washingtonmonthly--2020-01-30--Senators Are About to Cast the Most Important Votes of Their Careers

Members of the Senate are about to cast the two most important votes of their political careers .
The first , whether to call witnesses like John Bolton to testify in the Senate trial , will come on Friday .
As I noted previously , Republicans have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place on this vote by defending the most corrupt president in our country ’ s history .
If they vote to call witnesses , they not only make it more difficult to exonerate Trump , they open the door to forcing other members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they vote to exclude witnesses , they face the very real possibility of having exonerated the president as more damning evidence surfaces in the lead-up to the 2020 election .
When evaluating these options , several of the Republicans who are up for re-election in November have come down on the side of excluding witnesses .
These Republicans know that voting to exclude witnesses could hurt them with some voters in the swing states they represent .
But voting to hear from people like John Bolton ensures their defeat , as Carl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about whether to call witnesses will soon be eclipsed by a vote on whether or not to remove Trump from office .
The connection between the two , however , is obvious .
The senators who will say “ no ” to witnesses want to exonerate the president as quickly as possible .
They will then face voters in nine months and learn whether or not that was enough to keep them in office .
But as Ryan Goodman points out , that isn ’ t the end of it .
Whether they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these votes will determine their legacy .
Goodman reviewed the obituaries of the seventeen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who voted on the impeachment articles brought against Richard Nixon .
Regardless of whether the congressmen voted for or against the articles of impeachment , their legacies were largely defined by this one moment .
So much so that newspapers titled their obituaries with reference to this vote : “ Wiley Mayne ; House GOP Member Who Voted Not to Impeach Nixon ” “ Lawrence J. Hogan Sr. , Md .
Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dies at 88 ” “ Thomas Railsback , Congressman Who Broke with GOP to Back Nixon Impeachment , Dies.
” Goodman also points out that , “ if the reference is not made in the obituary ’ s headline , it still appears as a central point in the narrative of their lives as that single decision affected the course of history.
” The people who will write that history have already weighed in .
Over 2,000 historians signed onto a statement saying : “ President Trump ’ s numerous and flagrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president .
Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine.
” The statement goes on to say , “ It is our considered judgment that if President Trump ’ s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment , then virtually nothing does.
” In other words , no matter what these Republican Senators have accomplished in their political careers , they will be remembered for these votes that “ affected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be tied to the catastrophic effects of a Trump presidency .

Members of the Senate are about to cast the two most important votes of their political careers. The first, whether to call witnesses like John Bolton to testify in the Senate trial, will come on Friday.
As I noted previously, Republicans have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place on this vote by defending the most corrupt president in our country’s history. If they vote to call witnesses, they not only make it more difficult to exonerate Trump, they open the door to forcing other members of the administration to testify under oath. But if they vote to exclude witnesses, they face the very real possibility of having exonerated the president as more damning evidence surfaces in the lead-up to the 2020 election.
When evaluating these options, several of the Republicans who are up for re-election in November have come down on the side of excluding witnesses.
Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, addressed their colleagues in the meeting, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Gardner said a longer trial would lead to more Democratic attacks, according to a spokesman, and Mr. Tillis called impeachment a sham.
These Republicans know that voting to exclude witnesses could hurt them with some voters in the swing states they represent. But voting to hear from people like John Bolton ensures their defeat, as Carl Hulse explains.
Nearly all of the politically vulnerable Senate Republicans up for re-election in November have embraced their party’s strategy. They have made it clear that they favor taking their chances defending their votes against witnesses over trying to explain to voters loyal to Mr. Trump why they backed broadening an investigation into a president who is very popular with the Republican electorate.
The vote on Friday about whether to call witnesses will soon be eclipsed by a vote on whether or not to remove Trump from office. The connection between the two, however, is obvious. The senators who will say “no” to witnesses want to exonerate the president as quickly as possible. They will then face voters in nine months and learn whether or not that was enough to keep them in office.
But as Ryan Goodman points out, that isn’t the end of it. Whether they win or lose their bid for re-election, these votes will determine their legacy. Goodman reviewed the obituaries of the seventeen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who voted on the impeachment articles brought against Richard Nixon.
Regardless of whether the congressmen voted for or against the articles of impeachment, their legacies were largely defined by this one moment. So much so that newspapers titled their obituaries with reference to this vote: “Former Rep. Joseph Maraziti, 78, Defender of Nixon on Watergate” “Wiley Mayne; House GOP Member Who Voted Not to Impeach Nixon” “Sandman, Nixon Supporter, Dies” “Lawrence J. Hogan Sr., Md. Republican Who Called for Nixon’s impeachment, Dies at 88” “M. Caldwell Butler, a Key Vote Against Nixon, Dies at 89” “R. McClory; Backed Nixon’s Impeachment” “Thomas Railsback, Congressman Who Broke with GOP to Back Nixon Impeachment, Dies.” “Charles Wiggins, 72, Dies; Led Nixon’s Defense in Hearings”
Goodman also points out that, “if the reference is not made in the obituary’s headline, it still appears as a central point in the narrative of their lives as that single decision affected the course of history.”
The people who will write that history have already weighed in.
Over 2,000 historians signed onto a statement saying: “President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine.” The statement goes on to say, “It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.”
In other words, no matter what these Republican Senators have accomplished in their political careers, they will be remembered for these votes that “affected the course of history.” They will forever be tied to the catastrophic effects of a Trump presidency.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-05--The Trump Campaign Signaled That They Will Cheat in the 2020 Election

Given what we ’ ve already seen from Donald Trump , I don ’ t think it is possible to fathom the depths to which he will go to cheat in the 2020 election .
That isn ’ t simply because , by exonerating him , Senate Republicans will give him carte blanche to do as he will .
It also has a lot to do with what Yoni Appelbaum wrote .
[ Conservatives ] are losing faith that they can win elections in the future .
With this come dark possibilities…When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow , it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost .
We ’ ve already seen that Trump has been willing to : • At minimum , welcome Russian interference in the 2016 election , • Extort Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election , • Publicly state that he would be willing to take information from a foreign government that damaged his opponent , and • Smear his most likely opponent in 2020 , Joe Biden .
A few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prediction on Twitter that I was willing to bet would prove to be true .
This is an obvious prediction , but I want to get it on record .
The GOP just released Trump from any accountability for trying to cheat in the upcoming election .
That ’ s one sign of many that they are going to try to rig the election , in a range of illegal & semi-legal ways .
Now , what do we know about the reactionary mind ?
When it is contemplating or planning some offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents are *already doing* whatever the offense is—so that it has “ no choice ” but to do it too .
Projection .
Predictable as clockwork .
Put 1 & 2 together & you get my prediction : starting pretty soon , conservatives are going to start accusing Dems of cheating & election fraud .
They might find some half- or quasi-truth to hang it on , but that ’ s not necessary .
The bubble can just invent stuff these days .
They are going to start these accusations early & aggressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when Dems start pointing out *actual* examples of cheating & election fraud , cons will say they ’ re just doing it in response , trying to wriggle out of something .
And more importantly , putting accusations in the air early means that when their own cheating & fraud are pointed out , the media will cover it as a “ both sides are accusing each other of cheating , isn ’ t partisanship terrible ” story .
Even as Roberts was composing that thread , the first half of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , president of the conservative activist group Judicial Watch , wrote Sunday morning that “ eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register.
” That notion , based on a Judicial Watch report purporting to find similar irregularities in hundreds of counties across the country , is false , according to state officials and a Washington Post review of the most up-to-date data .
The lie , however , continued to spread .
The debacle of the Iowa caucuses was just the spark the Trump campaign was looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t waste a minute in running with it .
Of course , Republican members of Congress also got in on the action .
The table has now been set for Trump to engage in election fraud and , if caught , rely on the media to respond with “ both sides do it.
” Mark my words , that is the minimum of what we can expect .

Given what we’ve already seen from Donald Trump, I don’t think it is possible to fathom the depths to which he will go to cheat in the 2020 election. That isn’t simply because, by exonerating him, Senate Republicans will give him carte blanche to do as he will. It also has a lot to do with what Yoni Appelbaum wrote.
[Conservatives] are losing faith that they can win elections in the future. With this come dark possibilities…When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost.
We’ve already seen that Trump has been willing to:
At minimum, welcome Russian interference in the 2016 election, Extort Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election, Publicly state that he would be willing to take information from a foreign government that damaged his opponent, and Smear his most likely opponent in 2020, Joe Biden.
A few days ago, David Roberts made a prediction on Twitter that I was willing to bet would prove to be true.
This is an obvious prediction, but I want to get it on record. The GOP just released Trump from any accountability for trying to cheat in the upcoming election. That’s one sign of many that they are going to try to rig the election, in a range of illegal & semi-legal ways. Now, what do we know about the reactionary mind? When it is contemplating or planning some offense, it must convince itself that its opponents are *already doing* whatever the offense is—so that it has “no choice” but to do it too. Projection. Predictable as clockwork. Put 1 & 2 together & you get my prediction: starting pretty soon, conservatives are going to start accusing Dems of cheating & election fraud. They might find some half- or quasi-truth to hang it on, but that’s not necessary. The bubble can just invent stuff these days. They are going to start these accusations early & aggressively, which offers two advantages. First, when Dems start pointing out *actual* examples of cheating & election fraud, cons will say they’re just doing it in response, trying to wriggle out of something. And more importantly, putting accusations in the air early means that when their own cheating & fraud are pointed out, the media will cover it as a “both sides are accusing each other of cheating, isn’t partisanship terrible” story.
Even as Roberts was composing that thread, the first half of his prediction was coming true.
Tom Fitton, president of the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, wrote Sunday morning that “eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register.” That notion, based on a Judicial Watch report purporting to find similar irregularities in hundreds of counties across the country, is false, according to state officials and a Washington Post review of the most up-to-date data.
The lie, however, continued to spread.
The debacle of the Iowa caucuses was just the spark the Trump campaign was looking for. His campaign manager and sons didn’t waste a minute in running with it.
Of course, Republican members of Congress also got in on the action.
The table has now been set for Trump to engage in election fraud and, if caught, rely on the media to respond with “both sides do it.” Mark my words, that is the minimum of what we can expect.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-05--Donald Trump’s Economic Record Isn’t What He Says It Is

Donald Trump has been on a mission this week to distract from his impeachment by touting his administration ’ s economic record .
First , he launched a 30-second ad after the Super Bowl promising that “ the best is yet to come.
” Then , in his State of the Union address Tuesday night , Trump highlighted the “ American Comeback.
” The speech was full of audacious—and characteristically inaccurate—claims : “ our economy is the best it has ever been ” ; the “ average unemployment rate … is lower than any administration in the history of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising fast.
” The reality , however , doesn ’ t match Trump ’ s rhetoric .
In fact , it would take much longer than a 30-second commercial to highlight the many ways that the U.S. economy isn ’ t working for all .
Still , the moment provides an opening for Democratic presidential candidates to challenge the president ’ s record .
In 2019 , for instance , the gap between the richest and poorest households in the United States reached its highest point in more than 50 years .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to climb following years of declines since the passage and implementation of Obamacare .
And household debt is now in excess of $ 14 trillion , exceeding the pre-recession high .
Even with low unemployment , wage growth is lagging .
The most recent employment report reported wages increasing by just 2.9 percent over the last year .
With inflation at 2.1 percent , that ’ s not much of a pay raise .
To the extent that wage growth has picked up in recent months , a major contributor has been increases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans and the president opposed .
Trump ’ s signature legislative accomplishment , the 2017 tax cut , has produced none of its promised benefits , including the $ 4,000 pay raise that he and his allies promised to American workers .
In fact , as a result of the tax cut , 91 companies in the Fortune 500 paid no federal taxes last year .
The country ’ s six biggest banks saved $ 32 billion at the same time that they laid off more than 1,000 employees .
The tax cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four , five and even six percent ” economic growth that Trump promised .
In the fourth quarter of 2019 , the GDP growth of 2.1 percent was lower than both the growth rate before the tax cut was passed in 2017 and the average of Obama ’ s second term ( 2.4 percent ) .
Instead , the tax cuts have produced annual budget deficits of $ 1 trillion , which Trump has signaled may lead to cuts in Social Security and Medicare , in addition to his ongoing efforts to erode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite the President ’ s pledge to help the “ forgotten men and women , ” blue-collar job growth—which includes construction , manufacturing , and mining—remains anemic , only growing at 0.8 percent in 2019 compared to 2 percent in Obama ’ s final term .
What ’ s more , the ongoing trade war plunged the manufacturing sector into recession last year , which has stunted economic growth in states like Wisconsin and Michigan .
Tensions with China produced a 24 percent increase in farm bankruptcies last year , with the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office estimated recently that Trump ’ s trade policies will cost American households an average of $ 1,277 this year .
Worse yet , employers reported the highest number of layoffs in four years .
For workers who are able to find new jobs , data shows they earn about 10 percent less than before .
That gap is even greater for workers who were at the same job for three years or more .
But while the economic reality under Trump is troubling for most Americans overall , it ’ s even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an unemployment rate almost twice as high as white workers .
Displaced African Americans earn 13 percent less in their new jobs .
Those who were employed for three or more years earned 31 percent less in their new jobs .
Despite the headlines , too many workers are not feeling the economic boom Trump describes .
Instead of making investments to provide Americans with the world-class education and training needed for 21st-century jobs , the president and the Republican Congress chose stock buybacks to benefit the wealthy and a temporary sugar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worn off .
Democrats can and should challenge Trump on the economy in 2020 .
Millions of workers are looking for good jobs and a pay raise .
Policies to build an economy for all should be central to any campaign ’ s message .
But it ’ s more than just good politics .
Building an economy that works for the 90 percent instead of just the top 10 percent is sound economic policy .

Donald Trump has been on a mission this week to distract from his impeachment by touting his administration’s economic record. First, he launched a 30-second ad after the Super Bowl promising that “the best is yet to come.” Then, in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump highlighted the “American Comeback.” The speech was full of audacious—and characteristically inaccurate—claims: “our economy is the best it has ever been”; the “average unemployment rate … is lower than any administration in the history of our country”; and “wages are rising fast.”
The reality, however, doesn’t match Trump’s rhetoric. In fact, it would take much longer than a 30-second commercial to highlight the many ways that the U.S. economy isn’t working for all. Still, the moment provides an opening for Democratic presidential candidates to challenge the president’s record.
In 2019, for instance, the gap between the richest and poorest households in the United States reached its highest point in more than 50 years. The number of Americans without health insurance continues to climb following years of declines since the passage and implementation of Obamacare. And household debt is now in excess of $14 trillion, exceeding the pre-recession high.
Even with low unemployment, wage growth is lagging. The most recent employment report reported wages increasing by just 2.9 percent over the last year. With inflation at 2.1 percent, that’s not much of a pay raise. To the extent that wage growth has picked up in recent months, a major contributor has been increases in state and local minimum wages that Republicans and the president opposed.
Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment, the 2017 tax cut, has produced none of its promised benefits, including the $4,000 pay raise that he and his allies promised to American workers. In fact, as a result of the tax cut, 91 companies in the Fortune 500 paid no federal taxes last year. The country’s six biggest banks saved $32 billion at the same time that they laid off more than 1,000 employees.
The tax cut has also failed to produce the “four, five and even six percent” economic growth that Trump promised. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the GDP growth of 2.1 percent was lower than both the growth rate before the tax cut was passed in 2017 and the average of Obama’s second term (2.4 percent). Instead, the tax cuts have produced annual budget deficits of $1 trillion, which Trump has signaled may lead to cuts in Social Security and Medicare, in addition to his ongoing efforts to erode the social safety net.
Ironically, despite the president’s pledge to help the “forgotten men and women,” blue-collar job growth—which includes construction, manufacturing, and mining—remains anemic, only growing at 0.8 percent in 2019 compared to 2 percent in Obama’s final term.
What’s more, the ongoing trade war plunged the manufacturing sector into recession last year, which has stunted economic growth in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Tensions with China produced a 24 percent increase in farm bankruptcies last year, with the most coming from Wisconsin. The Congressional Budget Office estimated recently that Trump’s trade policies will cost American households an average of $1,277 this year.
Worse yet, employers reported the highest number of layoffs in four years. For workers who are able to find new jobs, data shows they earn about 10 percent less than before. That gap is even greater for workers who were at the same job for three years or more.
But while the economic reality under Trump is troubling for most Americans overall, it’s even more daunting for African-American workers, who have an unemployment rate almost twice as high as white workers. Displaced African Americans earn 13 percent less in their new jobs. Those who were employed for three or more years earned 31 percent less in their new jobs.
Despite the headlines, too many workers are not feeling the economic boom Trump describes. Instead of making investments to provide Americans with the world-class education and training needed for 21st-century jobs, the president and the Republican Congress chose stock buybacks to benefit the wealthy and a temporary sugar high for the economy that has now worn off.
Democrats can and should challenge Trump on the economy in 2020. Millions of workers are looking for good jobs and a pay raise. Policies to build an economy for all should be central to any campaign’s message. But it’s more than just good politics. Building an economy that works for the 90 percent instead of just the top 10 percent is sound economic policy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-05--The Civil Response Is to Call Out Fascism

For all of us who were literally sickened by the pandering and lies in Trump ’ s State of the Union speech , Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke for us .
While right-wing media outlets ran with the moment , calling Pelosi ’ s behavior “ shameful , ” it is interesting to note that the usual civility scolds were silent about it .
When Pelosi ripped up Trump ’ s speech , I don ’ t think it was simply a response to the lies and distortions he had just uttered .
The specter of Senate Republicans refusing to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by their determination to acquit Trump for abusing his power—even as they admit that he is guilty—has irrevocably broken something in our politics .
Of course , Donald Trump has been hammering away at that for years now , with his bullying attacks on anyone he deems to be a threat .
But it is now clear that the entire Republican Party is not simply willing to embrace his lies : they ’ re doing so shamelessly .
Moreover , their actions pose a threat to our democracy .
To understand how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a look at how a nonpartisan reporter like Jill Lawrence responded to the news about their refusal to hold Trump accountable .
She begins by writing about her interactions in the past with Republicans like Lamar Alexander , Lindsey Graham , Marco Rubio , and Susan Collins .
She doesn ’ t recognize them now .
These politicians are now strangers to me .
Their whole party is untethered — not just from reality and its own history , but also from the Constitution itself… After this , there will be no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that relies on the “ original intent ” of the Constitution… For the 40 years I have written about politics , there has been something to like or respect about nearly every politician I ’ ve encountered .
Even when I passionately disagreed with someone on tax or gun or war policy , there was always at least one thing : They welcomed immigrants , wanted to save the planet or were willing to defy elements of their own party to seek a “ grand bargain ” on taxes and spending .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in disgrace , but not before creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration .
Lately , the Founders have also been top of mind .
Many of the most prominent owned slaves , and it ’ s hard to get past that , even considering their times .
But they also laid what they hoped was a permanent foundation for an aspirational nation striving toward its ideals .
They clearly anticipated and feared someone like Trump , and tried to give us the remedies and protections we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let ’ s hope the union the framers envisioned doesn ’ t fail , as well .
The reason why Pelosi spoke for so many of us and silenced the civility police was captured by this gif that symbolized what she did .
Right now , due to the fact that Republicans refuse to hold the president accountable , our country is teetering on the edge of fascism .
Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “ a political philosophy , movement , or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headed by a dictatorial leader.
” The civil response is to call that out .

For all of us who were literally sickened by the pandering and lies in Trump’s State of the Union speech, Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke for us.
While right-wing media outlets ran with the moment, calling Pelosi’s behavior “shameful,” it is interesting to note that the usual civility scolds were silent about it.
When Pelosi ripped up Trump’s speech, I don’t think it was simply a response to the lies and distortions he had just uttered. The specter of Senate Republicans refusing to call witnesses in the impeachment trial, followed by their determination to acquit Trump for abusing his power—even as they admit that he is guilty—has irrevocably broken something in our politics.
Of course, Donald Trump has been hammering away at that for years now, with his bullying attacks on anyone he deems to be a threat. But it is now clear that the entire Republican Party is not simply willing to embrace his lies: they’re doing so shamelessly. Moreover, their actions pose a threat to our democracy.
To understand how the Republican Party has broken our politics, take a look at how a nonpartisan reporter like Jill Lawrence responded to the news about their refusal to hold Trump accountable. She begins by writing about her interactions in the past with Republicans like Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Susan Collins. She doesn’t recognize them now.
These politicians are now strangers to me. Their whole party is untethered — not just from reality and its own history, but also from the Constitution itself… After this, there will be no way to take seriously any GOP argument that relies on the “original intent” of the Constitution… For the 40 years I have written about politics, there has been something to like or respect about nearly every politician I’ve encountered. Even when I passionately disagreed with someone on tax or gun or war policy, there was always at least one thing: They welcomed immigrants, wanted to save the planet or were willing to defy elements of their own party to seek a “grand bargain” on taxes and spending. Maybe they were dishonest and had to resign in disgrace, but not before creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Lately, the Founders have also been top of mind. Many of the most prominent owned slaves, and it’s hard to get past that, even considering their times. But they also laid what they hoped was a permanent foundation for an aspirational nation striving toward its ideals. They clearly anticipated and feared someone like Trump, and tried to give us the remedies and protections we’d need. Those safeguards have failed. Let’s hope the union the framers envisioned doesn’t fail, as well.
The reason why Pelosi spoke for so many of us and silenced the civility police was captured by this gif that symbolized what she did.
https://twitter.com/ag_due/status/1224902358657912832
Right now, due to the fact that Republicans refuse to hold the president accountable, our country is teetering on the edge of fascism. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.” The civil response is to call that out.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-05--Nancy Pelosi Speaks for Me

Nancy Pelosi Speaks for Me

I have a confession to make .
I didn ’ t turn my television off last night when my wife and I left the house to pick our son up from chess club .
It ’ s only a ten-minute roundtrip ride , but still .
When we returned , the State of the Union speech was just about to begin , and I announced that I was not watching that [ expletive ] .
I ’ d spent all day focused on politics , and I had had enough .
But she declared that she wanted to see at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I went to bed .
But it turned out only to be a catnap , and when I arose Governor Gretchen Whitmer was concluding the Democratic response .
It was only later that I discovered that I had missed this : Speaker Pelosi later explained to reporters that she tore up the speech because it was a “ manifesto of mistruths.
” At that moment , it seemed that Pelosi and I were on the same page .
The panelists on MSNBC seemed worried that the speech had been an effective bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluded that Trump hadn ’ t been booed by his own party or discovered that his teleprompter wasn ’ t working .
Did I want to know more ?
Was I interested in what proposals he was offering or what kind of lies that he told ?
Pelosi ’ s action basically decided that for me .
There was nothing of merit in the speech .
If I had wanted to assess how effective I thought the show had been in misleading the nation , I would have watched it myself .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mistruths and that it would enrage me .
Pelosi confirmed this .
Meanwhile , I learned that Trump had been greeted by the Republicans with chants of “ Four more years !
” as if they aren ’ t in the process of acquitting the man for manifestly impeachable offenses .
Should they censure him rather than remove him from office , and some have recommended ?
And , yet , here I am , the next morning , back with my nose to the grindstone , trying to write intelligently about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this has been an unremitting drag .
I ’ m not surprised that Democratic participation in the Iowa caucuses was less than inspiring .
As desperate as all decent people are to be rid of Donald Trump and his political movement , the more powerful impulse is sometimes just to climb in bed and pretend none of this is happening .
If only for a moment .

I have a confession to make. I didn’t turn my television off last night when my wife and I left the house to pick our son up from chess club. It’s only a ten-minute roundtrip ride, but still. When we returned, the State of the Union speech was just about to begin, and I announced that I was not watching that [expletive]. I’d spent all day focused on politics, and I had had enough. But she declared that she wanted to see at least a little bit of it, so I went to bed.
But it turned out only to be a catnap, and when I arose Governor Gretchen Whitmer was concluding the Democratic response. It was only later that I discovered that I had missed this:
Speaker Pelosi later explained to reporters that she tore up the speech because it was a “manifesto of mistruths.”
At that moment, it seemed that Pelosi and I were on the same page.
The panelists on MSNBC seemed worried that the speech had been an effective bit of theater and demagoguery, so I concluded that Trump hadn’t been booed by his own party or discovered that his teleprompter wasn’t working. Did I want to know more? Was I interested in what proposals he was offering or what kind of lies that he told?
Pelosi’s action basically decided that for me. There was nothing of merit in the speech. If I had wanted to assess how effective I thought the show had been in misleading the nation, I would have watched it myself. I knew that it would be a manifesto of mistruths and that it would enrage me. Pelosi confirmed this.
Meanwhile, I learned that Trump had been greeted by the Republicans with chants of “Four more years!” as if they aren’t in the process of acquitting the man for manifestly impeachable offenses. Should they censure him rather than remove him from office, and some have recommended?
“Four more years!”
And, yet, here I am, the next morning, back with my nose to the grindstone, trying to write intelligently about the state of American politics. Lately, this has been an unremitting drag. I’m not surprised that Democratic participation in the Iowa caucuses was less than inspiring. As desperate as all decent people are to be rid of Donald Trump and his political movement, the more powerful impulse is sometimes just to climb in bed and pretend none of this is happening. If only for a moment.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-05--The Ugly History of the Super Bowl Teams’ Mascots

So let ’ s take a minute , hit the TV remote and pause the action to think about the meaning and history of this Super Bowl ’ s team names .
Most NFL and other sports teams have benevolent names and mascots : Giants , Titans , Marlins , Jets , Sox , Rays , Rockets .
Some , however , are stuck with a dehumanizing naming tradition .
Their stadiums feature tomahawk-chopping costumed fans wearing war paint and feathered headdresses .
Heated national debates about Native American mascots have occurred over many years and will continue as long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blackhawks and Chiefs .
I went to San Francisco ’ s Lowell High School , where our 60-year-old mascot , the Indian , was reluctantly changed to a Cardinal in 1983 .
I currently work at Stanford University , where the Indian was retired in 1981 and the unofficial mascot became the uncontroversial Tree .
But let ’ s face it .
It ’ s time to dump dated and demeaning symbols .
Keep any parts that might honor and elevate American Indian history and culture and use the Seminole tribe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive example of how to figure out workable solutions .
In contrast to the ongoing controversies surrounding Native American mascots , the ‘ Niners ’ mascot escapes scrutiny .
They are represented by a seemingly benign , if ornery , gold prospector in well-worn clothes .
The 19th century scruffy old coot in the turned-up hat represents the thousands upon thousands of Americans who flooded into California for the Gold Rush .
Arriving in droves in 1849 , they made up America ’ s biggest mass migration , which is why they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world flocked to California , too .
The Gold Rush also became the world ’ s most diverse migration .
Altogether , California saw 300,000 new arrivals from home and abroad during the Gold Rush .
It was a wild time , when gold fever ran hot , and gold was there for the taking in the nation ’ s westernmost and least governed territory .
Lawless , aggressive , criminal acts ruled the day .
Those heading West brought few provisions and less understanding of non-Caucasians .
Most Americans arriving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks of the American River had never before encountered Chileans , Polynesians , Australians and Russians , It was the first time they had seen a Chinese person .
In 1852 , more 20,000 Chinese came through San Francisco , a city they had called “ Gold Mountain ” in China .
By the end of the 1850s , the Chinese who crossed the Pacific to seek their fortune made up one in five people scouring California ’ s rich Sierra foothills and fabled gold fields .
Such a massive Asian presence fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new California whites wanted native Indians gone and servile Chinese .
An Indian genocide that began in other parts of America followed the populations rapidly flowing West .
In the end , Native Americans were decimated .
As the San Francisco Bulletin newspaper put it at the time : “ It is a painful necessity of advancing civilization that the Indians should gradually disappear.
” And they nearly did .
By the turn of the century , a population of tribal California natives went from 300,000 down to 16,000 .
The 49ers did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their tribes .
Nowadays , when we think about the original 49ers , we imagine hardscrabble , risk-taking men expressing radical individualism , showing fortitude and pluck by braving travel west across rough and dangerous territory to hunt for gold nuggets and flakes of fortune .
Today ’ s football team is named after those romanticized 49ers of yore who fought tough odds and hard conditions to survive and , just maybe , hit the jackpot .
That ’ s an acceptable image for a team mascot .
When it came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very same 49ers were often a ruthless bunch of thieves , claim jumpers , and race baiters .
Their actions and beliefs led to the near extermination of California natives and stoked support for Congressional passage of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act—which is eerily reminiscent of today ’ s Muslim ban .
Super Bowl fans can appreciate the astounding athletic prowess and power of both remarkable teams , despite the fact that their mascots are bad marketing choices .

So let’s take a minute, hit the TV remote and pause the action to think about the meaning and history of this Super Bowl’s team names.
Most NFL and other sports teams have benevolent names and mascots: Giants, Titans, Marlins, Jets, Sox, Rays, Rockets. Some, however, are stuck with a dehumanizing naming tradition. Their stadiums feature tomahawk-chopping costumed fans wearing war paint and feathered headdresses.
Heated national debates about Native American mascots have occurred over many years and will continue as long as there are Redskins, Braves, Blackhawks and Chiefs. I went to San Francisco’s Lowell High School, where our 60-year-old mascot, the Indian, was reluctantly changed to a Cardinal in 1983. I currently work at Stanford University, where the Indian was retired in 1981 and the unofficial mascot became the uncontroversial Tree.
But let’s face it. It’s time to dump dated and demeaning symbols. Keep any parts that might honor and elevate American Indian history and culture and use the Seminole tribe’s accommodation with Florida State University as a positive example of how to figure out workable solutions.
In contrast to the ongoing controversies surrounding Native American mascots, the ‘Niners’ mascot escapes scrutiny. They are represented by a seemingly benign, if ornery, gold prospector in well-worn clothes. The 19th century scruffy old coot in the turned-up hat represents the thousands upon thousands of Americans who flooded into California for the Gold Rush. Arriving in droves in 1849, they made up America’s biggest mass migration, which is why they are called 49ers.
Simultaneously, the rest of the world flocked to California, too. The Gold Rush also became the world’s most diverse migration. Altogether, California saw 300,000 new arrivals from home and abroad during the Gold Rush.
It was a wild time, when gold fever ran hot, and gold was there for the taking in the nation’s westernmost and least governed territory. Lawless, aggressive, criminal acts ruled the day. Those heading West brought few provisions and less understanding of non-Caucasians. Most Americans arriving at the mining fields and gold panning banks of the American River had never before encountered Chileans, Polynesians, Australians and Russians, It was the first time they had seen a Chinese person.
In 1852, more 20,000 Chinese came through San Francisco, a city they had called “Gold Mountain” in China. By the end of the 1850s, the Chinese who crossed the Pacific to seek their fortune made up one in five people scouring California’s rich Sierra foothills and fabled gold fields. Such a massive Asian presence fed prejudice. Racism ran rampant, and new California whites wanted native Indians gone and servile Chinese.
An Indian genocide that began in other parts of America followed the populations rapidly flowing West. In the end, Native Americans were decimated. As the San Francisco Bulletin newspaper put it at the time: “It is a painful necessity of advancing civilization that the Indians should gradually disappear.” And they nearly did. By the turn of the century, a population of tribal California natives went from 300,000 down to 16,000. The 49ers did their part to kill off Indian chiefs and their tribes.
Nowadays, when we think about the original 49ers, we imagine hardscrabble, risk-taking men expressing radical individualism, showing fortitude and pluck by braving travel west across rough and dangerous territory to hunt for gold nuggets and flakes of fortune. Today’s football team is named after those romanticized 49ers of yore who fought tough odds and hard conditions to survive and, just maybe, hit the jackpot. That’s an acceptable image for a team mascot.
When it came to Indians and Chinese, however, these very same 49ers were often a ruthless bunch of thieves, claim jumpers, and race baiters. Their actions and beliefs led to the near extermination of California natives and stoked support for Congressional passage of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act—which is eerily reminiscent of today’s Muslim ban.
Super Bowl fans can appreciate the astounding athletic prowess and power of both remarkable teams, despite the fact that their mascots are bad marketing choices.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-06--Profiles in Courage: Mitt Romney and Doug Jones

On a profoundly sad day for this country , Republican senators voted to end a sham trial after calling no witnesses , exonerating Trump on two counts of impeachment .
While there is no denying that such an action strikes a blow to the heart of our democratic republic , it also highlighted two profiles in courage .
Senator Mitt Romney , who was the Republican nominee for president in 2012 , voted “ guilty ” on the first impeachment charge of abuse of power .
While his Republican constituents in Utah have no love lost for Trump and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , the rest of his party is already seeking revenge .
The senator addressed that possibility during his remarks prior to the vote .
I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision , and in some quarters , I will be vehemently denounced .
I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters .
Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely be in the minority in the Senate .
But irrespective of these things , with my vote , I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability , believing that my country expected it of me .
While I disagree with Romney on many issues , I admire him for his political courage and hope that one day we can get back to debating those issues with conservatives like him who are willing to put country before party .
The other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Democrat Doug Jones .
He barely won a special election in the deeply red state of Alabama in 2018 , against a horrific opponent .
He faces re-election in 2020 and risked the political ire of Trump-loving Republicans in his state ( the president ’ s net approval rating in Alabama is +23 percent ) by voting “ guilty ” on both impeachment counts .
That vote could very well cost him re-election .
Here are some of his remarks from the Senate floor .
The President ’ s actions demonstrate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that Congress has no power whatsoever in questioning or examining his actions , and that all who do so , do so at their peril .
That belief , unprecedented in the history of this country , simply must not be permitted to stand .
To do otherwise risks guaranteeing that no future whistleblower or witness will ever come forward and no future President—Democrat or Republican — will be subject to Congressional oversight as mandated by the Constitution .
Senators are elected to make tough choices .
We are required to study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exercise our independent judgment in keeping with the oaths we take .
The gravity of this moment , the seriousness of the charges , and the implications for future presidencies and Congresses all contributed to the difficulty with which I have arrived at my decision .
We have grown used to being cynical about politicians .
That is often warranted by those who seem to put their own interests above those they represent .
But at least for today , in a vote that will define their professional careers , Mitt Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They voted to defend what is right and true because , as Representative Adam Schiff said , it matters .
You don ’ t need to agree with either of them on anything else to commend their courage .
As for the rest of the Republican crew , here ’ s some advice from Senator Brian Schatz .

On a profoundly sad day for this country, Republican senators voted to end a sham trial after calling no witnesses, exonerating Trump on two counts of impeachment. While there is no denying that such an action strikes a blow to the heart of our democratic republic, it also highlighted two profiles in courage.
Senator Mitt Romney, who was the Republican nominee for president in 2012, voted “guilty” on the first impeachment charge of abuse of power. While his Republican constituents in Utah have no love lost for Trump and are not likely to punish him for that vote, the rest of his party is already seeking revenge.
The senator addressed that possibility during his remarks prior to the vote.
I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?… My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me.
While I disagree with Romney on many issues, I admire him for his political courage and hope that one day we can get back to debating those issues with conservatives like him who are willing to put country before party.
The other senator who displayed a profile in courage is Democrat Doug Jones. He barely won a special election in the deeply red state of Alabama in 2018, against a horrific opponent. He faces re-election in 2020 and risked the political ire of Trump-loving Republicans in his state (the president’s net approval rating in Alabama is +23 percent) by voting “guilty” on both impeachment counts. That vote could very well cost him re-election. Here are some of his remarks from the Senate floor.
The President’s actions demonstrate a belief that he is above the law, that Congress has no power whatsoever in questioning or examining his actions, and that all who do so, do so at their peril. That belief, unprecedented in the history of this country, simply must not be permitted to stand. To do otherwise risks guaranteeing that no future whistleblower or witness will ever come forward and no future President—Democrat or Republican — will be subject to Congressional oversight as mandated by the Constitution. Senators are elected to make tough choices. We are required to study the facts of each issue before us and exercise our independent judgment in keeping with the oaths we take. The gravity of this moment, the seriousness of the charges, and the implications for future presidencies and Congresses all contributed to the difficulty with which I have arrived at my decision.
We have grown used to being cynical about politicians. That is often warranted by those who seem to put their own interests above those they represent. But at least for today, in a vote that will define their professional careers, Mitt Romney and Doug Jones did the opposite. They voted to defend what is right and true because, as Representative Adam Schiff said, it matters. You don’t need to agree with either of them on anything else to commend their courage.
As for the rest of the Republican crew, here’s some advice from Senator Brian Schatz.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-06--Democrats Have Successfully Implemented a 50-State Strategy

Following the debacle in Iowa and the refusal of Senate Republicans to hold Trump accountable , the “ Democrats in disarray ” crowd is having a field day .
As someone who tends to chafe at conventional wisdom , I thought I ’ d go against the grain and bring you some good news about Democrats .
Almost no one is noticing that the party has successfully implemented a 50-state strategy when it comes to fundraising .
Howard Dean is the one who popularized the idea of a 50-state strategy back in 2005 .
What most people don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was posing a direct challenge to the Democratic “ establishment ” of his day .
Prior to his chairmanship of the DNC , the party was the focal point for fundraising and its leadership doled money out to candidates in a top-down strategy based on who they thought would be viable .
Very little of that money was spent to support state parties or candidates in red states or districts that were deemed to be unviable .
Dean ’ s 50-state strategy would remove that power from DNC leadership , sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is precisely why his candidacy for chair of the party was so hotly contested .
I am reminded of all of that when I read headlines like this one from Axios : “ Republicans Vastly Outraise Dems Ahead of 2020.
” Even Dave Weigel , who tends to support the anti-establishment approach of Bernie Sanders , echoed those sentiments when he tweeted that “ The DNC ’ s been clobbered by the RNC in fundraising since Trump won.
” Those statements ignore the fact that the money is going directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” their Republican opponents in fundraising .
One person who noticed what ’ s happening is Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy .
House Republican leaders privately conceded in a closed meeting Tuesday morning that they are in the midst of a full-blown fundraising crisis , which would imperil any chance they have at regaining their majority in 2020 .
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) put it bluntly : “ They are kicking our ass , ” he said , in a meeting at the Capitol Hill Club , the private GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , referring to Democrats .
To a lesser extent , the same thing is happening in Senate races , where Democratic candidates outraised Republicans $ 55 million to $ 49 million last quarter .
One thing to keep in mind about those numbers is that Republicans will be defending 23 seats in 2020 , while the Democrats will be defending 12 .
Prior to the 2018 midterms , I wrote about the structural changes that led to all of this .
My take was inspired by this tweet from Simon Rosenberg .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game-changer .
“ Our committee ’ s key , early investments have helped Democrats harness grassroots enthusiasm and capitalize on pivotal news cycles to raise the money necessary to be competitive across such a huge House battlefield , ” said Digital Press Secretary Sebastian Silva .
The money sprouted after months of groundwork by campaigns and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee .
The DCCC placed digital staffers in each of its regional political teams for the first time this election , according to a DCCC aide , helping campaigns grow online and be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other opportunities .
Of course , those efforts were magnified by the emergence of ActBlue as the powerhouse of online grassroots fundraising .
What we have is a Republican Party that has become increasingly dependent on large donations from outside groups and a Democratic Party fueled by grassroots donations directly to candidates .
That is how a 50-state strategy is attempting to level the playing field in the era of Citizens United .

Following the debacle in Iowa and the refusal of Senate Republicans to hold Trump accountable, the “Democrats in disarray” crowd is having a field day. As someone who tends to chafe at conventional wisdom, I thought I’d go against the grain and bring you some good news about Democrats. Almost no one is noticing that the party has successfully implemented a 50-state strategy when it comes to fundraising.
Howard Dean is the one who popularized the idea of a 50-state strategy back in 2005. What most people don’t know is that in promoting that idea, he was posing a direct challenge to the Democratic “establishment” of his day. Prior to his chairmanship of the DNC, the party was the focal point for fundraising and its leadership doled money out to candidates in a top-down strategy based on who they thought would be viable. Very little of that money was spent to support state parties or candidates in red states or districts that were deemed to be unviable.
Dean’s 50-state strategy would remove that power from DNC leadership, sending it back to state parties and candidates. That is precisely why his candidacy for chair of the party was so hotly contested.
I am reminded of all of that when I read headlines like this one from Axios: “Republicans Vastly Outraise Dems Ahead of 2020.”
The RNC goes into the presidential election year with more than seven times as much cash on hand as the DNC—$63 million vs. $8.3 million, according to the parties’ FEC filings.
Even Dave Weigel, who tends to support the anti-establishment approach of Bernie Sanders, echoed those sentiments when he tweeted that “The DNC’s been clobbered by the RNC in fundraising since Trump won.”
Those statements ignore the fact that the money is going directly to Democratic candidates, who are “clobbering” their Republican opponents in fundraising. One person who noticed what’s happening is Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
House Republican leaders privately conceded in a closed meeting Tuesday morning that they are in the midst of a full-blown fundraising crisis, which would imperil any chance they have at regaining their majority in 2020. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) put it bluntly: “They are kicking our ass,” he said, in a meeting at the Capitol Hill Club, the private GOP haunt around the corner from the Capitol, referring to Democrats.
Here’s what has McCarthy worried.
The Democrats who flipped GOP-held House seats in 2018 are continuing to raise money at a pace that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, while Democratic challengers are also hauling in massive amounts. Collectively, Democratic House candidates raised $105 million during the quarter, compared to $82 million for GOP contenders.
To a lesser extent, the same thing is happening in Senate races, where Democratic candidates outraised Republicans $55 million to $49 million last quarter. One thing to keep in mind about those numbers is that Republicans will be defending 23 seats in 2020, while the Democrats will be defending 12.
Prior to the 2018 midterms, I wrote about the structural changes that led to all of this. My take was inspired by this tweet from Simon Rosenberg.
Here is how a DCCC spokesman described that game-changer.
“Our committee’s key, early investments have helped Democrats harness grassroots enthusiasm and capitalize on pivotal news cycles to raise the money necessary to be competitive across such a huge House battlefield,” said Digital Press Secretary Sebastian Silva. The money sprouted after months of groundwork by campaigns and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The DCCC placed digital staffers in each of its regional political teams for the first time this election, according to a DCCC aide, helping campaigns grow online and be prepared to capitalize on viral moments and other opportunities.
Of course, those efforts were magnified by the emergence of ActBlue as the powerhouse of online grassroots fundraising.
What we have is a Republican Party that has become increasingly dependent on large donations from outside groups and a Democratic Party fueled by grassroots donations directly to candidates. That is how a 50-state strategy is attempting to level the playing field in the era of Citizens United.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-06--Overstating Mitt Romney’s Heroism

Overstating Mitt Romney’s Heroism

When it comes to Mitt Romney , I ’ m inclined to agree with Christopher Barron .
No , not the lead singer of the Spin Doctors who was a good high school friend of mine .
I ’ m talking about the dude who writes for the right-wing Trump-aligned Washington Examiner .
Throughout Romney ’ s entire political career , he has been willing to put political ambition over principle and conviction .
It ’ s almost hard to keep up with him .
Romney has been on every side of almost every issue of consequence , from gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes , and it has clearly been political opportunity and public opinion guiding Romney ’ s ever-evolving positions on these issues , not principle .
I ’ d add that Romney set the land-speed record for telling lies in a political campaign in 2012 , a fact that was meticulously documented by our own Steve Benen at the time .
In that way , he helped lay the groundwork for Trump .
But , contrary to Barron , I don ’ t see this as undermining Romney ’ s claim that principle caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removal from office .
To my mind , it just makes it more surprising and remarkable .
If any politician seemed infinitely malleable and therefore ready to adapt to ideological changes within the Republican Party under Trump ’ s leadership , it was Romney .
Think about it .
In May 2016 , Romney delivered perhaps the most blistering anti-Trump speech in history , saying “ there ’ s plenty of evidence that Mr. Trump is a con man , a fake ” and declaring that “ dishonesty is Donald Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anger that has led other nations into the abyss .
Here ’ s what I know .
Donald Trump is a phony , a fraud .
His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University .
He ’ s playing the members of the American public for suckers .
He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat .
Then , in November 2016 , when he was angling for a job in Trump ’ s administration , he changed his tune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the three-star Michelin restaurant Jean-Georges , Reince Priebus and Donald Trump broke bread during a four-course dinner with Mitt Romney , one of their finalists to lead the State Department , supping on frog legs , diver scallops , and a special course prepared specifically for the former Massachusetts governor : crow .
Romney ’ s appetite , apparently , was limitless .
Afterward , the former Trump antagonist swallowed his pride before a gaggle of journalists waiting outside the Trump International Hotel in New York , calling the dinner “ wonderful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ enlightening.
” So , given Romney ’ s record of waffling mendacity , he did not seem like a prime candidate to take a stand against Trump in the impeachment trial .
If there were a clear angle where it might benefit him , then things would be quite different , but if there ’ s an upside for Romney in this case , it will be played out in posterity .
Now , maybe Romney was telling the truth for once when he explained on the Senate floor that his religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously .
He once signed a pledge not to raise taxes , but most of the things he ’ s flip-flopped on over the years haven ’ t involved swearing in God ’ s name to remain consistent .
I don ’ t know why he decided to stick his neck out this time .
But I do know that he deserves credit for it .
What he doesn ’ t deserve is to have his entire record expunged so that he appears to history as one of the nation ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I know that Romney did quite a bit better than McCain in the Philly suburbs precisely because he was seen as less of a hardline conservative .
There are a ton of Obama-Romney-Clinton voters here , and they ’ ll note that all of them agree that Trump is unfit for office .
His vote to convict Trump will make a difference in a way that a vote to convict from Susan Collins would not .
That ’ s at least part of the reason that the president is so angry about @ @

When it comes to Mitt Romney, I’m inclined to agree with Christopher Barron. No, not the lead singer of the Spin Doctors who was a good high school friend of mine. I’m talking about the dude who writes for the right-wing Trump-aligned Washington Examiner.
Throughout Romney’s entire political career, he has been willing to put political ambition over principle and conviction. It’s almost hard to keep up with him. Romney has been on every side of almost every issue of consequence, from gun control to abortion to gay rights to taxes, and it has clearly been political opportunity and public opinion guiding Romney’s ever-evolving positions on these issues, not principle.
I’d add that Romney set the land-speed record for telling lies in a political campaign in 2012, a fact that was meticulously documented by our own Steve Benen at the time. In that way, he helped lay the groundwork for Trump.
But, contrary to Barron, I don’t see this as undermining Romney’s claim that principle caused him to vote for Trump’s removal from office. To my mind, it just makes it more surprising and remarkable. If any politician seemed infinitely malleable and therefore ready to adapt to ideological changes within the Republican Party under Trump’s leadership, it was Romney.
Think about it. In May 2016, Romney delivered perhaps the most blistering anti-Trump speech in history, saying “there’s plenty of evidence that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake” and declaring that “dishonesty is Donald Trump’s hallmark.”
This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss. Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. (APPLAUSE) He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.
Then, in November 2016, when he was angling for a job in Trump’s administration, he changed his tune:
Sitting in plain view of diners at the three-star Michelin restaurant Jean-Georges, Reince Priebus and Donald Trump broke bread during a four-course dinner with Mitt Romney, one of their finalists to lead the State Department, supping on frog legs, diver scallops, and a special course prepared specifically for the former Massachusetts governor: crow. Romney’s appetite, apparently, was limitless. Afterward, the former Trump antagonist swallowed his pride before a gaggle of journalists waiting outside the Trump International Hotel in New York, calling the dinner “wonderful” and their conversation about global affairs “enlightening.”
So, given Romney’s record of waffling mendacity, he did not seem like a prime candidate to take a stand against Trump in the impeachment trial. If there were a clear angle where it might benefit him, then things would be quite different, but if there’s an upside for Romney in this case, it will be played out in posterity.
Now, maybe Romney was telling the truth for once when he explained on the Senate floor that his religious beliefs require him to take his oaths seriously. He once signed a pledge not to raise taxes, but most of the things he’s flip-flopped on over the years haven’t involved swearing in God’s name to remain consistent.
I don’t know why he decided to stick his neck out this time. But I do know that he deserves credit for it.
What he doesn’t deserve is to have his entire record expunged so that he appears to history as one of the nation’s most principled men.
As for the impact, I know that Romney did quite a bit better than McCain in the Philly suburbs precisely because he was seen as less of a hardline conservative. There are a ton of Obama-Romney-Clinton voters here, and they’ll note that all of them agree that Trump is unfit for office. His vote to convict Trump will make a difference in a way that a vote to convict from Susan Collins would not.
That’s at least part of the reason that the president is so angry about it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-06--How Britain Found Its Technological Groove

Wanted : “ Weirdos and misfits with odd skills.
” So declared a 2019 advertisement—via blog post—to work in the new British government .
It was published by Dominic Cummings , the strategist behind the Brexit referendum and Boris Johnson ’ s landslide victory , who is now the Chief Special Adviser in charge of all policy in Downing Street .
For those who have followed Cummings ’ fascinating , eccentric career ( or watched Benedict Cumberbatch ’ s brilliant portrayal of him in Brexit , The Uncivil War ) , this should be no surprise .
For Cummings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his real objective : to destroy the British civil service , the non-political cadre of administrators who run the day-to-day operations of the UK government .
Cummings ’ s experience with the civil service began in 2010 , when Michael Gove , then Education Minister in David Cameron ’ s government , hired him to spearhead a program of radical school reform against fierce resistance from the civil service and educational bureaucracies .
The reforms focused on freeing school principals from local government supervision , increasing the rigor of the curriculum and focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gove and Cummings were successful in forcing these proposals through , which were particularly effective in improving educational achievements for the poorest students .
Their success became clear four years later when England ’ s PISA education tests showed significant increases in math and English scores .
But the politics were ugly , with civil servants and teachers ’ unions leading a fierce and personalized opposition , convincing Cameron to fire Gove and Cummings , whom he called a “ career psychopath.
” Now , the success of Brexit and the new Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of the civil service , is sweet revenge .
But while Cummings may have cynically exploited nostalgic nationalism to win elections , that was never his ideology .
Rather , as he wrote a review about the failures of Tony Blair ’ s government , he wanted to develop “ a recipe for coping with the economic and technological forces , from drones to genetic engineering , that are disrupting society faster than our institutions can adapt .
This requires replacing many Whitehall institutions with ones that can change as quickly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , the call for “ weirdos and misfits ” is an attempt to bring new , disruptive skills into government service so Cummings can achieve his dream of a renewed country .
On the surface , that ambition may sound reasonable but , in his hubris , Cumnings missed an essential point .
As Stephen Bush , the editor of the left-leaning New Statesman magazine , observed : The British government already has a successful example of transforming government operations—the UK ’ s Government Digital Service ( GDS ) , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first five years , GDS took the UK from tenth to first in the United Nations e-Government rankings , while saving GPB4 billion ( $ 6 billion ) in technology spending , driving digital take-up rates above 90 percent for government services ; opening up technology procurement to over 1,200 small and medium-sized suppliers ; and creating a series of popular , heavily used digital offerings .
Instead of starting from scratch , Bush argued he should learn from the institution and architecture that already exists .
It may seem odd to reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Like Lord North , who launched and lost the war against the American colonies , David Cameron may be remembered only for the one catastrophic decision—to launch the Brexit referendum and then lose it , but before then , his government had some real achievements , with GDS high on that list .
When Cameron came into office in 2010 , the British government had earned a reputation for technological incompetence .
Blair had loved the idea of modernizing government through technology , but his government had botched the implementation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and multi-year project plans , and deferring to a small circle of technology companies for the execution and delivery of them .
The result was a predictable disaster .
The National Health Service IT program , a $ 19 billion project that took 11 years and doubled its original budget before failing ignominiously , was only the most high-profile blunder .
Another was the e-Borders system , an attempt to digitize the immigration system , which took 11 years and $ 1.3 billion before collapsing completely .
Upon taking office , Cameron appointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no further ambitions , to straighten out this mess .
Maude set out a few basic principles : no projects costing more than $ 150 million , no more multi-year projects , mandating the use of open sources wherever possible , opening up contracting to small technology firms , and centralizing digital delivery in a new unit—GDS .
He hired a team of technologists , designers , and project delivery specialists drawn from established companies like the Guardian newspaper , which had made the transition from a traditional business to a new digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over all government websites and technology procurement and prepared to protect them in the vicious bureaucratic battles that lay ahead .
The results were spectacular .
After four years , the government announced that it had consolidated all government services on a single website , GOV.UK .
Digital services , like paying car tax and registering to vote , were being used for more than 90 percent of all transactions and the government was launching new services , like a wildly popular e-petition offering , which allowed citizens to submit petitions to Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its launch , citizens submitted 21,500 petitions , six of which received more than 100,000 signatures , triggering an automatic parliamentary debate .
The program saved the government more than $ 6 billion on its IT spending while providing better service .
Governments around the world , such as Canada ’ s and Australia ’ s , rushed to copy the GDS model .
In 2015 , the Australian communications minister acknowledged as much in the launch of the country ’ s Digital Transformation Office , when he wrote to his British counterpart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of flattery , you should be feeling very flattered.
” Indeed , the Obama administration , stung by the public humiliation following the collapse of healthcare.gov ’ s rollout , created the US Digital Service as a direct clone of GDS .
What had gone right ?
GDS had used no new technology , or fancy techniques , and had not relied on brand-name consultants and experts .
Its approach was simplicity itself : Find out what users really need , then deliver a solution quickly , iterating to improve it rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s more , its operators were open and honest about the work : using open source tools ; writing in clear , straightforward English ; building prototypes and creating applications that are simple and intuitive to use .
If this sounds like common sense , that ’ s because it was—at least among technologists who understood agile techniques .
But it was far from the culture of the British government .
The cultural change was everything .
The real question is how a small unit in the center of government was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make it stick .
Lucky for us , the GDS team wrote about its process in blog posts and later in a book , Digital Transformation At Scale .
One of their catchphrases was the subtitle : “ Why the strategy is delivery.
” The starting point , the authors explained , was to find a political sponsor , a politician senior and powerful enough to protect the initiative , who believes in the importance of the work and is prepared to take on the necessary political battles .
The champion needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government , not just a department head .
He or she needs visibility and clout across the entire system , with backing from the top .
Then , it ’ s time to build the team .
The GDS team warns against hiring from large technology companies , where the staff is unlikely to have experienced the struggles of bringing an old technology base into the modern world , focusing instead on civic technology groups and digital teams from legacy companies that have managed such transitions .
The third step is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones without legacy technology that needs to be adapted—where the new team can build credibility by building something that works , quickly .
The best outcome is to find projects that senior political leaders are proud to show off .
Only then , with the political backing established and credibility built , can the team start negotiating from a position of power for a mandate .
That must include certain veto powers over government agencies and budget controls over departmental technology spending , without which there is no chance of making meaningful change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transformation can start .
The GDS team , for its part , pulled together a database of every service that the British government provided , and found that 10 percent of them were responsible for 90 percent of transactions .
It then took these on , streamlining the processes ; simplifying the language ; and coding with open-source , easily reusable , and updatable tools .
It then published its working methods and its performance metrics—digital take-up , completion rate , cost per transaction and user satisfaction—spreading the institutional knowledge throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout was to make it easier for citizens to interact with the government online than through any other channel .
Once the early results had started to come through , the GDS team began evangelizing for its approach , regularly publishing honest assessments of their failures and their successes , always explaining their methods .
Every member of the team was required to post on the blog page ; press releases were strictly forbidden .
Their commitment to the discipline , focus , and sacrifice made them stand out in a field that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GDS made sure that the UK government stopped overpaying for technology , instead using efficient methods to offer cheaper , better services .
That is a story of success that is relevant not only to Dominic Cummings as he tries to prepare Britain for a post-Brexit world , but to any politician who wants to provide better , more responsive services to citizens while saving money and restoring trust in government .
It ’ s a rare accomplishment to achieve deep cultural transformations in entrenched bureaucracies .
We can all learn from what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was able to achieve .

Wanted: “Weirdos and misfits with odd skills.” So declared a 2019 advertisement—via blog post—to work in the new British government. It was published by Dominic Cummings, the strategist behind the Brexit referendum and Boris Johnson’s landslide victory, who is now the Chief Special Adviser in charge of all policy in Downing Street.
For those who have followed Cummings’ fascinating, eccentric career (or watched Benedict Cumberbatch’s brilliant portrayal of him in Brexit, The Uncivil War), this should be no surprise. For Cummings, Brexit was only ever a means to his real objective: to destroy the British civil service, the non-political cadre of administrators who run the day-to-day operations of the UK government.
Cummings’s experience with the civil service began in 2010, when Michael Gove, then Education Minister in David Cameron’s government, hired him to spearhead a program of radical school reform against fierce resistance from the civil service and educational bureaucracies. The reforms focused on freeing school principals from local government supervision, increasing the rigor of the curriculum and focusing resources on phonics and traditional subjects. Gove and Cummings were successful in forcing these proposals through, which were particularly effective in improving educational achievements for the poorest students. Their success became clear four years later when England’s PISA education tests showed significant increases in math and English scores. But the politics were ugly, with civil servants and teachers’ unions leading a fierce and personalized opposition, convincing Cameron to fire Gove and Cummings, whom he called a “career psychopath.”
Now, the success of Brexit and the new Johnson government, in which Cummings is in charge of the civil service, is sweet revenge.
But while Cummings may have cynically exploited nostalgic nationalism to win elections, that was never his ideology. Rather, as he wrote a review about the failures of Tony Blair’s government, he wanted to develop “a recipe for coping with the economic and technological forces, from drones to genetic engineering, that are disrupting society faster than our institutions can adapt. This requires replacing many Whitehall institutions with ones that can change as quickly as the world around them changes.” In other words, the call for “weirdos and misfits” is an attempt to bring new, disruptive skills into government service so Cummings can achieve his dream of a renewed country.
On the surface, that ambition may sound reasonable but, in his hubris, Cumnings missed an essential point. As Stephen Bush, the editor of the left-leaning New Statesman magazine, observed: The British government already has a successful example of transforming government operations—the UK’s Government Digital Service (GDS), which was established in 2011. In its first five years, GDS took the UK from tenth to first in the United Nations e-Government rankings, while saving GPB4 billion ($6 billion) in technology spending, driving digital take-up rates above 90 percent for government services; opening up technology procurement to over 1,200 small and medium-sized suppliers; and creating a series of popular, heavily used digital offerings. Instead of starting from scratch, Bush argued he should learn from the institution and architecture that already exists.
It may seem odd to reflect on a genuine success of the Cameron government. Like Lord North, who launched and lost the war against the American colonies, David Cameron may be remembered only for the one catastrophic decision—to launch the Brexit referendum and then lose it, but before then, his government had some real achievements, with GDS high on that list.
When Cameron came into office in 2010, the British government had earned a reputation for technological incompetence. Blair had loved the idea of modernizing government through technology, but his government had botched the implementation of his key initiatives, using top-down approaches and multi-year project plans, and deferring to a small circle of technology companies for the execution and delivery of them. The result was a predictable disaster. The National Health Service IT program, a $19 billion project that took 11 years and doubled its original budget before failing ignominiously, was only the most high-profile blunder. Another was the e-Borders system, an attempt to digitize the immigration system, which took 11 years and $1.3 billion before collapsing completely.
Upon taking office, Cameron appointed Francis Maude, an experienced minister with no further ambitions, to straighten out this mess. Maude set out a few basic principles: no projects costing more than $150 million, no more multi-year projects, mandating the use of open sources wherever possible, opening up contracting to small technology firms, and centralizing digital delivery in a new unit—GDS. He hired a team of technologists, designers, and project delivery specialists drawn from established companies like the Guardian newspaper, which had made the transition from a traditional business to a new digital model. He then gave them authority over all government websites and technology procurement and prepared to protect them in the vicious bureaucratic battles that lay ahead.
The results were spectacular. After four years, the government announced that it had consolidated all government services on a single website, GOV.UK. Digital services, like paying car tax and registering to vote, were being used for more than 90 percent of all transactions and the government was launching new services, like a wildly popular e-petition offering, which allowed citizens to submit petitions to Parliament. In the first 100 days after its launch, citizens submitted 21,500 petitions, six of which received more than 100,000 signatures, triggering an automatic parliamentary debate. The program saved the government more than $6 billion on its IT spending while providing better service. Governments around the world, such as Canada’s and Australia’s, rushed to copy the GDS model. In 2015, the Australian communications minister acknowledged as much in the launch of the country’s Digital Transformation Office, when he wrote to his British counterpart: “If plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, you should be feeling very flattered.” Indeed, the Obama administration, stung by the public humiliation following the collapse of healthcare.gov’s rollout, created the US Digital Service as a direct clone of GDS.
What had gone right? GDS had used no new technology, or fancy techniques, and had not relied on brand-name consultants and experts. Its approach was simplicity itself: Find out what users really need, then deliver a solution quickly, iterating to improve it rather than waiting to release something perfect. What’s more, its operators were open and honest about the work: using open source tools; writing in clear, straightforward English; building prototypes and creating applications that are simple and intuitive to use. If this sounds like common sense, that’s because it was—at least among technologists who understood agile techniques. But it was far from the culture of the British government. The cultural change was everything. The real question is how a small unit in the center of government was able to achieve such a radical transformation and make it stick.
Lucky for us, the GDS team wrote about its process in blog posts and later in a book, Digital Transformation At Scale. One of their catchphrases was the subtitle: “Why the strategy is delivery.” The starting point, the authors explained, was to find a political sponsor, a politician senior and powerful enough to protect the initiative, who believes in the importance of the work and is prepared to take on the necessary political battles. The champion needs to be in a central part of the government, not just a department head. He or she needs visibility and clout across the entire system, with backing from the top.
Then, it’s time to build the team. The GDS team warns against hiring from large technology companies, where the staff is unlikely to have experienced the struggles of bringing an old technology base into the modern world, focusing instead on civic technology groups and digital teams from legacy companies that have managed such transitions.
The third step is to pick a small number of projects—ideally new ones without legacy technology that needs to be adapted—where the new team can build credibility by building something that works, quickly. The best outcome is to find projects that senior political leaders are proud to show off. Only then, with the political backing established and credibility built, can the team start negotiating from a position of power for a mandate. That must include certain veto powers over government agencies and budget controls over departmental technology spending, without which there is no chance of making meaningful change.
This is when the hard work of transformation can start. The GDS team, for its part, pulled together a database of every service that the British government provided, and found that 10 percent of them were responsible for 90 percent of transactions. It then took these on, streamlining the processes; simplifying the language; and coding with open-source, easily reusable, and updatable tools. It then published its working methods and its performance metrics—digital take-up, completion rate, cost per transaction and user satisfaction—spreading the institutional knowledge throughout the government and the public. The objective throughout was to make it easier for citizens to interact with the government online than through any other channel.
Once the early results had started to come through, the GDS team began evangelizing for its approach, regularly publishing honest assessments of their failures and their successes, always explaining their methods. Every member of the team was required to post on the blog page; press releases were strictly forbidden. Their commitment to the discipline, focus, and sacrifice made them stand out in a field that too often prized cleverness and complexity. GDS made sure that the UK government stopped overpaying for technology, instead using efficient methods to offer cheaper, better services.
That is a story of success that is relevant not only to Dominic Cummings as he tries to prepare Britain for a post-Brexit world, but to any politician who wants to provide better, more responsive services to citizens while saving money and restoring trust in government. It’s a rare accomplishment to achieve deep cultural transformations in entrenched bureaucracies. We can all learn from what the UK’s Government Digital Service was able to achieve.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-07--Prepare Yourself For a Bumpy Ride Over the Next Nine Months

One of the reasons that pundits become obsessed with polls during every election cycle is that they assume that their job is to predict the future .
What has always been interesting to me , however , is how polls—which tell us where things stand today—are relied upon without any attempt to actually look ahead and ponder the events that will shape the future .
For Democrats , we are now in the midst of what Ella Nilsen called the “ momentum primary ” —which includes the four early states of Iowa , New Hampshire , South Carolina , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg seems to be the candidate who gained momentum .
As a result , pundits are poring over polls from New Hampshire to see if his candidacy has any legs .
I ’ ll go out on a limb and predict that Buttigieg will do very well in New Hampshire .
But a quick look down the road suggests that it might be a while before we find out if he ’ s an actual contender because in subsequent states , he ’ s polling in low-to-mid single digits .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go in this primary .
When it comes to the general election , the assumption is that Trump got a boost from the fact that Senate Republicans refused to hold him accountable .
But given that even they know he ’ s guilty , the story doesn ’ t end there .
Representative Jerry Nadler has indicated that the House is likely to subpoena testimony from John Bolton , while documents continue to trickle out from Lev Parnas .
Who knows what else we ’ re going to learn over the next few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently gearing up to put the Bidens on trial , and all of a sudden , the White House is becoming very cooperative in producing documents .
For months , while the impeachment controversy raged , powerful committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled Senate have been quietly but openly pursuing an inquiry into Hunter Biden ’ s business affairs and Ukrainian officials ’ alleged interventions in the 2016 election , the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce Ukraine ’ s government to investigate… The senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruit , according to the ranking Democratic senator on the Finance Committee , Ron Wyden of Oregon , who contrasted the cooperation given to the Republican senators with the pervasive White House-directed stonewall that House Democrats encountered when they subpoenaed documents and witnesses in the impeachment inquiry .
“ Applying a blatant double standard , Trump administration agencies like the Treasury Department are rapidly complying with Senate Republican requests—no subpoenas necessary—and producing ‘ evidence ’ of questionable origin , ” Wyden spokesperson Ashley Schapitl said in a statement .
Oliver Willis made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , however , one other branch of government that is sure to take center stage in the 2020 election : the Supreme Court .
As I wrote previously , they will rule on three cases a few months before the election that will consume both the media and the voting public .
• Whether the Trump administration can end DACA • A case that could end Roe v. Wade as we know it • Whether Donald Trump must release his tax returns and finances On the first item , ICE Director Matt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court rules in Trump ’ s favor , they are already prepared to begin deporting DACA recipients immediately .
What we don ’ t know right now is how the Supreme Court will rule in these cases .
But especially on the one affecting Roe v. Wade , all signs point to its demise .
If that happens , it will overwhelm any other issue on the table at that time .
On the other hand , if the Court rules that Trump must release his taxes , poring over those documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If what we expect turns out to be true , Trump could be toast .
My point in all of this is to challenge the singular focus on the immediate moment and to suggest that we keep the longer view in mind .
The next nine months are going to be a helluva bumpy ride and it will help to be at least somewhat prepared .

One of the reasons that pundits become obsessed with polls during every election cycle is that they assume that their job is to predict the future. What has always been interesting to me, however, is how polls—which tell us where things stand today—are relied upon without any attempt to actually look ahead and ponder the events that will shape the future.
For Democrats, we are now in the midst of what Ella Nilsen called the “momentum primary”—which includes the four early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Coming out of Iowa, Pete Buttigieg seems to be the candidate who gained momentum. As a result, pundits are pouring over polls from New Hampshire to see if his candidacy has any legs.
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that Buttigieg will do very well in New Hampshire. But a quick look down the road suggests that it might be a while before we find out if he’s an actual contender because in subsequent states, he’s polling in low-to-mid single digits. We’ve still got a long way to go in this primary.
When it comes to the general election, the assumption is that Trump got a boost from the fact that Senate Republicans refused to hold him accountable. But given that even they know he’s guilty, the story doesn’t end there. Representative Jerry Nadler has indicated that the House is likely to subpoena testimony from John Bolton, while documents continue to trickle out from Lev Parnas. Who knows what else we’re going to learn over the next few months?
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are apparently gearing up to put the Bidens on trial, and all of a sudden, the White House is becoming very cooperative in producing documents.
For months, while the impeachment controversy raged, powerful committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled Senate have been quietly but openly pursuing an inquiry into Hunter Biden’s business affairs and Ukrainian officials’ alleged interventions in the 2016 election, the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce Ukraine’s government to investigate… The senators’ requests to the Treasury have borne fruit, according to the ranking Democratic senator on the Finance Committee, Ron Wyden of Oregon, who contrasted the cooperation given to the Republican senators with the pervasive White House-directed stonewall that House Democrats encountered when they subpoenaed documents and witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. “Applying a blatant double standard, Trump administration agencies like the Treasury Department are rapidly complying with Senate Republican requests—no subpoenas necessary—and producing ‘evidence’ of questionable origin,” Wyden spokesperson Ashley Schapitl said in a statement.
Oliver Willis made the prescient prediction on this one.
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/1225465901778161666
There is, however, one other branch of government that is sure to take center stage in the 2020 election: the Supreme Court. As I wrote previously, they will rule on three cases a few months before the election that will consume both the media and the voting public.
Whether the Trump administration can end DACA A case that could end Roe v. Wade as we know it Whether Donald Trump must release his tax returns and finances
On the first item, ICE Director Matt Albence recently made it clear that if the Court rules in Trump’s favor, they are already prepared to begin deporting DACA recipients immediately.
What we don’t know right now is how the Supreme Court will rule in these cases. But especially on the one affecting Roe v. Wade, all signs point to its demise. If that happens, it will overwhelm any other issue on the table at that time. On the other hand, if the Court rules that Trump must release his taxes, pouring over those documents will consume the media and their reporting. If what we expect turns out to be true, Trump could be toast.
My point in all of this is to challenge our obsession with the immediate moment and to suggest that we also keep the longer view in mind. The next nine months are going to be a helluva bumpy ride and it will help to be at least somewhat prepared.