Adventus

"The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you."--Terry Eagleton

"It is impossible for me to say in my book one word about all that music has meant in my life. How then can I hope to be understood?--Ludwig Wittgenstein

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice."--Bryan Stevenson

Sunday, July 21, 2019

I blame the "face of the Democratic Party"

No, I don't think "manhole" is gendered, nor that "brother" or "sister" is really any more offensive than "he" or "she." I do wonder if they've removed those pronouns, too.

I went through "herstory." Didn't think we'd be back there again. Didn't think we'd be back to "love it or leave it" either.

But just because it was about Obama

...doesn't mean it was racist, right, Stephen Miller?

I mean, this was perfectly reasonable, right?

If it was in "The Onion"

...you'd know it was sarcasm. What's funny is how many of Josh Barro's followers agree with him.

Must be something about Twitter. Like the retweets of this "lie." I find that hilarious.

Must be something about my sense of humour.

Gaslighting?

Or someone who absolutely has no argument, and didn't expect to need one?

Suck it up, Buttercup



Listening to another Democratic Presidential candidate I've never heard of (some guy from a Western state who, as a governor not on the East or West coast, is "closer to the people".  God save me from American political cliches.) denouncing Medicare for all because people live their insurance (which is why everyone goes on Medicare, and loves it, as soon as they turn 65?) and claiming he is the voice if some woman who told him she didn't hear her voice on the debate stage.

I've been voting for 46 years and no one in that time has spoken for me. If they came close, they lost.  (Yeah, you don't want to court me as a political candidate.) I'm still voting. President Trump is the national object lesson in not voting. You want to screw this democratic republic into the ground? Don't vote until somebody "speaks for you."

When It All Went Dark....



“Look, he made it very clear that he disagreed with the chant,” Schlapp opined. “And I will tell you he stands with those people in North Carolina, across the country who support him. And why? Because they love America. They know that the president is fighting for them every day.”
And of course every time somebody says something like this and the reporter doesn't point out the utter absurdity of such language AND how it means Trump must be impeached instanter AND that Congress (the House) is not doing its job by arresting everyone in the Administration by now AND that the person saying it is a LIAR LIAR LIAR!  and gaslighting America....

...a democracy kitten dies.  Or something.  Because Americans can't be allowed to listen and decide and think for themselves.  Democracy is too important to be left in the hands of the people, ya know.

"Get 'Em Out By Friday!"





Peter Gabriel was a prophet....

Church Matters


So the pastor of Riverside Church was asked to leave; and that story was big enough for coverage by the New York Times and the Washington Post.  Ruth Graham and Slate is rather balanced about it; but Sarahbeth Caplin at The Friendly Atheist insists that the Church owes the world an explanation.

The attention this kind of thing draws always surprises me.

First, the pastor visited a sex shop with some members of the pastoral staff and some church members, and after that visit, she was fired.  Correlation, or coincidence?  Having been fired form a pastorate myself, I know these kind of circumstances intimately. But I also know the news reports on "what happened" are hardly complete. According to Friendly Atheist, 11 church members petitioned for the pastor's reinstatement.  11 members out of a church large enough to have pastoral staff (most churches can barely afford a full time pastor) is not a majority, let alone enough members to move the needle. Basically this church has a structure that allows for removal of a pastor, and that's the way this church works (love it or leave it. Unlike countries, church membership is purely voluntary, although often treated as a birthright.).  The people responsible may well have explained that decision to the congregation. Odds are the elders did (elders are elected in the Reformed tradition. They aren't representative, but neither are they autocrats. Well, usually.) tell the congregation why they fired the pastor, and it probably wasn't as simple as has been reported. What happened in a sex shop may, or may not, be a proximate cause. Most likely it was the last straw, not the first one, if it mattered at all.  Correlation is not causation, except when everyone wants it to be.

The more you read about what’s going on at this church, the more it’s clear that the church needs to do a far better job of explaining to the congregation and the outside world why they made their decision. As it stands, visiting a sex shop isn’t a crime, even when you’re a pastor and even when you invite church members to come with you. (Plus, it was off the clock and it’s not like she was using donations from congregants to make the purchases.) If BUtler’s biggest “crime” was demanding equal treatment and better policies from her church, it’s hardly a reason to punish her.

Well, yeah, I guess; but is that the story?  Or even part of the story?  Obviously some people think so, though Rev. Butler is keeping mum:

Although Butler didn’t respond to requests for comment from the Times, her story seemed to be a powerful example of the phenomenon of female pastors being harassed and denigrated on the job, often by their own parishioners. Online, female clergy across the country started posting their own stories of harassment and workplace creepiness using the hashtag #WeAreAmy.
Are you, though?  These people seem to be doing themselves a favor far more than they are doing one for the former pastor.  Partly because of this:

On Thursday evening, the New York Post ran a piece reporting that Butler had indeed been ousted over a harassment claim—but Butler was the accused.

Which muddies the waters considerably.  And frankly, is just more gossip about the pastor, gossip which may, or may not, be true, or even relevant.  This is not that Sarahbeth Caplin gleaned from news reports, however:

But that was just the tipping point. Other issues relating to her contract negotiations were already brewing. She wanted more money to match what a male predecessor made. She also wanted stricter punishments for volunteers at the church who committed any sort of sexual misconduct. Then the sex shop incident occurred… and Butler also reported creepy behavior from a fellow church members… and suddenly the church’s elders fired her.

So which story is right?  And why does it matter to the rest of us?  Do the elders owe an explanation to the rest of us? Why? Because 11 church members don't like the decision they made? How did this story get into the news anyway? Because of the history of Riverside Church? Or because somebody called a reporter, and the church name made the story newsworthy? Either way, what makes it the possession of the rest of us?  Especially since it's a personnel decision, and those are usually confidential.

I know why my church pushed me out the door. I'd rather think the lies, rumors, and false accusations levelled against me did not become a public announcement in the congregation.  I can't imagine any situation where anyone inside, or outside, the church is entitled to that information.  Like Amy Butler, I didn't discuss it publicly (well, on my blog, but my public is not the size of the audience for the average NYT article).  If she isn't confirming or denying the stories, who are we to do it for her?  Or to insist someone else do so?

Losing your position as pastor is bad enough.

You can blame the system...

Or you can blame the people who think that, without a cop at their elbow, they are free to do as they please.

You know, people with no concept of government at all. I served two such congregations; dominated by people who thought the institution was there for their convenience only. Churches can cease to exist; governments can't. The dangerous course we are on goes far beyond the actions and inactions of political parties. The more we think it is all about me, and thee only when you agree with me, the worse it is going to get.

Saturday, July 20, 2019

"She's a Patriot!"

A really super one!
12th dimensional chess, I tells ya!

Just a reminder

The first word from the moon, fifty years ago today, was: "Houston."

Carry on.

This proves Trump had nothing to do with it!

And this tweet from Katie Hopkins proves that Muslim U.S. representatives hate Israel.
Right?

Friday, July 19, 2019

Mostly because it's not football season....

"No distraction! No distraction! You're the distraction!"


The Medium is the Message

And the message is" "Fuck right off!"

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Lindsay Sucks Up

John McCain was President when?

Also, seems like a good time to bring this up:

Since we won't be moved from it easily

Can we at least note the old shibboleth is plain again?

Was it racist to say "Love it or leave it?" Is it now?  That depends on who it's directed to, doesn't it?

What We Are Talking About Now

The reporter for Politico told Terry Gross that the government had failed in its basic function of record keeping and admitted to making orphans of hundreds of children simply because families had been separated and could never again be reconnected. She was aghast at the thought. He called it one of the greatest scandals in modern American history.

Who's talking about it now?

About suffering they were never wrong,
The old Masters: how well they understood
Its human position: how it takes place
While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along;
How, when the aged are reverently, passionately waiting
For the miraculous birth, there always must be
Children who did not specially want it to happen, skating
On a pond at the edge of the wood:
They never forgot
That even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course
Anyhow in a corner, some untidy spot
Where the dogs go on with their doggy life and the torturer's horse
Scratches its innocent behind on a tree.

In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water, and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere else to get to and sailed calmly on.

What did Trump say, and when did he last say it?
It is too much to say this is another distraction; that Trump is leading us away from what we should be paying attention to.  In truth, he's responding to the failure of his distraction, to the blowback of his racist xenophobia.  How in the world did those crowds come to change "SEND HER BACK!"?  It's a mystery to him; you have to go ask the people in North Carolina.  He tried to stop it by speaking quickly.  After 13 seconds, he began disparaging Rep. Omar by name and nationality.  How was that supposed to stop the chants?  How would he know, he doesn't know why they started in the first place.

The Trail of Tears.  The slave trade, enshrined in the Constitution itself and only finally extirpated after a bloody Civil War the roots of which still haunts us.  That legacy of racism is as American as apple pie, and still we deny racism is a reality in this country.  Even identifying it is not what decent people do.  The Tuskegee experiments.  The internment of American citizens of Japanese descent.  The lynchings across America that were an open secret for decades.  The cruelty of the "orphan trains" and the callousness of "Three generations of imbeciles is enough!" The scandalous treatment of human beings by government that we are sure today would rip governments open and cause nations to fall and bring out the righteous wrath of the populace chanting "NEVER AGAIN!" and "NOT IN MY NAME!"

And who remembers the orphans of the last 12 months?

"About suffering they were never wrong, the Old Masters...."  Suffering is what happens to us, and none of us suffered the loss of our children because we were fleeing violence or even just poverty to try to make it to America (which is the story of our ancestors, but we're here now, so no matter, never mind).  Our suffering is what the President said last that outrages us; our suffering is the "scandal" of a President disparaging a sitting member of Congress simply because of her national origin or her religious beliefs or even just her political opinions.  The true governmental scandal, the breakdown of government not by crisis by by incompetence and cruelty and viciousness and stupidity enforced from the Oval Office itself down to the meanest Border Patrol station on the Rio Grande, that crisis we've already forgotten, in favor of the one we can see (children in cages!) or the one we can read tweets about.

Were you there when the scandals occurred?  Oh, how could people let that happen?  How could people ignore such horrors?  How could people remain silent and do nothing?  How could they ignore and forget?

Easily.  Easy as pie.  Easy-peasy.  We do it all the time.  The chair of the NRCC is right:  Trump just said it wrong.  But what he said claims more of our attention than what he did, and what he said will last until the next outrage; what he did is permanent in the lives of people, but people who are not us.  People who are not politicians or pundits or journalists or on-line anywhere.  What matters is what happens to us, and that happens on Twitter and cable TeeVee and we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!  What's the next outrage?  What's the next scandal?  That's what REALLY matters!  We always have somewhere else to get to, after all.

Lighten Up, Francis!



I agree with Rick Wilson on this (quelle surprise!) and find the argument that impeachment creates a magic sword utterly specious.

The Trump Administration is claiming an "absolute immunity" that makes "executive privilege" look like a red-headed stepchild.  They are claiming droit seigneur, and impeachment is not going to magically dissolve that claim into mist.  Even with impeachment hearings, the House would have to go to the courts to enforces subpoenas against witnesses and for documents, a path that would not be accelerated in the least.  I don't see any indication the courts are disinclined to grant Congress the investigations they are currently pursuing.  Impeachment would not fire up some kind of judicial afterburners.  Congress' power to investigate has been challenged by Trump, but no court is taking those challenges seriously.

This is the way the system works, and so far it is working just fine.  The same people screaming that the investigations are moving too slowly would be making the same claims for impeachment.  I remember the impeachment of Nixon:  it was a slow and ponderous process, and it wasn't impeded by Nixon declaring absolute immunity for all persons who'd ever shaken his hand. Trump's claims of immunity, like Nixon's claims of privilege over the White House tapes, need to be decisively suppressed and rejected.  It will take the courts to do that.

And that will simply take time.

Sic Transit Gloria


I mentioned the other day that nobody really cares about Netroots Nation; or rather, nobody really cares what happens on the intertoobs. What I lacked was this excellent article about the rise and fall of the late but unlamented "blogosphere."

The difference between blogs and Twitter is that journalists and politicians can be in Twitter, so of course they think it's important. But really, it's no more important than blogs were.

They'll figure that out soon.*


*Yes, I do use tweets a lot now, largely because I'm on my phone more than on a computer, and I can post Tweets far easier than I can embed links.  I have nothing against Twitter, but it's no more a political powerbase than blogs ever were.  One thing left out of the article is how Obama reached out to bloggers shortly after he was inaugurated, trying to get them on board, treating them as important.  It was the highwater mark of the influence of the blogosphere, and while Obama invited some of the "biggest" names to the White House, absolutely nothing came of it.  The White House quickly figured out the bloggers had no power at all, and never looked back.  That power dynamic hasn't changed, but people on-line are still convinced they are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.

They aren't.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Quick Question

In November, will voters re-elect Democrats because:

A) They did their best to act like a legislative body, only to be stymied by the GOP?; or

B)  They spent a year fruitlessly impeaching the guy up for re-election at the same time and who they will likely turn out of office?

"An old xenophobic slur"


Not exactly a left-wing publication (the article ends with the prediction Democrats will nominate another Clinton,who will fall to Trump):

Trump sparked a firestorm with a series of Twitter posts and subsequent statements in which he said a group of liberal firebrands often referred to as “the squad” — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

All four are citizens, and only Omar is a naturalized American. The suggestion that the women should go back where they came from is an old xenophobic slur periodically deployed, typically by white Protestant Americans, to denigrate and demonize immigrants, as well as white and nonwhite ethnic and religious minorities who are citizens or legal residents.

This is why Sen. Kennedy shifted the conversation to a new topic, and why Trump joined him. It's also why I heard Trump supporters interviewed on NPR this morning trying to explain Trump's reference as one of simply going back to their districts, because people we disagree with politically should not have a voice in D.C.; or something.

One supporter actually averred that Trump's use of "countries" was a typo.  Racism is still the hate that dare not speak its name, so it must be denied at all costs.  How's that gonna work out?

Three years ago, Clinton’s advantage over Trump with women was 13 points. In the historically high-turnout midterm elections, the Democratic Party’s margin over the GOP with women grew to 19%. In 2016, Trump garnered 42% of college-educated voters and won the suburbs by 4 percentage points. Last fall, the Republicans managed to win just 39% of college-educated voters and saw Democrats erase their edge with suburban voters.

Texas has not had a Democratic senator since 1988.  Beto O'Rourke came within a hair of unseating Ted Cruz, and several Democrats unseated incumbent Republicans.  The entire election last November put the fear of God into former fire-breathers like Dan Patrick, and turned Harris County solidly blue.  Nationally, the Democrats took the House, and Trump's approval ratings have never risen above 44%.  And I really don't see the Democrats nominating a candidate as politically inept as Hillary Clinton again soon.

Now wait a minute....







First, brave, brave Sir Robin is quoting somebody else, somebody who is answering a charge that was not leveled.  The House Resolution did not condemn Trump for calling anyone a "Wack Job." Interesting how careful Sen. Kennedy was to avoid any racist, or even racially charged, language.  Although I still think "Love It Or Leave It!" is not due for a major revival.

Even Nixon didn't run on that slogan.

And by the way, Sen. Kennedy is full of shit:







Tuesday, July 16, 2019

"We're Done For! We're Done For!"

And yet Trump hasn't been tarred and feathered and driven out of town on a rail.

Clearly enthusiasm is still too low...

The Whole World Is Watching?

Yeah, I kinda don't think so.

Preserving the Purity of our Essence

I really don't think there is a hue and cry in the nation (v. the virtual reality of Twitter) to impeach Trump and DO IT NOW!!  Especially since impeachment is only part of the action; the other is removing Trump from office (na gonna happen!).   But it's not only the willingness of the Senate to sit as an impartial jury (who ever said they would?), it's The Rules.

Lots of poo will be flung because Nancy Pelosi could not (or could, but the GOP made a stink about it) call Trump's tweets "racist."  But the rules of the House seem rather clear:  calling a Presidential statement "racist" is out of order for the decorum of the House.  Frankly, I think that's appropriate.  Remember the guy (now lost to history, though he had his 15 minutes) who called Obama a "liar!" at his first (?) SOTU?  Not a violation of House rules, as the House was not in session, but still, not appropriate behavior.  Once upon a time House members beat other members savagely in the House chamber.  If we want the House to devolve into a nightmare version of a playground, we remove rules like the one that says you can't call the President a racist.

It is a harsh label, and it should be.  And if the shoe fits; but you can't make the POTUS wear it from the floor of the House.   Next time (say, within 2 years) it'll be a GOP Speaker (or House member) saying it about a Democratic POTUS.  So, yeah, it's out of bounds.

Not that those who hate Trump with the burning heat of a thousand suns (as I said, the Lovely Wife said she'd vote for a cockroach over Trump, and she never talks that way) want to hear that; but rules are rules.  Rules keep us from simply removing Trump from office for being a bigot, and frankly that protection might keep a Pres. Warren in office when the right-wing has decided she represents a clear and present danger to the nation (tell me you don't see Trump that way.  Go on, be honest.)

Did you know there was a rule like this in the House Rules?  Or even a specific ruling from the House Parliamentarian about how the House should conduct its debates and discussions from the floor?  Neither did I, but nothing in government is conducted by whim and merely being the reigning office holder (Speaker of the House is a Constitutional office, but it's not a source of absolute power).  Government runs by rules, or it isn't government.  I get that Trump is offensive and even a vile racist and a xenophobe and unfit to be among civilized peoples.  He's probably a rapist, too, and surely guilty of sexual assault.  But none of that is going to remove him from office, and despite Josh Marshall's concerns (behind a paywall, or I'd link it) that Speaker Pelosi is not giving dissidents in the House their due (go and please the world, says I), Democrats either stand together against Trump, or they splinter again a year from November and decide their purity of essence is being taken from them by whoever the Democratic candidate is, and history rudely repeats itself.

I don't really think that's going to happen, because the Democratic primary voters, while less virtual than Twitter tweeters, is not really large enough to cost the candidate the race; and a large majority of the country would vote for the cockroach if that's what it took to get rid of Trump.  But what Democrats need to do is control Congress; and that is what they are refusing to focus on, in the name of animosity against Trump, and maintaining the purity of their political essence.

And now Speaker Pelosi is banned from speaking on the floor for the rest of the day.  Had she not called Trump's tweets "racist," had she carefully chosen her words to make her meaning clear while avoiding directly saying the words were "racist," she would probably have been criticized for her "cowardice" and euphemism.  She did say it, and now she's effectively gagged for the rest of the day. What was won?  Is she now forgiven for not being resolute enough?  Is she now a martyr to the cause of "speaking truth to power"?  Is she damned if she did, and if she didn't?  Yeah, pretty much.  Will it matter in the long run?  Will anyone even praise her for what she did as they damn the Parliamentarian?*

Will anybody, even Twitter, remember this tomorrow morning?

Well, some will, I suppose:




*Ironically, the name of the resolution includes the words "The President's Racist Tweets,"  One could argue (as no doubt they did) that Speaker Pelosi was identifying the resolution in her comments, not describing the President's words.  So you can name something the President wrote in a resolution, but you can't read the full words of that resolution on the House floor?  Again, put the shoe on the other foot and this is a sneaky way to get around House rules on decorum.  So I admire the irony, I don't decry it.  Rules are fascinating things.

It would seem....


...that Trump hoped to draw attention to the "Squad", their statements, their actions, their ethnicity, even their gender:
 
How's that working out for him?

When "The Mooch" Gets It....



Trump denounced birthright citizenship awhile back, but without it, where would he be?

He couldn't pass a citizenship exam if his life depended on it.

It was perfectly clear that was racist, too (because it's never applied to white people born here).  Funny I haven't seen that come up in a list of Trump's greatest racist hits.

Maybe the list is just too long....

"Go and please the world."


I heard this interview this morning, and that line struck me as a sea change in NPR reporting.  Basically, the reporter called Adam Kennedy a liar, and decided to move on not with his lies, but with the questions the reporter wanted to ask.  It was actually a good way of not silently accepting his lies, but also not getting derailed by them.

Obviously Aaron would prefer the interview turn into a "Did not!" "Did too!"  "Liar!"  "You're the liar!" exchange, in which somehow truth would prevail and Kennedy would slink off, banished from polite society by the severe oppobrium of NPR as school marm.

Or something. I dunno anymore.  Kids these days, what're ya gonna do?

So much winning! We're getting tired of all the winning!



You scared, bro?

So, Trump's latest attempt to get the Dems fighting each other has worked out brilliantly:

RESOLUTION Condemning President Trump’s racist comments directed at Members of Congress.

Whereas the Founders conceived America as a haven of refuge for people fleeing from religious and political persecution, and Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison all emphasized that the Nation gained as it attracted new people in search of freedom and livelihood for their families;

Whereas the Declaration of Independence defined America as a covenant based on equality, the unalienable Rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and government by the consent of the people;

Whereas Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional convention, ‘‘When foreigners after looking about for some other Country in which they can obtain more happiness, give a preference to ours, it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confidence and affection’’;

Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ‘‘Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists’’;

Whereas immigration of people from all over the Earth has defined every stage of American history and propelled our social, economic, political, scientific, cultural, artistic and technological progress as a people, and all Americans, except for the descendants of Native people and enslaved African-Americans, are immigrants or descendants of immigrants;

Whereas the commitment to immigration and asylum has been not a partisan cause but a powerful national value that has infused the work of many Presidents;

Whereas American patriotism is defined not by race or ethnicity but by devotion to the Constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, inclusion, and democracy and by service to our communities and struggle for the common good;

Whereas President John F. Kennedy, whose family came to the United States from Ireland, stated in his 1958 book ‘‘A Nation of Immigrants’’ that ‘‘The contribution of immigrants can be seen in every aspect of our national life. We see it in religion, in politics, in business, in the arts, in education, even in athletics and entertainment. There is no part of our nation that has not been touched by our immigrant background. Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.’’;

Whereas President Ronald Reagan in his last speech as President conveyed ‘‘An observation about a country which I love’’;

Whereas as President Reagan observed, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors, and it is the Statue of Liberty and its values that give us our great and special place in the world;

Whereas other countries may seek to compete with us, but in one vital area, as ‘‘a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close’’;

Whereas it is the great life force of ‘‘each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed’’ through the 21st century and beyond and is part of the ‘‘magical, intoxicating power of America’’;

Whereas this is ‘‘one of the most important sources of America’s greatness: we lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people -- our strength -- from every country and every corner of the world, and by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation’’;

Whereas ‘‘thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge’’, always leading the world to the next frontier;

Whereas this openness is vital to our future as a Nation, and ‘‘if we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost’’; and

Whereas President Donald Trump’s racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) believes that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations;

(2) is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, and those who are willing to work hard to live the American Dream, no matter their race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin; and

(3) strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should ‘‘go back’’ to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as ‘‘invaders,’’ and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants (or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants) do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.

Really want to see the Republicans vote against Mom, apple pie, and America.

Trump  has exposed the shrink wrap he is winding around his office:

“Politics is a game of addition and not subtraction,” he said. “You want to make friends, you want to get more people voting for you — not less. Donald Trump and his approach over the past three years in office has made no sense to me because he has been playing a game of subtraction.”

“He has boiled down his support, he continues to boil down his support to the most hardcore people, and this does not seem to be the workings of a shrewd politician,” Scarborough added. “It seems to be the workings of a one-trick pony who can only do one thing, and that one thing has made him the only president to never cross the 50 percent threshold in approval ratings.”

And forced even CBS to call him a racist (NPR was doing it this morning).  It's all forcing the White House to shrink itself even smaller:

The feeling of many people in this country is reciprocated.

Monday, July 15, 2019

"Hieronymo's mad againe...."

So, what are we being distracted from?

“He said, ‘I only want short guys wearing yarmulkes handling my money, not black guys,'” agreed [David Cay] Johnston. “His tweets are doing nothing but dividing us. They’re also distracting us from other issues, which, of course, is one of Donald’s great skills, distracting us.”

“David, how much of this is in his gut and not in his head?” asked Matthews. “How much of this is just his gut drive that’s tribal?”

“Well, it’s important to understand something that’s very difficult for many people to accept,” said Johnston. “We have a mentally ill person in the White House, someone who is deranged, and it’s awful to contemplate that. I was talking to someone in France the other day who said the reasons Europeans don’t like Trump but they don’t have a sense of outrage about him is they’ve had centuries of mad kings and crazy warlords and other rulers who were nuts, and that this is a new experience for America. And we need to recognize this, that we have somebody who is incompetent—”
Epstein?  Cages?

Oops.  Tax returns?  The Census?  Or is he just trying to shore up his base?  You know, the "many people" who "agree" with him.

And yes, he really is mad as a hatter.

The Incredible Shrinking President



Who does he think he's talking to?


He's playing defense while bringing up sentiments that were passé when they were used against the Vietnam War protestors.  This is straight out of the late '60's, just before support for the war collapsed and the war ended.

Does he think he's distracting us from Epstein's legal woes?  Does he imagine this "distraction" will work for the next 15 months?  Does he think this reaches beyond his bubble?  Does he care?

Frankly, who cares?  This is the reason 23+ people ran for the Democratic nomination.  There's blood in the water.  (Now what the DNC does about the other races that really matter as much as the Presidential one, is another matter.)

The Fish Rots


I truly wonder how many voters are not aware of this; or concerned by it.

Yes, yes, yes, "Trump's base."  Who are they, in the grand scheme of things?  Behold the incredible shrinking President, proudly pronouncing his racism and defending it because "many people" agree with him.  He's gonna be shrink-wrapped in that base, before long.

Republicans In Disarray?

Who am I kidding?

I don't think they're hiding



Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) on Monday defended President Donald Trump from charges of racism by offering a tortured rationale that is directly contradicted by the president’s own words.

During an interview with reporter Bryan Nehman of local Maryland news station WBAL, Harris claimed that Trump telling Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) to “go back” to the “crime infested places from which they came” was “clearly not racist” because Trump “could have meant go back to the district they came from–to the neighborhood they came from.”
As I find more, I'll update. 

Remember The Cockroach

Most people don't watch FoxNews, can't identify Sean Hannity, and think Rush Limbaugh is dead (I remember his heyday; this ain't it).

And as for "forcing subpoenas.": when was the last time the GOP did that? I do remember when they held Eric Holder in contempt. What happened? Did he leave office in shame, or even in handcuffs? Maybe the on-line GOP screamed for Holder's head, but I never heard it. There was such a long time lag between the offense and vote on the resolution I was surprised that was still a live issue. Did the republic fall? Did Democrats rule forever? Was the GOP punished for betraying the country?

Does anybody even remember Eric Holder?

Congressional subpoenas must be enforced by a court. That requires at least a hearing, and Congress doesn't automatically go to the top of the docket. It takes, in other words, time. Trump thinks he's on a reality TeeVee show. Some of his critics just think it's TeeVee, with the bad guys vanquished in 45 minutes.  You want to punish a lawless administration? Vote them out! The Lovely Wife said last night that she'd vote for a cockroach to get Donald Trump out of office. Maybe, instead of wringing hands over what the system can't and won't do, we should cultivate voters like that.

Even NPR is talking about Trump's racism this morning. That is not a sign of impending electoral success. Trump's base loves it. Trump's base is vanishingly small.