Conn. He was 94.... Mr. Walker had the longest tenure of any cartoonist on an original creation, King Features, which began its syndication of 'Beetle Bailey' in 1950, said in a statement."
Share Article
Reader Comments (23)
I’ve already had it with the flood of articles touting “a new day for Donnie!” With the upcoming SOTU. So a single speech is going to allow this ignorant, authoritarian bigot to “flip the script”? Not if it was a combination of the Gettysburg Address, the “I have a dream” speech, and Pericles’ Funeral Oration.
This overbearing, underachieving, forked tongue con man has demonstrated all too frequently that his fitness for office is below that of some three card monte dealer pickpocketing the rubes on Seventh Ave.
As for this speech, a battalion of Joe Wilson clones would not be enough to tally the tsunami of lies that will turn this thing into a typically Trumpian exercise in mendacious self promotion.
Where have these people been? And what but naive, incredibly undeserved optimism or wool over the eyes Trump mummery could possess any political commentator with a sliver of sober analytical chops to predict yet another corner turning, script flipping, course correcting, ship righting on the part of a hopeless loser, liar, and traitor?
Enough already. This isn’t hope for lipstick on a pig, this is hope that the pig turns out to not to be an evil spirit.
Good luck with that.
Dontcha just love the concept of a “Trump Justice Department”? Kinda like the idea of a Roy Moore Finishing School for Young Ladies.
@Akhilleus: I have avoided linking all the stories breathlessly awaiting the SOTU address. Like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Maxine Waters, John Lewis, et al., I will find something else to do Tuesday night. I realize that may seem to be abrogating my Reality Chex duties, but I didn't sign up for American carnage & torture. If Trump veers from his prepared pablum & says what he really thinks, I hope Democrats in the hall walk out en masse. Now that would be a first.
Marie,
Right there with you as far as the upcoming SOTU farce is concerned. I’m thinking of spending my time far more fruitfully by listing, in chronological order, mind you, all the Thomas Hardy novels that begin with the definite article. There are more than might imagine. It’s either that or clean out the gutters by flashlight.
Besides, the state of the union can be easily determined by three little words: Donald Trump: president*.
I similarly avoided any of the "potentially transformative" narratives regarding this SOTU speech. Actions speak louder than words, especially when words literally mean nothing.
Besides that, I read elsewhere the KKK wizard wanna-be Stephen Miller is one of the main architects of the speech. So if there's any "centrist" or "bipartisan" rhetoric in the speech, it's going to be after the goalposts have been moved inside the right's 20 yard line. There will be no olive branches offered, and any fruits from discussions with this administration are going to laden with worms upon further inspection.
Even if Trump had any control over his administration's policies (see Yglesias' article about President Know-Nothing linked today), he still has the most right-wing group of advisors and Congresscritters whispering in his ear all day every day, not to mention Hannity and his Friends at Fox. With all that glue sucking him into the right-wing policy chamber, he doesn't stand a chance at "bipartisanship", which in Republican double-speak actually means give us everything we want and maybe we won't kill the hostage, but releasing him/her is still unlikely.
I'm more and more convinced that ol' Grumpy Gramps has finalized his morph into full rightwing bingbat and the only liberal residue still sticking onto his stinking body resides in his decades-old loyal followers, the Dingleberries.
I have been trying to understand why it has been so hard for me to comment recently, although I know I don't comment often. I finally thought of Robert Frost's poem, "Design," the last lines of which are:
"What but design of darkness to appall?
If design govern in a thing so small."
In the most recent times, Marie has laid out what the Trump design is and I am appalled - mouth open, reeling, aghast, speechless.
I cannot dredge up humor or irony as defenses. The only thing for me to do is to votevotevote. And to silence the Trumpbots. And to read Dan Brown novels instead of "It's Even Worse Than You Think," which I bought because I like David Cay Johnston and which I thought I could read but have not been able to yet.
I know - I'll get over this mood. But still....
Great president. Most people don’t even know he was a Republican. Does anyone know? Lot of people don’t know that. -- Donald Trump, speaking of Abraham Lincoln at the 2017 National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner
I was thinking that now that Trump the Historian has revealed this deepest of secrets to people who claim to be members of the "party of Lincoln," he might want to borrow from Lincoln's first SOTU -- then called the Annual Message -- as inspiration for his own first SOTU, what with the situations then & now being fairly analogous, the "union" each time torn between pro-slave/anti-democracy states & blue states, as it were. Lincoln could not declare the now-familiar presidential SOTU pronouncement, "The state of our union is strong!" & neither could Trump honestly do so, albeit a given that Trump cannot say anything honestly.
Still, I had hope for Lincoln's inspiration. Alas, it turns out Lincoln was more a radical than a Republican. He said stuff like this to the Congress in that first message: "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Even worse, Lincoln seemed to think immigration was great! He boasted that the population of the U.S. was eight times what it was when the country began & that this increase represented the hope for the future. He also waxed eloquent on the "rights of the people." (Okay, this was a few months before he formally suspended the right of habeas corpus, so you might say old Lincoln wasn't totally into the Bill of Rights stuff. All of our presidents have been flawed, & as Lincoln might say, some are more flawed than others.)
Anyhow, looks like our hope for the future will have to come from speechwriter Stephen Miller. Feeling good about the state of the union now?
I was never forced into religious schooling and thus have a pretty critical regard to all the hypocrisies inherent in the Faith, although I can certainly see the good it can and does do in some people and some parts of the world. That said, it sure seems like religion in America is getting a beatdown of negative news lately.
The fact that of all the people who allegedly molested women on Hillary Clinton's campaign (that we know about), is, wait for it, the "Faith Advisor"! HaHa. Which faith is he following again? I want none of it.
And then of course the famous Tony Perkins, the official talking head of the whole American Evangelicals congregation, supports Trump 100% because he gets a "mulligan" on his whole fucking life! Wow! Great deal, where can I sign up?
And let's not forget Trump's "African American", Pastor Mark Burns, who threw the Lord behind Trump throughout the campaign and turned out to be a total fraud in his own right.
And when the actual Pope criticizes Trump's hurtful rhetoric/policies, all the True Believers dismiss the Lord's word for undercutting their new Messiah.
WWJD? Depends on who you ask I guess.
Las Vegas*/(aka "Casablanca")—why does it seem to shock, shock, shock so many about what 's been going on? Sexual harassment? Who'd have thought? What goes on in Vegas, no longer stays in Vegas! But, will it make a difference? There are too many Steve Wynns out there in the world.
Entitlements I: (Droit du seigneur): The rich and powerful calling the shots. Too long overlooked. Each time one of these stories break, the corporate Boards suddenly get moralistic. Don't you wonder how many of them have been complicit?
Entitlements II: (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid): Always targeted by the politically obtuse and compassion-less Congress critters. See also, views of the rich & powerful.
*Picking on Las Vegas? When there's NYC, Hollywood, and towns and cities across the country where boys behaving badly continues ever onward.
The SNL #MeToo conversation shows how awkwardly this is being dealt with by nearly everyone. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=evWiz6WRbCA ?
Per Bea's posting of the Kyle Balluck of the Hill link:
"...They are only interested in Obstruction!' he (Trump) added in a subsequent tweet."
(I've got...) Obstruction on my mind...(seems a psychological tell!)
To be slightly fair to Hillary, her actions against sexual misconduct in 2007 do not apply to 2018. For the entire USA, the rules have finally changed so that women are no longer just sex objects for use. Reality is the fact this all began in 2017. Before that, 2017 was the same as 1017.
Correction to today's Trumptweet.
'I have offered DACA a wonderful deal' as long as Dems are willing to build the Trumpwall. Isn't holding 850,000 people hostage a crime?
I hereby swear to watch the SOTU address in it's entirety and will
faithfully report on any statements which sound somewhat logical
or truthful.
Don't hold your breath!
Disappointed in Mrs. Bea McCrabbie's take on Clinton-- I do not excuse why the jerk was still employed, but seriously, Marvin is correct in that men have gotten away with this behavior forever, and this guy Strider is no exception. But since dumping everything on Hillary is the style lately, and Ruth Marcus, ick, I am doubly disappointed that anyone is happy that she is not president. The flip side: we have a demented con man, who not only has no idea what he should be doing, but has listened to the far right in appointing people who are doing such damage to the country, I have no hope left. There is no way Hillary would have ruined this country the way it is shaping up. Obviously she was taken in by this guy Strider. There is no shortage of brutal men of his ilk, though, and it is expecting far too much of women to unmask and demolish all of them. Society still hasn't come to its senses where men who abuse women are concerned, although there is a glimmer now.
Back when Hillary was running for president against Obama there was a video clip of nasty comments about her (all men–-Chris Mathews one of them who I find, by the way, limited and self absorbed). All the comments were against her gender, not on any issue. This video is no longer available and I wonder why.
I bring this up because of the rant now against Hillary's handling of Burns Strider and after reading Ruth Marcus' piece. I, too, feel Hillary should have fired him but I think she must have had a special relationship with him via this faith advisor connection. Ruth's response as she wanted Hillary to respond was exactly right, but where I differ is here:
"If I can this guy for doing way less than my own husband did with a subordinate in his work place, how's that going to look."
First––her husband's relationship with that subordinate was consensual and therefore not relevant. What is relevant is of course the history of her husband's indiscretions that has been hung around her neck for decades. What woman would dare go for the presidency with that baggage along with so much else that old "right wing conspiracy" doled out.
What she endured during this last election was what I would call sexual harassment by three sexual harassers: Matt Lauer; Mark Halprin; and Charlie Rose. I remember my screaming at the TV during Lauer's and Rose's interviews. Both interrupted her, both were aggressive, condescending, and hyper focused on her emails in contrast to their "soft ball" dealings with Trump. Halprin painted her as ruthless and corrupt. Even the aforementioned Mathews slammed her for not addressing the issues until Rachel set him straight.
As we have seen we have a man sitting on the throne with enough baggage to fill a tunnel from sea to shining sea but–– see––we gots "he" as our very own president!
Ezra Klein has observed that Elizabeth Warren, a politician very different from Hillary, has begun to receive the same gender based treatment that Hillary faced. He said:
"We routinely underestimate what it means that our political system has been constructed and interpreted by men, that our expectations for politicians have been shaped by generations of male politicians and shaped by generations of male pundits."
If in 2020 we have a woman brave enough to take the plunge let's hope by then we will have gotten a lot wiser and a lot less male-oriented politically. I keep having high hopes for this country despite–––I'm old enough to realize how far we have come even though now it seems everything is falling apart, the center is still holding––I think it's strong enough to see us through this.
Hello: Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. Des MacHale (often misattributed to H. L. Mencken)
I see in your intro page the above remark attributing the quote to Des MacHale, yet I haven't found any bona fide sources. Would you please provide your sources? Thank you.
Well, you wanted comments, so....
Once again, your hatred of Hillary Clinton comes through. I don't quite know how to reconcile your statement that you are "glad that she's not my president".
The Buzzfeed article was more evenhanded than the Marcus editorial, and I read nothing in there that merits the amount of censure that is being heaped on her by you and Marcus. As other readers have pointed out, and from my own experience (as a woman) in upper management of companies, her response in 2017 was measured, but not inappropriate. The offender WAS punished, but 10 years later, people on the sidelines get to decide that the punishment wasn't sufficient.
And, the worst of it appears to be that Hillary is a horrible person because she apparently has remained friends with him. Guilt by association much? Are we supposed to cut out of our lives all friends and family members who do something we disapprove of?
I have always been impressed with the Clintons' ability to remain long and loyal friends with a large number of people, which I guess is the hallmark of good politicians, but also the hallmark of good people. Hillary has spent her life in public service, working for women and children. I am extremely sad that she's not my President.
@Jeanne: Women all over the country were mesmerized by Anita Hill's testimony re: Clarence Thomas, & a vast majority of working women likely believed her because of their own personal experiences. Women thought Thomas's behavior toward Hill was disqualifying for a position on the Supreme Court. The Hill testimony moved Democrats in the Congress -- esp. Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden -- to pass the Violence Again Women Act, which became law in 1994. The Thomas hearings were in 1991. 1991, almost 16 years before Clinton decided it would be a good idea to keep Slider on a payroll for a campaign that was supposed to be about women's empowerment. Ha ha.
So pretending 2007 was the old days is not credible. No, Hillary didn't fire the good Rev. Strider -- but she did fire Patti Doyle, the campaign manager who urged Clinton to fire Strider. Is there a cause & effect there? I don't know, but Hillary fired Doyle in February 2008 -- fairly early in the campaign. (Obama hired Doyle in August 2008.)
In 2008, Hillary decided to empower a dirty old white man who continued to support her while he harassed his underlings -- (allegedly) rubbing their backs during work meetings, kissing them, etc.
Now, more than a decade later, Hillary says she "was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed." Came forward against Hillary's decision, that is. Hillary's too-little, too-late half-measures make me sick. Her campaigns were about empowering Hillary, not about empowering any women outside her orbit. Yuck.
Also, your suggestion that I'd rather have Trump for president comes from your own head. Had I preferred Trump, it's right likely I would have voted for him instead of Hillary -- which, as I wrote, is who I did vote for.
@cakers: First, a news article is fundamentally different from an opinion piece. Maybe I have not emphasized that enough here, mostly because I didn't think I had to to so -- my readers are, in general, quite smart & sophisticated & know the difference. An opinion piece is not required to be "even-handed." It is written to make a point & to persuade. I thought Marcus did a good job of highlighting Hillary Clinton's hypocritical behavior in this matter.
Now, let me get this straight. You characterize Marcus & me as "people on the sidelines," & that is quite correct. But what you're suggesting is that there is a hierarchy, & only those who are "in" may judge the actions of others. All of us "on the sidelines" must accept the wisdom of the judgment of the in-crowd (or at least of those you judge as "in." Not only is that pretty undemocratic, it also perfectly captures my view of Hillary's POV: "people on the sidelines" are superfluous, except to the extent they are useful to her.
Then you write, "the worst of it appears to be that Hillary is a horrible person because she apparently has remained friends with him. Guilt by association much? Are we supposed to cut out of our lives all friends and family members who do something we disapprove of?" Hillary didn't just retain her friendship with Strider, she kept him in her political orbit. She empowered him to continue to harass women. That's not the same thing as maintaining a friendship. And Hillary retained this friendship, at least in part, for personal gain -- Strider was raising money & votes for her. I have a feeling there are other men & women of the cloth who could have filled that role.
No, we are not "supposed to cut out of lives all friends and family members who do something we disapprove of." But we also are not supposed to give these friends golden opportunities to continued the "disapproved" behavior. In this case, the "disapproved" behavior is giving a male friend power over women, thus further enabling him to physically abuse & harass them.
You have every right to wish Hillary were president, just as I have a right to be thankful she is not -- without being accused of "hatred" because I want a different president. Those of us who vote in primaries choose among candidates every year (or two). That doesn't mean we hate all the ones we didn't pick.
Perhaps if you knew me personally, you could make an intelligent observation about my apparent feelings on a particular matter. You sure failed here. Insults & misrepresentations never work that well as persuasive argument.
@M Laborde: I think you're right about that. The Wikipage on Mencken calls the saying a misattribution to Mencken, but I'm now thinking the Wikipage is ass-backwards: that is, MacHale quoted Mencken. When I get some time to do some more intense Google research (no bowels of musty libraries for me!), I'll make a correction if warranted. Thanks.
Been out of the state and off the net for a couple of days but now that I'm back I'll jump right in on the Hillary thing.
Seems this is a place for logic of the non-Aristotelian kind.* One could reasonably be pleased that B is not President while at the same time happily (or reluctantly) voting for B and/or against A.
That's how I'd slice this baby.
* the kind for wishy-washy liberals like me
Okay, I've had enough of this. This writer said she would not comment any more. My preference is that she go away altogether. Had she wanted to contribute, as I hope more readers will, then all to the good. But it is hardly appropriate to stop by, nibble the cookies, then lace them with rat poison on your way out the door. Maybe they don't teach party manners at the Hillary Clinton Fan & Finishing Club, not that I blame Hillary for this writer's presumptuous insults.
This is not, BTW, the writer's first foray into the waves of gratuitous affronts. I had banned her for a while, but thought I'd give her another chance. My mistake.
Mrs. Bea McCrabbie
Many reasons for the revival of "they're out to get me" meme that Hofstadter wrote about so many years ago. Two are definitely not of the tin foil hat type.
One, guilt. American culture nurtures a kind of "success" now wholly divorced from any notions of virtue or fair play. As more wealth is concentrated in fewer hands and passed on from one privileged generation to the next, the "hard work--Horatio Alger--John D. Rockefeller" connection, the closest the American success story ever came to virtue, snapped, and we are left with only naked greed.
But in the face of that reality, talk of justice and equality persists, explicitly and implicitly pointing an accusing finger at the behavior of most successful among us, and naturally enough, they don't like it. After all, they have been judged according to their culture's reward system as the successful ones and success deserves admiration, not criticism. Anyone should know that....if they were not part some kind of jealous, secret cabal. In short, a conspiracy.
The other. Any limit placed on an egomaniac's exploitive behavior, like an environmental or financial regulation embedded in and administered by a bureaucracy is an enemy. Since such regulatory or statutory enemies are faceless, their actions must be attributed to some kind of deep state, or a conspiracy.
And oh yeah, a third. Tons of cynical bullshit shoveled by the real deep state. The Right Wing deep pockets.
Years ago, I wrote here that one of the things I really like about RC is that commenters don't get into extended arguments about things that are, in essence, matters of opinion.
Its still one of my favorite things.