672

Chris Rock has perhaps the best diagnosis for why Trump ‘won’ in 2016-other than the obvious and correct point that he only won because of the Russians and FBI: that no one remembers how to fight a bully anymore. 

“We need f*cking bullies, that’s how Trump became president,” Rock said in his stand-up special, which was released Wednesday. “We got rid of bullies, a real bully showed up and nobody knew how to handle it.”

I do think there’s more than a small kernel of truth in this. I mean we don’t want bullies but what if one shows up? I do think there’s a case to be made that today’s America, the America of safe spaces and timeouts is simply ill equipped on how to fight a real bully like Trump.

You can argue that in a society that more and more stigmatizes masculinity and the masculine virtues no one knows what to do with a real live bully like ‘President Trump.’ The instinct is to do what: offer him chicken soup for his soul? 

A society that devalues aggression may feel that even when it’s under threat from a predator that the only moral way to destroy such aggression is with kindness.

I know-speaking of ‘masculine’ vs. ‘feminine’ virtues is in itself kicking something of a hornet’s nest, though note I said ‘masculine’ rather than ‘male.’ But Hillary Clinton-who else?-understands what it’s going to take for the Democrats to take on Trump in the next two years: she argues that the GOP understands only strength.

Naturally she was savaged for it not just by the  Trumpkin bullies in the GOP and the MSM but by other Democrats. 

Which sort of underscores Chris Rock’s point. Of course, Hillary made a similar point in 2008 in her debates with Obama but most preferred his poetry about celestial choirs singing about post partisan America than her ‘cynical’ Realpolitik.

Obama seemed to think that the GOP hated her and her husband so much for good reason. As for her recent point about the GOP and the usual media freakout-how could she say such a terrible thing about folks like Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsay Graham!-McConnell himself acted highly indignant about it. Is there anything more comical-if not obscene-than Mitch McConnell acting indignant over process? No one has done more to take a giant poop on process than him the last 10 years.

As I discussed in (Chapter A) in retrospect a big mistake by Obama and Nancy Pelosi in 2009 was simply giving the Bush era criminals a pass Obama thought we should simply let bygones be bygones in the interests of ‘unity.’

“In January 2009, George W. Bush left office with an abysmal 22 percent approval rating, the lowest ever recorded. Almost everyone with anything to do with his administration was considered politically toxic.”

“With full Democratic control of the federal government, calls came for an investigation into the scandals of the Bush administration, including torture, mass surveillance, and war profiteering. While some called for criminal prosecutions, others wanted hearings or an independent investigation that would — at minimum — put into the public record the details of who did what and when. At the least, the argument went, Democrats could ensure that the GOP had to wear the Bush administration for years; that the officials involved in wrongdoing would be written out of polite society; and that future administrations would not revert to those practices.

Obama refused. “We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” he said famously on January 11, 2009, days before he took office.

A couple of thoughts.

1. Is there any doubt what the GOP would have done if the shoe was on the other foot? Any doubt?  At all? Note the week they impeached Bill Clinton he had an 81% approval rating per Gallup. What would they do to a Democratic President with a 22% approval rating? Do you think they would punt on the  opportunity to sully all those high ranking government officials from a Democratic Administration so as to ‘look forwards not backwards?”

I don’t see any possible scenario arguing they would have done so that passes the laugh test. If you think they would have dropped it after taking the WH themselves you missed the fact that they’re still investigating Hillary Clinton-so much for the idea that Congress doesn’t investigate private citizens.

UPDATE: In fact just yesterday-August 15, 2019-almost three years since Hillary’s ‘defeat’ Grassley’s Senate investigation gave us the ‘shocking news’ that there’s no evidence that the Chinese hacked Clinton’s server-sort of like what has been clear for three years.

2. At the same time Obama was going high the GOP was going very low indeed hanging out at a restaurant and pledging that they would oppose any legislation that Obama proposes, period. It doesn’t matter if they agree with a particular proposal or even if they’d supported it in the past. If Obama supported it they must oppose it.

I myself wrote in 2017 about how Chuck Grassley and McConnell tricked Max Baucus into pushing Obama to drop the public option from the healthcare bill when the GOP never had any intention of supporting the ACA no matter what was in it. 

But the point about this obstruction is it worked. Even though the GOP refused to work with Obama many in the media and on the Left in time too-more on that below in number 3-came to blame Obama because of this Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power where he should somehow will people to work with him through shear Presidential will who had decided as a strategy not to work with him no matter what.

In 2010 the GOP won 63 seats and retook the House.

Would holding investigations into Bush era scandals have lessened the ‘shellacking?’ It surely wouldn’t have made it any worse. And indeed, per number 3, maybe it would have lessened it.

3. That they let the Bushies off the hook greatly demoralized many new, young voters. They’d fought hard in the trenches for years for this moment and then Obama just punted on some happy talk of looking forwards.

In the coming years after 2009 there would be a lot of young leftist types-later to become the (in)famous ‘Bernie Bros’ who’d never forgive the Democrats.

My worry is the Dems do the same thing again. Let’s not talk too much about Trump let’s just try to ‘get along with President Trump so we can pass an infrastructure bill.’

In (chapter B) we looked at Jess Zimmerman’s interesting idea the Democratic party is a girl.

It’s interesting as taking that theory to its logical conclusion explains so much. After al, the Democrats like women aren’t supposed to be angry or vengeful-like Brett Kavanaugh and Lindsay Graham-they’re supposed to defuse angry situations and be peacemakers.

So the GOP can impeach Bill Clinton over a whole lot of trumped up bunch of nothing-a fishing expedition over  a trivial land deal from the 1970s plus Kavanaugh’s perjury trap-but with all the legitimate investigations we need on Trump you hear MSMers whispering that Democrats need to be careful-don’t overreach.

That was me on election night, November 6, going off on Al Hunt who wrote the piece-Hunt, of course, ignored me. I’m only a reader after all, what does my opinion matter?

And this is the night of the election-gee couldn’t he let them enjoy it even for one night before wrapping their knuckles over going too far? I mean this was after two years GOP misrule where there’d been zero oversight. I mean is the real threat too much oversight for Trump? With all he stands credibly accused of it’s probably impossible to do too much oversight. I mean what would have constituted too much oversight of Hitler?

Trump is guilty easily of 100 distinct impeachable offenses-‘overreach’ is pretty much impossible. And as it turns out the much more compelling danger has proven to be underreach-even after the Democrats took over it has turned out. But more on that below..

But the notion that the Dems can acquire his tax returns but somehow making them public is overreach is risible. Why would that be overreach on the Democrats’ part? The whole problem is that every President since Nixon had publicly released their tax returns-not to Congress who then kept them hidden so as to not embarrass the ‘President.’

So he broke the norm but somehow the Democrats forcing the issue so we can actually see his returns is the ‘real overreach.’

Here’s Scott Sumner-answering a commentator-regarding the tax returns:

“Comparing Trump to Clinton? Really? Did Clinton encourage the Russians to interfere in US elections? Did he fire the FBI director to stop him from investigating Russian interference? You compare Clinton’s trivial crimes to Trump?”

“Trump’s tax returns are very relevant if they show financial links to Russia. If not, no big deal. Trump promised to release them anyway, as all other candidates do.”

I looked at Al Hunt’s tweet for his post above but let’s look in more detail at what he actually writes.

“There will be probes into the president’s financial dealings, more on his connections to Russia, inspections of the questionable policies and practices of some Cabinet members, and, says the next Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, “a deep dive” into ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.”

“We’re going to do our job; they may think that’s a nightmare,” said Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who will become chair of the House Oversight Committee — a body that showed no appetite for oversight under Republicans for the last two years. Cummings said in an interview that Democrats would be “careful, methodical and transparent.”

He and other Democrats understand the pitfalls of overreach following the Republicans’ partisan excesses during the presidency of Barack Obama. “We can’t look like Torquemada,” said Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia, an Oversight Committee member, referring to the grand inquisitor of 15th-century Spain. That’s even more true given the Democrats’ slender new House majority and the Republicans’ added strength in the Senate.

I have no idea why the GOP adding extra seats makes any difference. I hope this is not based on the canard we looked at in (Chapter C) that the Dems can only impeach Trump if Mitch McConnell is going to convict him. Let’s be clear: the Dems should impeach Trump if that’s where the facts leads. If it does and only then. I agree that won’t be the first week or even first month or every probably the second month…

But it depends on what’s in Mueller’s report and what the House Democrats find in their own investigations. I certainly feel pretty confident about Adam Schiff leading the HSPCI and Jerrold Nadler at the Judiciary Committee. Though I’ve  heard no one discuss a full House Select Committee which I don’t understand.

If a fake scandal like Benghazi got a SC how can an investigation into potentially the worst crimes against the American people in our history not merit one?

But if the facts do merit impeachment the Dems must impeach. There’s good reason to suspect McConnell’s GOP Senate won’t convict, maybe he’ll break yet another new norm and refuse to even hold a trial-graduate from not holding a hearing on a SJC nominee because the President is a Democrat to not even holding hearings on an impeached ‘President’ as he’s GOP. But McConnell and the GOP’s response is irrelevant. Why because he and his GOP co-conspirators refuse to do the job they took an oath to do should Democrats turnaround and also abdicate their own jobs?

Why do Democrats think they were elected? Yes to protect preexisting conditions but also for real and adequate overnight on illegitimate ‘President Trump.’

I sure hope Ryan Cooper is wrong:

In 2019, there is certain to be a strong push from D.C. centrists — who would strongly prefer pretending everything is fine to actually making it so — to not fuss too much over Trump. They will demand bipartisan compromise, moderation for its own sake, and austerity programs to cut the budget deficit (especially cuts to Medicare and Social Security).”

Speaking of moderation for its own sake, former NY Congressman Steve Israel was on Chris Matthews and all he kept saying was ‘We don’t want to spend the next two years on nothing but impeachment we have to talk about issues important to people’s lives…’

UPDATE: I do agree with this post Israel wrote on Pelosi-there’s no good reason to get rid of her. 

What I gets my goat is when Democrats and liberals absorb GOP hatred of her-it’s as if because Republicans say all these nasty things about her we should get rid of her and find a Dem Speaker the GOP will approve of…

My issue with Pelosi hatred is the same as with Hillary hatred-so much of it is based on sexism and simply people hating someone because the GOP tells them to hate them. The level of impressionability of so many people is appalling.

As if democratic legitimacy doesn’t matter to people’s lives. I fully agree on the importance of a livable wage and universal healthcare but legitimacy matters just as much, indeed, it’s primary-if we don’t have democratic legitimacy what do we have? The German economy was very healthy in the Hitler years.

You could see Israel’s worry about some  imagined independent swing voters getting mad at the Dems for overreach. But in fact if you want to talk about independents, at voters who don’t always vote Democratic, listen to what Sumner says:

I voted for a left wing Democrat in CA-45 district, who appears to have lost.  But I’m fine with that, as I only voted for her to get a House that would investigate Trump—the only issue that mattered to me.   I don’t like the idea of a President who is above the law, as has been the case since Trump took office.  I recall how the GOP was willing to hold Nixon to account back in 1974, and am disgusted by the spinelessness of the modern GOP.”

There are many independent, or even GOP leaning voters who voted Democrat this time because of the need for a check on Trump.

If the Dems flake out on this-like Jeff Flake-then they will squander all this good will just like they did in 2009.

And let’s be clear: there’s not going to be much actual legislating done in the next few years. Evidently some seem to have visions of Pelosi, McConnell and Trump doing all these great infrastructure projects dancing in their heads.

Look if Trump really wants to do infrastructure-and his idea of infrastructure is really the same idea of infrastructure as the Democrats, which I tend to doubt-then by all means let’s do it. Trump did talk about doing an infrastructure project during the campaign but when he actually introduced something it was clearly not what progressives mean when they talk about infrastructure-it was actually a privatization scheme. 

Indeed, another canard you hear is Trump’s ‘the great dealmaker’ and that he ‘doesn’t really care if he deals with Democrats or Republicans.’ This just shows how so many are still after all this willing to believe what a pathological liar like Trump says over their own lying eyes.

It again demonstrates the simple brilliance of Maddow’s position: don’t believe what he says believe what he does.’

A surprising number of people in the MSM and even among Democrats still seem to put a lot of stock in what he says.

If you examine the actual record of the last two years there’s zero evidence of him being anything like a ‘great dealmaker’ and work with Democrats?! He’s been the most partisan GOP Administration in 100 years. George W. Bush did a few deals with Democrats-most notably No Child Left Behind, Trump has done nothing. He clumsily blew up a potential immigration deal between Dems and GOPers-though you can be skeptical it would have amounted to much.

And, of course, it makes a huge difference to Trump if it’s a GOP or Dem House as the GOP has protected him from Russia for two years-his approval rating would be more like 22% today rather than 42% if not for the way the GOP has shielded him from any public scrutiny-a big part of this was simply refusing to allow their House Russia investigation-meager as it was-to have any public hearings.

I discussed a common canard about Trump, a zombie idea that still won’t die, that he’s been a Democrat for most of his life in (Chapter C), I explained that his real ability is that of an agent provocateur able to create the perception of being ‘a Democrat for most of his life’ or ‘a different type of Republican’ even though nothing is further from the truth.

Similarly there’s no evidence that he’s any sort of ‘deal maker’ either. In two years with total GOP control of Congress he, McConnell and Ryan were able to pass exactly one piece of meaningful legislation-the huge tax cut for the rich and the corporations-they failed three times to end Obamacare but they actually succeeded in sneaking in the end of the mandate into the fake tax reform bill.

So that’s his one ‘deal’ in two years and neither he nor his party mentioned it at all during the just completed elections-it was that popular. 

So the Democrats really need to be a little realistic about ‘getting things done’ so far as legislation is concerned. You have to remember that the entire ideology of the GOP is that ‘the government which governs best governs least.’ The Dems in the House will no doubt pass some great progressive legislation but we’ll see how much of it gets to Trump’s desk-alas.

As-rightly-cynical as I am about McConnell and friends I had thought that one area where maybe he and Pelosi could work was immigration reform-after all his GOP Senate did pass the Dream Act in 2014-which was then tabled by the GOP House. In theory if he passed it then he must believe in it and why would he then not be willing to pass it again? The answer to that is contained in remembering what a cynical GOP partisan McConnell actually is.

This is the guy who refused to work with Obama in fighting the worst recession since the Great Depression in 1933 reasoning that while this might drag it out and deepen it, Obama would get the blame not the GOP Congress as he was the President-and Green Lantern Theory was that if the GOP didn’t work with him it was Obama’s fault for not having enough will-rather than the fact the GOP had resolved not to work with Obama no matter what.

In 2011 he would say that the debt ceiling turned out to be a hostage worth taking-even if it damaged our credit rating. We know what he did-or didn’t do-regarding Merrick Garland in 2016-yet in 2018 he got all indignant about process in the Kavanaugh confirmation and the media didn’t throw back his refusal to give Garland a hearing in 2016 in his face. Then in the 2016 election he took partisanship over any other interest to the extreme in refusing to put out a joint statement at the request of the intelligence community about Russian interference-neither for that matter did James Comey.

So neither the worst recession since 1933 or the integrity of our election process and our national security were enough to make McConnell put the country before his own partisan ambitions and laser focus on ideological wins.

Despite all that I had thought maybe he’d support immigration reform-after all he did in 2014. But it doesn’t sound very promising based on what he said the day after the elections. Why? My guess is that he knows Trump’s not interested and he and his Senate are more beholden and in Trump’s pocket than ever-Trump even raised the idea in his meltdown presser after the election that the GOP Senate would investigate the House Dems if they investigated Trump-ie, provided oversight of Trump and checks and balances.

Listen I’m not at all saying the Dems shouldn’t take a deal with Trump if one is on offer but let’s not come into this overly optimistic-there is very little in terms of what he’s done in two years that gives you much hope of that. The Dems certainly can pass legislation in the House that won’t necessarily go anywhere with McConnell but highlights the Democrats as the party of ideas-and good ones like that-like healthcare, raising wages, the environment, banking reform, etc-while highlighting the contrast with the do nothing GOP.[1]

UPDATE: In theory there’s no reason the Dems and Trump can’t work on deals on common areas of agreement-presuming rather optimistically there are these areas like with ‘infrastructure’-I give it scare quotes as I’m skeptical they even agree on what infrastructure is. That’s actually what Bill Clinton did-he and the Congressional GOPers did a lot of deals together-the famous ‘triangulation’ though he did a lot more compromising than they did.

They put these deals together even as the GOP was running their fishing expedition to destroy him and eventually they did impeach him. But Clinton maintained a kind of Chinese wall between the impeachment stuff and everyday legislation matters. Trump has already declared that if the Democrats investiate him-ie do their jobs of oversight and checks and balances-it will be nothing but ‘a war footing.’

The UPDATE could maybe go in a footnote if I figure out how that works…

But highlighting policy differences will be only half their role. And don’t expect too much actual legislation

Of course, you shouldn’t underestimate the importance of being able to veto bad GOP legislation. 

o now what? What can a newly empowered Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic House do to harness that backlash? How, in short, can The Resistance go from the streets and the ballot box to the halls of Congress?

Let’s get one thing out of the way immediately: It won’t come primarily in the form of passing legislation. Indeed, even the supposedly “unified” Republican government of the past two years has produced almost no legislation of note beyond a large tax cut. The one type of legislation that has moved through the current Congress (mostly) has been appropriations bills (and their uglier cousin, the continuing resolution). In the next Congress, Democratic policies will surely find their way into appropriations bills, although that would be more a continuation of the past two years than a break with it. And while there’s always the remote possibility of a grand bargain over infrastructure, we probably shouldn’t be any more sanguine about the next two years of Infrastructure Week than we’ve been about the past two.

But when it comes to actually checking a president, legislation is generally a dead end, for the simple reason that presidents can always wield the veto pen, and the supermajorities needed to override a veto (two-thirds in both houses) are nearly impossible to assemble.

But Congress, as I argued in some detail in a book published last year, has a lot of tools beyond simply legislating, and many of those tools are available to a single house, acting alone. Some of them are even available to individual members. Importantly, these things are largely geared toward making a case for 2020, rather than enacting substantial change right now.

One important source of power will come via oversight. Democrats will now hold the gavels in all committees in the House, which means they will set committee agendas and control the subpoena. With Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) taking over the Intelligence Committee chair from Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), we can certainly expect the committee to reopen and reinvigorate its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, with a special focus on whether the Trump campaign colluded or the Trump administration tried to cover it up. With Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) set to take the gavel of the Oversight Committee, we can expect deep dives into everything from how the White House has handled security clearances to alleged venality by various current and former administration officials. And with Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) set to lead the Judiciary Committee, impeachment proceedings—whether against the president or others around him—remain a live possibility.

All of these Democratic-led committees will have the power to subpoena people and documents (including, for example, tax returns) in aid of their investigations. (And, indeed, individual members, taking advantage of their immunity under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, can read any document they want into the public record, subject to discipline meted out only by their own chamber.) House committees will also have the power to report out a contempt resolution (subject to a vote by the full House) if the targets of subpoenas resist complying. If the defiance continues, the House could turn to the courts—where it would face interminable delays and the possibility of at least partial defeat—or, more promisingly, it could turn to other congressional tools, like the power of the purse. A threat to zero out some item that the administration cares about has a way of bringing people to the table.

Crucially, the most important way that all of these mechanisms work is through their publicity.

Vitally important point. I’ve argued in this book that Trump’s numbers are in the low 40s rather than the low 20s because the GOP refused to hold what inadquate hearings they did on Russia in public thereby sparing him the political pain and embarrassment. This is why Al Hunt’s ‘solution’ that the Dems acquire Trump’s tax returns but continue to spare him publicity is so outrageous. The public has a right to know.

This is why the public hearings are so important.

Yes, of course, the Dems have to act in ways that keep their eyes on the main prize-a Democratic President in 2020.

Expect House Democrats to pursue a singular goal: laying the groundwork to oust Trump in 2020.”

But there is irony for folks like Al Hunt-or Karen Tumulty warning the Democrats not to go all Benghazi like the GOP.  As big a canard and waste of public funds as that was it worked. It begun a process of dirtying Clinton up politically-remember Emailgate derived from Benghazi.

It’s true the GOP overreached on Bill Clinton-they lost 5 seats in 1998. But even there, they were able to sully Bill Clinton’s reputation in a way that has never been repaired-which is too bad as he’s a good man and a great public servant. But simply by impeaching him-even while so clearly politically motivated has damaged his reputation, put a kind of scarlet ‘I’ on his forehead forever.

Of course, in a way that’s ironic too. One fairytale you hear from the Chuck Todds of the world is that the GOP Congress has protected Trump from accountability-which is correct-just like the Democrats protected Bill Clinton in 1998 which is not correct.

Actually a lot of Congressional Dems in 1998 thought Clinton should resign but it turned out that the Democratic voters didn’t want him to-I certainly didn’t.

By the way for folks like Matt Yglesias who are still beating up on Bill Clinton today, still demanding he somehow retroactively resign why isn’t he demanding Trump resign today, why not demand Brett Kavanaugh resign today? All those folks acting like they care so much about sexual assault survivors why aren’t they demanding Trump/Kavanaugh-and for that matter Clarence Thomas-resign today? Because they don’t care about sexual assault survivors they just hate the Clintons.

So we’re in this ironic place where the Democrats where more willing to talk about Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 than Trump’s impeachment in 2018. How does Chuck Todd explain that?

All of this gives credence to the theory that the Democratic party is the ‘girl’ in US politics-expected to be tough only on herself but still believe or at least eternally hope for the best in their GOP brothers.

Ok. In any case Elijah Cummings was on Maddow last night. I liked what he said and how he said it. His whole demeanor was right. Everything he said and how he said it seemed to show he gets it. He will likely head the Oversight Committee in January. He told Rachel that ‘What we want to do, what the public is demanding we do, is provide real oversight and a check on this President.’

Yes, that is the Dems mandate. We voters didn’t send them there only to point out the obvious-that the GOP wants to take our healthcare and doesn’t care about low wages. We need a return to real oversight.

I feel a lot more confident after seeing his performance.

The fierce urgency of now-a battle for the soul of democracy. I certainly feel pretty good after Adam Schiff’s words as well:

He gets the awesome the country has put in his and his fellow Democrats hands.

After eight years in the wilderness the country is again putting its faith in the Democrats and our party much answer the call.

People are engaged and demanding it. Yesterday saw huge protests across the country to #ProtectMueller-which was the number hashtag on Twitter.

UPDATE: Liz Holtzman who was there for the first Watergate points out that many of even the Democrats-who were from the South and liked Nixon didn’t want to investigate but Americans made them. This is the importance of the protests across the country to protect Mueller

I don’t really know how you ‘overreach’ in terms of oversight of a ‘President’ who’s accused of colluding with a hostile foreign power. Is it possible that some of the #Resistance in Vichy France went too far in opposing Hitler?

The danger is underreach based on the pious and false idea that independents in the Midwest want to see Trump treated gently.

Dems should understand the wishes of those who sent the to Washington-hint it’s not to see them ‘get along with President Trump.’

As noted in (Chapter B) while it seems that many of the ‘rockstars’ lost on November 6-though not so fast as Gillum and Stacey Abrams are still in a recount as is Bill Nelson; and the Dem majority keeps expanding in the House, it may end up close to 40 now and maybe the GOP is only going to get 1 to 2 seats in the Senate after all-the true rockstars going forward will be Schiff, Nadler, Cummings, Maxine Waters, and Pelosi.

Those who we have selected for the frontlines of the fight for the soul of America, to begin the fight to #MakeAmericaLegitimateAgain.

 

  1. In theory there's no reason the Dems and Trump can't work on deals on common areas of agreement-presuming rather optimistically there are these areas like with 'infrastructure'-I give it scare quotes as I'm skeptical they even agree on what infrastructure is. That's actually what Bill Clinton did-he and the Congressional GOPers did a lot of deals together-the famous 'triangulation' though he did a lot more compromising than they did. ↵

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book