The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

I mean, Shirley, by now the Rs are regretting not convicting him for the 2nd impeachment. Even if they just disqualified him from office, they would be out of this mess. He clearly isn't going away. It's abundantly clear that he could give two shits about the party, or anything other than himself. He did his best to steal attention away from and fuck up their first debate. If he goes down, he's going to take everything with him. Fuck them, they deserve it

The thing is, I don't know if there still is an "R's" as an institutional body, which is of course part of the problem. I do suspect that institutionalists and closet institutionalists like McConnell (to the extent that he's cognizant these days) really do have regrets but whether that represents "the party" I have no idea.

I'm laughing at the (sadly successful) merchandising of Trump's Mug Shot. "Never Surrender" plastered under a guy that is quite literally, surrendering in the photograph.

You know it's not a good day when you're quoting Barnum to the effect of nobody ever went broke underestimating the American people. On top of everything else the stuff is so damn cheesy. But this is just another example of the frequently seen psychological mechanism the name of which I don't know, some kind of compensation thing, where people are so invested in a losing cause they have "no choice" but to embrace the bad and try to pretend it's actually good. To some extent this is an aspect of "the best defense is a good offense" but it's more than that. The amount of money so many people who can't afford to spend supporting a billionaire is just mind-boggling. Insane.

Also find it Alanis-level ironic that most of the big dogs are auguring to have their trials moved to Federal Court. Wouldn't this be moving the trial into the "Deep State" itself?

True, but don't mistake legal maneuvering for policy, principle or ideology. The only thing that matters now is "what's in it for me?" x 19.

What is the Dem strategy in all of this? Seems to be stay back and hope the snake eats itself. But, at some point they are going to need to go on the offensive. I hope they sink low at some point and start name calling. Show him in particular for who he is. Sore loser, whiny, blame-machine, baby. I know it wouldn't do much, but I think it could help some of the fence-sitters that "like his policies but dont like him" to switch.

This seems like an important question but damned if I know the answer. I don't think "the Dems" do either. To the extent that Biden is trying to run a "positive" campaign, touting his achievements and their impact on different and multiple populations, I think he's doing the right thing but who knows if that's gonna work. People hear (and don't hear) what they want to hear (and don't want to hear). I suspect that some version of "letting the trials speak for themselves" and "letting the process run its course" followed by pouncing on and trumpeting any guilty verdicts is the right way to go, but man this is seriously uncharted territory. I'm also thinking that the best the Dems can do on the negative campaign side is to do whatever's best to get Republicans to just stay home and not vote. I don't know what that means in practical terms though.

But seriously, we really need an anti-vegetable law for the Feinsteins, McConnells and Ginsburgs of the world (Biden probably belongs in this group too but he seems to be in far better shape than the others so I don't think it's fair to fully lump him in w/ the others). A flat retirement age of 75 or 80 seems like an excellent virtually unobjectionable, essentially bipartisan idea to me but I'm not aware of much traction in that direction. I also don't know what Feinstein's about. I assume either the 'Democratic governor would fill her unexpired term or one of the several good candidates who've already announced plans to try to succeed her would win an election for the unexpired portion of the term (don't know what the rule is in CA). In either case, this would be a very good time to leave on realpolitik grounds and she needs to go now before what is merely embarrassing becomes unconscionable. Also, for people who say in a disparaging/warning way that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, it seems just as likely that a vote for Biden may be a vote for Jill Biden. See Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan for troubling precedents.

[Zip City]

^^^^
Sunk cost fallacy

[beantownbubba]

But seriously, we really need an anti-vegetable law for the Feinsteins, McConnells and Ginsburgs of the world (Biden probably belongs in this group too but he seems to be in far better shape than the others so I don't think it's fair to fully lump him in w/ the others). A flat retirement age of 75 or 80 seems like an excellent virtually unobjectionable, essentially bipartisan idea to me but I'm not aware of much traction in that direction. I also don't know what Feinstein's about. I assume either the 'Democratic governor would fill her unexpired term or one of the several good candidates who've already announced plans to try to succeed her would win an election for the unexpired portion of the term (don't know what the rule is in CA). In either case, this would be a very good time to leave on realpolitik grounds and she needs to go now before what is merely embarrassing becomes unconscionable.

So it turns out that there is actually an answer. The Republicans won't let Feinstein be replaced on the Judiciary Committee, temporarily or otherwise. Since the Committee votes on the appointment of federal judges and Feinstein's absence would create a tie on the Committee, that's kind of a big deal. Though of course in any rational world federal judges would not be just another strictly partisan issue and senators would allow a distinguished member to retire w/ dignity instead of playing these kinds of bullshit games, but that's the world we live in.

[beantownbubba]

^^^^
Sunk cost fallacy

BTW, zip, perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no idea what this means in this context.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Seems timely

[Zip City]

^^^^
Sunk cost fallacy

BTW, zip, perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no idea what this means in this context.

It's an explanation why so many people still cling to Trump. They were so gung ho about him as some maverick candidate in 2016 that they're not reticent to admit their mistake, so they just double down on their support instead of moving to a better candidate

[beantownbubba]

^^^^
Sunk cost fallacy

BTW, zip, perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no idea what this means in this context.

It's an explanation why so many people still cling to Trump. They were so gung ho about him as some maverick candidate in 2016 that they're not reticent to admit their mistake, so they just double down on their support instead of moving to a better candidate

OK. Gotcha. Thanks. Assuming you meant that they're not willing to admit their mistake, I understand what you're saying but I wonder about it. I don't pretend to know but I hope there's more to it than that. I agree that there is a lot of doubling down, but if it's because of stubbornness (unwillingness to admit a mistake) as opposed to commitment to their guy and belief that his "persecution" is their "persecution" that would be particularly depressing to me.

[305 Engine]

BTW, zip, perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no idea what this means in this context.

It's an explanation why so many people still cling to Trump. They were so gung ho about him as some maverick candidate in 2016 that they're not reticent to admit their mistake, so they just double down on their support instead of moving to a better candidate

OK. Gotcha. Thanks. Assuming you meant that they're not willing to admit their mistake, I understand what you're saying but I wonder about it. I don't pretend to know but I hope there's more to it than that. I agree that there is a lot of doubling down, but if it's because of stubbornness (unwillingness to admit a mistake) as opposed to commitment to their guy and belief that his "persecution" is their "persecution" that would be particularly depressing to me.

It's what gamblers call "chasing losses" isn't it?

It's precisely the same this side of the pond with Brexit. Continuing to put money down is easier than admitting being the sucker.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Might not be the perfect place for this but seems best available option

[beantownbubba]

Congratulations, Peter Navarro. You have now learned the first, second and third rules of Trump Club: If you stick with Trump, you will end up broke, in prison or both. He will not help you. He will not save you. Maybe you can share a cell w/ Bannon.

[beantownbubba]

After the boffo headline I thought the column was a bit of a disappointment but that doesn't take away from what I think is a great headline.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/opin ... ction.html

[beantownbubba]

I don't see the point in making any of the obvious comments/observations about the shitshow that is Kevin McCarthy and the House but I thought this little nugget from Heather Cox Richardson was worth repeating/disseminating:

"It’s an omnishambles, a word coined in 2009 by the writers of the BBC political satire The Thick of It, meaning “a situation, especially in politics, in which poor judgment results in disorder or chaos with potentially disastrous consequences.”

It fits."

[beantownbubba]

Where's Cole Younger when we need him? With Mitt Romney's announcement that he's not going to run again combined with the upcoming release of a biography about him (some of which is reprinted in the current Atlantic), Mitt has become something of an object of fascination for the chattering classes. In short, he's looking awfully good in comparison to what's become of the Republican Party and a lot of people are reconsidering his place and his value. While I don't spend a lot of time thinking about him, I suppose I'm in that category as well. It's just an interesting moment, with a lot of potential for false and distorting nostalgia, too, but if CY wants to say "I told you so" he deserves that moment.

[beantownbubba]

Not exactly front page news but perhaps worthy of consideration for its implications: What the fuck is up w/ Lauren Boebert? Kicked out of a theater for vaping, singing and generally being obnoxious. I mean who does that? A good answer might be an entitled asshole w/ self-esteem/self-confidence issues or an overinflated ego caused by rapid fame. In that sense, not all that different than zach bryan's acting out discussed in the listening thread or who knows how many other incidents involving who knows how many celebrities from the A through F lists. It's no surprise that Boebert is an unserious person in way over her head but still to see it evidenced so obviously and so gosh darn inappropriately is somewhat jarring. Maybe we can say that if your public life consists of little more than performative exercises designed to capture attention the line between reality and performance tends to blur.

[brettac1]

Where's Cole Younger when we need him? With Mitt Romney's announcement that he's not going to run again combined with the upcoming release of a biography about him (some of which is reprinted in the current Atlantic), Mitt has become something of an object of fascination for the chattering classes. In short, he's looking awfully good in comparison to what's become of the Republican Party and a lot of people are reconsidering his place and his value. While I don't spend a lot of time thinking about him, I suppose I'm in that category as well. It's just an interesting moment, with a lot of potential for false and distorting nostalgia, too, but if CY wants to say "I told you so" he deserves that moment.

Romney is a great example of how short people's memories have gotten. Since politics is presented as entertainment in these times, you always need to have heroes and villains (or since it's most akin to pro wrestling, babyfaces and heels).

It's identical to the storyline from a few years ago where people were rehabbing George Bush and his merry band of war criminals like Frum, Kristol, etc. Romney got completely cucked by Trump and was groveling to be his secretary of state (after groveling for his endorsement in 2012). Yes, a more psychotic person will now be a Senator from Utah, but let's not pretend they are replacing some saint because he said the magic phrase of "Orange Man bad," basically because he was personally aggrieved by him. Their politics are not all that divergent at the end of the day.

[jr29]

Where's Cole Younger when we need him? With Mitt Romney's announcement that he's not going to run again combined with the upcoming release of a biography about him (some of which is reprinted in the current Atlantic), Mitt has become something of an object of fascination for the chattering classes. In short, he's looking awfully good in comparison to what's become of the Republican Party and a lot of people are reconsidering his place and his value. While I don't spend a lot of time thinking about him, I suppose I'm in that category as well. It's just an interesting moment, with a lot of potential for false and distorting nostalgia, too, but if CY wants to say "I told you so" he deserves that moment.

Romney is a great example of how short people's memories have gotten. Since politics is presented as entertainment in these times, you always need to have heroes and villains (or since it's most akin to pro wrestling, babyfaces and heels).

It's identical to the storyline from a few years ago where people were rehabbing George Bush and his merry band of war criminals like Frum, Kristol, etc. Romney got completely cucked by Trump and was groveling to be his secretary of state (after groveling for his endorsement in 2012). Yes, a more psychotic person will now be a Senator from Utah, but let's not pretend they are replacing some saint because he said the magic phrase of "Orange Man bad," basically because he was personally aggrieved by him. Their politics are not all that divergent at the end of the day.

Trump has cucked every Republican. Romney less than others though. He has pushed back almost this entire, shitty time. I could be completely wrong, but I'd bet Romney was pushing for a cabinet position with the hope of being a sane voice in the room. Rex Tillerson and James Mattis both said that was part of their motivation. I'm not claiming there was no ego/personal interest involved. I do tend to believe some of those folks were concerned about things and wanted to be an adult in the administration.

I take some sort of silly home state pride in the fact that my former senator, Bob Corker, told us that this whole Trump, MAGA, thing was fucked up from the start. He never came off that position and that's why he's no longer in office. I think Bob Corker stunk in a lot of ways, but I admire him for dying on that hill.

[jr29]

Is Biden really in this thing for another election cycle ?
Will Hunter's indictment and upcoming legal peril have an effect on his decision ?

[John A Arkansawyer]

PSA

I was sitting here tonight thinking about things. And it occurs to me that I’ve written the ‘Biden ain’t stepping aside so just suck it up and move on’ post a few times. But I left something out.

You getting all angsty about Biden’s age and worrying about it and coming back to it – you’re the problem. You need to grow up. I mean this not in an intemperate or judgmental spirit but in one of kindness and compassion. But seriously, you need to grow up...

[jr29]

PSA

I was sitting here tonight thinking about things. And it occurs to me that I’ve written the ‘Biden ain’t stepping aside so just suck it up and move on’ post a few times. But I left something out.

You getting all angsty about Biden’s age and worrying about it and coming back to it – you’re the problem. You need to grow up. I mean this not in an intemperate or judgmental spirit but in one of kindness and compassion. But seriously, you need to grow up...

The counter.
I don't have a strong opinion. I can be swayed either way.

https://www.smerconish.com/exclusive-co ... opponents/

[beantownbubba]

but I'd bet Romney was pushing for a cabinet position with the hope of being a sane voice in the room.

My understanding is that this is what Romney says in his new bio. Or maybe it's the biographer's opinion. Either way it's always been on the table as an explanation and seems to be evolving into the conventional wisdom.

[beantownbubba]

Where's Cole Younger when we need him? With Mitt Romney's announcement that he's not going to run again combined with the upcoming release of a biography about him (some of which is reprinted in the current Atlantic), Mitt has become something of an object of fascination for the chattering classes. In short, he's looking awfully good in comparison to what's become of the Republican Party and a lot of people are reconsidering his place and his value. While I don't spend a lot of time thinking about him, I suppose I'm in that category as well. It's just an interesting moment, with a lot of potential for false and distorting nostalgia, too, but if CY wants to say "I told you so" he deserves that moment.

Romney is a great example of how short people's memories have gotten. Since politics is presented as entertainment in these times, you always need to have heroes and villains (or since it's most akin to pro wrestling, babyfaces and heels).

It's identical to the storyline from a few years ago where people were rehabbing George Bush and his merry band of war criminals like Frum, Kristol, etc. Romney got completely cucked by Trump and was groveling to be his secretary of state (after groveling for his endorsement in 2012). Yes, a more psychotic person will now be a Senator from Utah, but let's not pretend they are replacing some saint because he said the magic phrase of "Orange Man bad," basically because he was personally aggrieved by him. Their politics are not all that divergent at the end of the day.

I agree w/ most of this w/ one important exception. You're right that memories are awfully short. In particular, Romney groveling for the Secy of State position was one of the more non-Trump (personally) cringeworthy political moments I can remember. I also think you're reacting to the inevitable overreaction and momentum as the conventional wisdom pendulum swings back in Romney's favor and, if so, I agree w/ that.

But to me, the key sentence is "Their politics are not all that divergent at the end of the day." I think that the substance of what we're seeing and the important part of the whole brouhaha is the recognition that Trump and Trumpism are not about politics and policies and, further, it is less important whether any 2 politicians have largely consistent or divergent policies. The nostalgia/yearning for more Romney is to me a clear recognition that we are finally learning that sleaze at the top is killing us, whether that be Clinton or Trump (not that they're the same either, but Clinton was no moral beacon). An old fashioned white male Republican w/ what constitutes integrity in public life (hey, nobody's perfect) seems like a distant ideal at the moment and that matters. A lot more than a lot of people (including me) thought. And that's why Romney is having his moment in the sun.

[beantownbubba]

Is Biden really in this thing for another election cycle ?
Will Hunter's indictment and upcoming legal peril have an effect on his decision ?

Just curious: Is the first question rhetorical? If not, do you have any reason for thinking (as opposed to wishing/hoping) that Biden is not in it until the finish? I have heard plenty of others urging him to get out but I have not seen any signs that he's even considering it and am wondering if you have heard differently.

My guess (and I emphasize guess) is that the answer to your second question is no.

[beantownbubba]

I don't have a strong opinion. I can be swayed either way.

Slightly different here: I have strong opinions in both directions, LOL. It's a hard problem. But what I've realized is that one reason it's so hard is that it is between difficult and impossible to think realistically about who an alternative candidate might be and in the absence of one, Biden seems awfully strong (w/in the Dem party). See, e.g., 2 high profile recent op-eds in the WaPo by David Ignatius and David von Drehle in which both strongly urge Biden to withdraw but neither proposes any alternatives beyond "there must be one."

In the absence of a legit alternative, it's hard to come out anywhere other than "Biden should run." But if there was an alternative(s) the obvious concern w/ Biden's age would have more room to run free.

Missing in this, of course, is any acknowledgement that Trump is just about as old as Biden and in much worse physical shape. I do not understand this disconnect (among many others).

[jr29]

Is Biden really in this thing for another election cycle ?
Will Hunter's indictment and upcoming legal peril have an effect on his decision ?

Just curious: Is the first question rhetorical? If not, do you have any reason for thinking (as opposed to wishing/hoping) that Biden is not in it until the finish? I have heard plenty of others urging him to get out but I have not seen any signs that he's even considering it and am wondering if you have heard differently.

My guess (and I emphasize guess) is that the answer to your second question is no.

It wasn't rhetorical.
I listen to the POTUS channel on satellite radio a lot. It's the most balanced source of information that I have found. Different hosts and guests keep suggesting that they are hearing that he is either not running, or strongly considering not running. None offer many specifics or sources, but I keep hearing it. I'm a fan of the President and I think he's done some great things, but I can't pretend he's the same guy he was in 2020.There's definitely been some decline and I have to wonder what he'll be like in 5 years.

As for a legitimate alternative, why does the national Democratic Party seem to have no interest in pushing anyone from the south or middle of the country ? No one knows who Andy Beshear is, but he's probably the most popular governor in the country and he's a Democrat in Kentucky. There are other examples, but he's the one that drives me nuts. If Dems could flip one, possibly two more states in the south this shit is over. Electoral romps every time. That's maybe a bit of a pie in the sky attitude, but I can tell you Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, etc are only moving the needle the wrong way.

[beantownbubba]

Different hosts and guests keep suggesting that they are hearing that he is either not running, or strongly considering not running. None offer many specifics or sources, but I keep hearing it.

I understand you to mean that although the sources are unidentified, the speakers seem to be quoting or relying on people who know or who are supposed to know. That is obviously interesting but doubly so to me because all I'm aware of is arm's length 3rd parties, e.g. journalists, saying he shouldn't run, not reports from "the inside." If things are more up in the air than I believe(d) that's very intriguing. My eyes and ears are open.

I can tell you Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, etc are only moving the needle the wrong way.

I agree. Based on limited information, Beshear seems like a VERY interesting alternative.

[jr29]

Different hosts and guests keep suggesting that they are hearing that he is either not running, or strongly considering not running. None offer many specifics or sources, but I keep hearing it.

I understand you to mean that although the sources are unidentified, the speakers seem to be quoting or relying on people who know or who are supposed to know. That is obviously interesting but doubly so to me because all I'm aware of is arm's length 3rd parties, e.g. journalists, saying he shouldn't run, not reports from "the inside." If things are more up in the air than I believe(d) that's very intriguing. My eyes and ears are open.

I can tell you Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, etc are only moving the needle the wrong way.

I agree. Based on limited information, Beshear seems like a VERY interesting alternative.

That is definitely the implication. It is very hard to judge how close these folks are to the President, or if there is much veracity to their comments.

I could go on and on and on about how I think the Democratic party has lost its way, but I truly believe a guy like Governor Beshear could do more to advance the cause than anyone else.

[Zip City]

If by "moving the needle the wrong way" you mean "are the wrong skin color to appeal to the rubes," then I guess I agree? Not sure what policy positions of Harris, Jefferies, etc. are egregious or wrong-headed?

I think Gavin Newsom ends up the 2028 nominee.

[jr29]

If by "moving the needle the wrong way" you mean "are the wrong skin color to appeal to the rubes," then I guess I agree? Not sure what policy positions of Harris, Jefferies, etc. are egregious or wrong-headed?

I think Gavin Newsom ends up the 2028 nominee.

Newsom is as white as he can be, but I get that that doesn't fit the racist rural people narrative.

Their policies are fine, but Newsom, Schumer, Pelosi, Jeffries, Harris, Hillary, even Biden and RFK Jr, are all coastal elites in their own way and they are not going to connect with rural people. I highly doubt someone like Gretchen Whitmer or Andy Beshear would get less votes in a Presidential election than Joe Biden or Gavin Newsom would in more urban, liberal areas. Those areas are going to vote blue. I do believe someone like Whitmer or Beshear would get a lot more votes than Biden or Newsom in rural areas.
We have this big, giant country and the two Democrats who would most likely be the candidate if Biden isn't, are both from San Franciso. I think Harris and Newsom's ex, who is now with Don Jr, even worked in the same San Francisco law office. Take that shit down the road and give me a candidate without all the strings attached.

[brettac1]

If by "moving the needle the wrong way" you mean "are the wrong skin color to appeal to the rubes," then I guess I agree? Not sure what policy positions of Harris, Jefferies, etc. are egregious or wrong-headed?

I think Gavin Newsom ends up the 2028 nominee.

They all suck. Biden does, too, but at least he has demonstrated he can actually win an election (vs Trump, at that). If 2016 Hillary was the only person who could lose to Trump, Harris would likely be the second. Even in 2024.

I assume you're content with what mainstream liberalism is currently serving up but I'm not, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same. Student loan payments are about to kick back off and that will demotivate some younger voters, as one example. Support among black voters also appears to be slipping a bit. As an ideology, it has proven time and time again to be impotent and not up to the task at hand. They have been saved to a degree in the last couple election cycles by Republicans being too far out of step with normals (i.e. Roe), but if the Republican nominee is someone other than Trump (highly unlikely, IMO), Biden can absolutely lose to them. That feels a little too close for comfort for me. Ideally there will be a reckoning in the party about the doomed direction of unfettered neoliberalism during a second Biden term and the party will distance itself from those politics, but I can't imagine they will as long as the checks from hedge funders, insurance companies, defense contractors, etc keep pouring in.

Anyhow, Whitmer will be the 2028 nominee, IMO.

[Zip City]

The irony, of course, is that rural republicans have built a cult around the coastal elitiest coastal elite who ever coastal elited.