washingtonmonthly--2020-06-26--What Tom Cotton’s Racist Speech Against D.C. Statehood Says About the GOP

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has made it abundantly clear that he wants to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 .
Recently , he managed to get his name in the news when his call to use the 101st Airborne Division against protesters turned into an op-ed in the New York Times .
In response to the House vote on granting statehood to Washington , D.C. , Cotton also garnered some attention by taking to the floor of the Senate to make an argument against doing so .
His speech lasted for almost 20 minutes and basically came down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to representation to the 60 percent of voters of color who make up the city ’ s population .
But there were a couple of specific references that caught my attention .
Over the last few years it has become obvious that , as the GOP becomes a minority party , they have increasingly taken issue with the very notion of democracy .
As Zachary Roth put it , Republicans have decided that “ being outnumbered doesn ’ t have to mean losing.
” Along those lines , one of Cotton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t trust the voters of D.C. to chose their own representatives .
Assuming the answer would be “ no , ” Cotton asked , “ “ Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were given the powers of a governor ?
Would you trust Marion Barry ?
” Correct me if I ’ m wrong , but I don ’ t remember seeing anything in our Constitution ( as amended ) where Republicans get to decide which voters can be trusted and which can not .
If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a question for the Senator .
The other part of Cotton ’ s speech that caught my eye was his pearl-clutching about how the only reason Democrats want to grant statehood to D.C. is because they want two more Senators from their party in perpetuity .
My response was to question why Cotton assumed that D.C. residents would never vote for Republicans .
I was reminded of the fact that when Alaska and Hawaii were granted statehood in 1959 , it was assumed that the former would vote for Democrats and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , things change .
But Cotton also doesn ’ t want you to know how Republicans gerrymandered the Senate back in the late 1800s for their own partisan advantage .
Two days before the lame-duck President James Buchanan left office , he signed legislation carving off part of Utah Territory , which stretched across most of modern-day Nevada , about a third of Colorado and some of Wyoming , to form part of what we now know as Nevada .
Congress would soon pass two more bills expanding Nevada at Utah ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line-drawing enabled one of the most consequential gerrymanders in American history .
Because the virtually unpopulated Nevada became its own territory , Republicans could admit it as a state just four years later .
That gave the Party of Lincoln two extra seats in the Senate — helping prevent Democrats from simultaneously controlling the White House and both houses of Congress until 1893… [ T ] he reason why there are two Dakotas — despite the fact that both states are so underpopulated that they each only rate a single member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is because Republicans won the 1888 election and decided to celebrate by giving themselves four senators instead of just two .
Going forward , there is another fact that Cotton doesn ’ t want you to know .
Granting statehood to Washington , D.C. , home to roughly the same number of people as North Dakota , would be a very small step in reducing that disparity .
The Senator from Arkansas once again affirms the challenge facing Republicans and the lengths to which they will go to avoid it .
By doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades to make their party white , the GOP has doomed itself to minority status in a pluralistic America .
To maintain power , they now must either change or throw all of our democratic ideals overboard .
Cotton simply affirms that they ’ ve chosen the latter .

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has made it abundantly clear that he wants to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024. Recently, he managed to get his name in the news when his call to use the 101st Airborne Division against protesters turned into an op-ed in the New York Times.
In response to the House vote on granting statehood to Washington, D.C., Cotton also garnered some attention by taking to the floor of the Senate to make an argument against doing so. His speech lasted for almost 20 minutes and basically came down to one long dog whistle about denying the right to representation to the 60 percent of voters of color who make up the city’s population. But there were a couple of specific references that caught my attention.
Over the last few years it has become obvious that, as the GOP becomes a minority party, they have increasingly taken issue with the very notion of democracy. As Zachary Roth put it, Republicans have decided that “being outnumbered doesn’t have to mean losing.” Along those lines, one of Cotton’s arguments was that we can’t trust the voters of D.C. to chose their own representatives. Assuming the answer would be “no,” Cotton asked, ““Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were given the powers of a governor? Would you trust Marion Barry?”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember seeing anything in our Constitution (as amended) where Republicans get to decide which voters can be trusted and which cannot. If we want to go there, Jonathan Chait has a question for the Senator.
One might ask why we would trust the people of Arkansas with full statehood when they elected a senator so panicky about demonstrations against the murder of a black man that he hysterically called for troops to be brought into the streets. One might also wonder why Cotton is so entrusting of Donald Trump, given … well, everything Trump has done.
The other part of Cotton’s speech that caught my eye was his pearl-clutching about how the only reason Democrats want to grant statehood to D.C. is because they want two more Senators from their party in perpetuity. My response was to question why Cotton assumed that D.C. residents would never vote for Republicans. I was reminded of the fact that when Alaska and Hawaii were granted statehood in 1959, it was assumed that the former would vote for Democrats and the latter for Republicans. In other words, things change.
But Cotton also doesn’t want you to know how Republicans gerrymandered the Senate back in the late 1800s for their own partisan advantage.
Two days before the lame-duck President James Buchanan left office, he signed legislation carving off part of Utah Territory, which stretched across most of modern-day Nevada, about a third of Colorado and some of Wyoming, to form part of what we now know as Nevada. Congress would soon pass two more bills expanding Nevada at Utah’s expense. This largely forgotten act of line-drawing enabled one of the most consequential gerrymanders in American history. Because the virtually unpopulated Nevada became its own territory, Republicans could admit it as a state just four years later. That gave the Party of Lincoln two extra seats in the Senate — helping prevent Democrats from simultaneously controlling the White House and both houses of Congress until 1893… [T]he reason why there are two Dakotas — despite the fact that both states are so underpopulated that they each only rate a single member of the House of Representatives to this day — is because Republicans won the 1888 election and decided to celebrate by giving themselves four senators instead of just two.
Going forward, there is another fact that Cotton doesn’t want you to know.
By 2040, according to a University of Virginia analysis of Census population projections, about half of the country will live in just eight states — which means 16 senators for one half of America and 84 for the other half.
Granting statehood to Washington, D.C., home to roughly the same number of people as North Dakota, would be a very small step in reducing that disparity.
The Senator from Arkansas once again affirms the challenge facing Republicans and the lengths to which they will go to avoid it. By doing everything in their power over the last two decades to make their party white, the GOP has doomed itself to minority status in a pluralistic America. To maintain power, they now must either change or throw all of our democratic ideals overboard. Cotton simply affirms that they’ve chosen the latter.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-26--Netanyahu Wants to Annex the West Bank. Will Joe Biden Stop Him?

Early in my career as a U.S. diplomat in the 1980s , I was assigned the thankless task of carrying water for Israel .
The mission : to lobby other nations not to vote for a number of UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians in occupied territories .
Typically , these kinds of measures are passed by hugely lopsided margins .
The only “ No ’ s ” typically came from Israel and the United States .
If we were lucky , we might get some help from Canada or an obscure island nation we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were at least some glimmers of light then for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal .
Israel had just reached a settlement with Egypt at the 1978 Camp David accords .
There was a real sense of possibility that the Middle East ’ s most intractable conflict could eventually be solved .
That made our job much easier ; we could tell other governments that there was a serious process in place .
I can ’ t imagine what it would be like to have that job now .
Over the last 10 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done virtually everything in his power to destroy the chances of a realistic peace accord based on two states for two peoples—from expanding settlements and strengthening Israeli society ’ s most reactionary elements , to scuttling the Obama administration ’ s peace efforts and embracing Trump ’ s thinly-veiled attempts to crush the Palestinian cause and appeal to his evangelical base .
Now , Netanyahu is gearing to take his country past the point of no return : Unless the White House stops him ( don ’ t hold your breath ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the settlements and the entire Jordan Valley—the some 30 percent of the West Bank that the Trump administration allocated to Israel in its so-called “ peace plan ” —on July 1 .
Of course , one could argue that that is the logical culmination of everything Netanyahu and Trump have done for the last three-and-a-half years , including moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem , recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights , cutting off aid to the Palestinians , and publicly stating that America doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international law .
But it is still hard for anyone such as myself , who once worked on the Mideast peace portfolio , not to recoil at all the obvious ramifications .
The move risks spurring a violent uprising in the Middle East .
It endangers Israel and Jordan .
It will ruin Israel ’ s quest to normalize ties with its Arab neighbors , who share a common threat against Iran , and certainly strain its relations with Europe , the United States , and most of diaspora Jewry .
Worse yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already dead , this will only bury it .
That would be a tragedy both for Israel and for Palestine .
Even some of Israel ’ s most fervent nationalists have recognized that Israel can not remain a Jewish democracy without allowing for a Palestinian state .
Israel will either have to enfranchise every Arab living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan Valley , thereby giving up its Jewish character , or deprive them of equal rights , thereby becoming an illiberal and undemocratic regime .
Palestinians , too , will suffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own and living under the many indignities of permanent occupation .
But if Trump isn ’ t going to save the Jewish state from itself—as he almost certainly won ’ t—there is one thing that might .
The Israelis are acutely aware of the machinations of American politics , even if Netanyahu has seemed to have forgotten them .
One party might be in power today , but another can take over tomorrow .
That ’ s why powerful pro-Israel lobbying groups , like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee , have historically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Israel in Washington .
And that ’ s why Democratic leaders need to make abundantly clear now that if Israel goes through with this self-defeating and deleterious action , it will pay a price for it once the Democrats regain the White House .
Significantly , Joe Biden has come out against Netanyahu ’ s plan .
“ I do not support annexation , ” he recently told an audience of American Jews .
“ It would choke off any hope for peace.
” But then he made clear that American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year—would not be affected , nor has he suggested any other kind of punitive responses , like not shielding Israel from censure in international fora such as the UN .
Other Democrats have also made their opposition clear .
Nineteen Democratic senators signed a letter warning against the move , but the letter ’ s language had to be changed during the drafting process to remove the implication that annexation could impact U.S. aid to Israel or the U.S.-Israel relationship because of pressure from more hawkish Democrats and pro-Israel advocates .
Others Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer .
On Thursday , nearly 200 Democratic House members penned message to the Israeli leadership saying the move would be a mistake .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that “ unilateral annexation undermines U.S. national security interests , our interests.
” But in every instance , they have refused to make the essential point : that annexation would come with concrete and tangible consequences .
In other words , they are afraid to use the leverage that they have .
Cutting aid to Israel may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tiny state in a dangerous region , faced with many legitimate threats , and we have a moral obligation to ensure its security .
At the same time , the U.S. benefits from the intelligence sharing and security cooperation supported by that assistance .
But it sure is hard to change Israel ’ s calculus by warning it not to do something negative and irreversible , and then saying it wouldn ’ t fundamentally change the U.S.-Israel relationship if they go through with it anyway .
If Democrats want to stop annexation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting like they really mean it .
Not surprisingly , opposition around the world has been much stronger than in the United States .
The European Union has threatened Israel with trade sanctions if it annexes parts of the West Bank .
The Gulf States said that tentative steps toward rapprochement would end .
King Abdullah of Jordan warned Israel of “ massive conflict ” if Israel goes through with annexation , including possibly cancelling the Israeli-Jordanian 1994 peace treaty .
The PLO leadership has declared it will end security cooperation with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of stability in the region for decades .
Past American Middle East negotiators have noted the dangers of Israel taking this step .
“ It is an effort to fundamentally and unalterably drive the final stake through the heart of a two-state solution , ” wrote former State Department Middle East expert Aaron David Miller .
For his part , veteran peace mediator Dennis Ross has been critical of the plan , but has noted that similar dire prognostications about a violent outbreak over Trump ’ s decision to recognize Jerusalem as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But this is far different .
Moving an embassy to Jerusalem was largely symbolic .
Annexation is concrete .
And there is good reason Biden should want to thwart it now .
It could leave him with another colossal mess on his hands upon taking office in January .
“ This move will have ramifications for other important regional policy objectives , including support for U.S. partners in Jordan and Iraq , and efforts to build a unified front challenging Iranian threats to regional security and stability , ” former senior U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gerald M. Feierstein told me .
“ A Biden administration would face a difficult set of challenges determining the extent to which it could walk back Trump ’ s policies and re-engage Palestinians in a negotiating process without creating a major breach in U.S.-Israeli relations , ” he added .
Biden recently said he would reverse Trump ’ s policies that undercut piece , but if Netanyahu begins annexing parts of the West Bank Wednesday , much of the damage could be irrevocable by the time he takes office .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done now .
Israel ’ s ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer has reportedly pleaded with the Trump administration to allow for annexation now , before the window of opportunity closes in case Biden wins in November .
Senior administration officials are meeting this week to try to hash out what to do next .
They reportedly are deeply divided , with ardently pro-Israel U.S. ambassador David M. Friedman pushing to support annexation ( he donated lots of money to the settlements before becoming an envoy ) and Kushner holding back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had made no final decision .
But the bottom line for Washington is that Trump and his team allowed themselves to get snookered by the wily Netanyahu .
Backed into a corner , they appear at a loss for what to do next .
Some analysts have speculated that Netanyahu could be pressured to pull back somewhat on his original promise while still being able to tell his base that he delivered something .
For example , he could announce that Israel will annex a smaller portion of West Bank territory now—say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional seizures , salami-slicing-style , in the future .
Still , what is the limit ?
How far can an Israeli leader go in sabotaging peace once and for all without incurring serious damage to the nation ’ s relations with Washington ?
If Biden wants to spare himself a bigger headache when he ’ s president , he needs to lay down some markers now and take a much stronger stance .
That may be difficult in an election year , as Netanyahu shrewdly knows , but it is necessary .
Otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear .
The Democrats may put out a bunch of statements condemning annexation , but the prime minister will just have to weather out the storm .
At the end of the day , there are few restraints on him , and he will finally get what he ’ s always wanted when the long road toward two states comes to a sad and fruitless end .

Early in my career as a U.S. diplomat in the 1980s, I was assigned the thankless task of carrying water for Israel. The mission: to lobby other nations not to vote for a number of UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. Typically, these kinds of measures are passed by hugely lopsided margins. The only “No’s” generally came from Israel and the United States. If we were lucky, we might get some help from Canada or an obscure island nation we could essentially bribe with development aid.
But there were at least some glimmers of light then for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Israel had just reached a settlement with Egypt at the 1978 Camp David Accords. There was a real sense of possibility that the Middle East’s most intractable conflict could eventually be solved. That made our job much easier; we could tell other governments that there was a serious process in place. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have that job now.
Over the last 10 years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done virtually everything in his power to destroy the chances of a realistic peace agreement based on two states for two peoples—from expanding settlements and strengthening Israeli society’s most reactionary elements, to scuttling the Obama administration’s peace efforts and embracing Trump’s thinly-veiled attempts to crush the Palestinian cause and appeal to his evangelical base.
Now, Netanyahu is gearing to take his country past the point of no return: Unless the White House stops him (don’t hold your breath), the Israeli premier will begin unilaterally annexing all of the settlements and the entire Jordan Valley—the some 30 percent of the West Bank that the Trump administration allocated to Israel in its so-called “peace plan”—on July 1.
Of course, one could argue that that is the logical culmination of everything Netanyahu and Trump have done for the last three-and-a-half years, including moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, cutting off aid to the Palestinians, and publicly stating that America doesn’t view the settlements as a violation of international law.
But it is still hard for anyone such as myself, who once worked on the Mideast peace portfolio, not to recoil at all the obvious ramifications. The move risks spurring a violent uprising in the Middle East. It endangers Israel and Jordan. It will ruin Israel’s quest to normalize ties with its Arab neighbors, who share a common threat against Iran, and certainly strain its relations with Europe, the United States, and most of diaspora Jewry. Worse yet: If the two-state solution is not already dead, this will only bury it.
That would be a tragedy both for Israel and for Palestine. Even some of Israel’s most fervent nationalists have recognized that Israel cannot remain a Jewish democracy without allowing for a Palestinian state. Israel will either have to enfranchise every Arab living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan Valley, thereby giving up its Jewish character, or deprive them of equal rights, thereby becoming an illiberal and undemocratic regime. Palestinians, too, will suffer from lacking a sovereign state of their own and living under the many indignities of permanent occupation.
But if Trump isn’t going to save the Jewish state from itself—as he almost certainly won’t—there is one thing that might. The Israelis are acutely aware of the machinations of American politics, even if Netanyahu has seemed to have forgotten them. One party might be in power today, but another can take over tomorrow. That’s why powerful pro-Israel lobbying groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have historically centered their entire operation around cultivating bipartisan support for Israel in Washington. And that’s why Democratic leaders need to make abundantly clear now that if Israel goes through with this self-defeating and deleterious action, it will pay a price for it once the Democrats regain the White House.
Significantly, Joe Biden has come out against Netanyahu’s plan. “I do not support annexation,” he recently told an audience of American Jews. “It would choke off any hope for peace.” But then he made clear that American aid to Israel—$3.8 billion a year—would not be affected, nor has he suggested any other kind of punitive responses, like not shielding Israel from censure in international fora such as the UN.
Other Democrats have also made their opposition clear. Nineteen Democratic senators signed a letter warning against the move, but the letter’s language had to be changed during the drafting process to remove the implication that annexation could impact U.S. aid to Israel or the U.S.-Israel relationship because of pressure from more hawkish Democrats and pro-Israel advocates. Others Senate Democrats have spoken out, too, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
On Thursday, nearly 200 Democratic House members penned message to the Israeli leadership saying the move would be a mistake. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that “unilateral annexation undermines U.S. national security interests, our interests.” But in every instance, they have refused to make the essential point: that annexation would come with concrete and tangible consequences. In other words, they are afraid to use the leverage that they have.
Cutting aid to Israel may not be a wise move; Israel is a tiny state in a dangerous region, faced with many legitimate threats, and we have a moral obligation to ensure its security. At the same time, the U.S. benefits from the intelligence sharing and security cooperation supported by that assistance. But it sure is hard to change Israel’s calculus by warning it not to do something negative and irreversible, and then saying it wouldn’t fundamentally change the U.S.-Israel relationship if they go through with it anyway.
If Democrats want to stop annexation in its tracks, they have to start acting like they really mean it.
Not surprisingly, opposition around the world has been much stronger than in the United States. The European Union has threatened Israel with trade sanctions if it annexes parts of the West Bank. The Gulf States said that tentative steps toward rapprochement would end. King Abdullah of Jordan warned Israel of “massive conflict” if Israel goes through with annexation, including possibly cancelling the Israeli-Jordanian 1994 peace treaty. The PLO leadership has declared it will end security cooperation with the Israelis, which has been a key source of stability in the region for decades.
Past American Middle East negotiators have noted the dangers of Israel taking this step. “It is an effort to fundamentally and unalterably drive the final stake through the heart of a two-state solution,” wrote former State Department Middle East expert Aaron David Miller. For his part, veteran peace mediator Dennis Ross has been critical of the plan, but has noted that similar dire prognostications about a violent outbreak over Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was not realized.
But this is far different. Moving an embassy to Jerusalem was largely symbolic. Annexation is concrete. And there is good reason Biden should want to thwart it now. It could leave him with another colossal mess on his hands upon taking office in January.
“This move will have ramifications for other important regional policy objectives, including support for U.S. partners in Jordan and Iraq, and efforts to build a unified front challenging Iranian threats to regional security and stability,” former senior U.S. diplomat and Middle East Institute vice president Gerald M. Feierstein told me. “A Biden administration would face a difficult set of challenges determining the extent to which it could walk back Trump’s policies and re-engage Palestinians in a negotiating process without creating a major breach in U.S.-Israeli relations,” he added.
Biden recently said he would reverse Trump’s policies that undercut peace, but if Netanyahu begins annexing parts of the West Bank Wednesday, much of the damage could be irrevocable by the time he takes office.
That’s why Jerusalem is trying to get this done now. Israel’s ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer has reportedly pleaded with the Trump administration to allow for annexation now, before the window of opportunity closes in case Biden wins in November.
Senior administration officials are meeting this week to try to hash out what to do next. They reportedly are deeply divided, with ardently pro-Israel U.S. ambassador David M. Friedman pushing to support annexation (he donated lots of money to the settlements before becoming an envoy) and Kushner holding back. As of Thursday, they said they had made no final decision. But the bottom line for Washington is that Trump and his team allowed themselves to get snookered by the wily Netanyahu. Backed into a corner, they appear at a loss for what to do next.
Some analysts have speculated that Netanyahu could be pressured to pull back somewhat on his original promise while still being able to tell his base that he delivered something. For example, he could announce that Israel will annex a smaller portion of West Bank territory now—say, three percent—while holding out the option for additional seizures, salami-slicing-style, in the future.
Still, what is the limit? How far can an Israeli leader go in sabotaging peace once and for all without incurring serious damage to the nation’s relations with Washington? If Biden wants to spare himself a bigger headache when he’s president, he needs to lay down some markers now and take a much stronger stance. That may be difficult in an election year, as Netanyahu shrewdly knows, but it is necessary.
Otherwise, the message to Netanyahu will be clear. The Democrats may put out a bunch of statements condemning annexation, but the prime minister will just have to weather out the storm. At the end of the day, there are few restraints on him, and he will finally get what he’s always wanted when the long road toward two states comes to a sad and fruitless end.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-26--What Happens When Trump Stops Believing He Can Win Reelection?

If President Trump seems resigned to losing November ’ s election , he has good reason .
The strategy he is pursuing—and it ’ s generous to call it a strategy—is premised on the idea that he is going to lose .
His own advisers acknowledge that there are very few people who can be persuaded to vote for him , and his aim therefore is to do whatever he can to hold his strong supporters while reducing the overall level of turnout .
Trump ’ s team feels confident that approximately 40 % of the electorate supports him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stable during his term .
The president ’ s campaign advisers believe it comes down to getting a bigger proportion of the smaller group of people who love Trump to turn out than the larger group of voters who express tepid support for Biden .
Some people realize this is not going to work , but when they offer alternative strategies they just sound like morons : South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of Trump ’ s closest allies in Congress , said Trump can win with “ a little more message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that separate him and Biden .
“ Just make it more about policy and less about your personality , ” Graham told reporters .
Asking Trump to stop being a narcissist is some kind of psychiatric malpractice , since a narcissist isn ’ t free to think about other people .
Asking him to talk policy is laughable .
And to ask him to debate policy with a man who has spent a lifetime in the Senate and White House is a suicide mission .
Lindsey Graham might as well advise Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are too optimistic in any case , since Trump has fallen below 40 percent in several recent national surveys , and in many new battleground state polls .
Fox News now has him down by a point in Texas .
If you ’ re being honest , there ’ s no reason to see the present as some nadir or low-water mark for Trump .
There ’ s virtually no reason to think he ’ ll suddenly become a more effective crisis manager or that the current crises are about to lessen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down in Texas today , he ’ s likely to lose there .
Hoping for some miracle on COVID-19 is not a medical or a political strategy , and it ’ s clear that the outbreak is as bad today as it has been at any point so far .
This is going to prolong and deepen the economic damage .
Trump seems to have realized this , which is why he said on Wednesday that Biden “ is going to be president because some people don ’ t love me.
” For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

If President Trump seems resigned to losing November’s election, he has good reason. The strategy he is pursuing—and it’s generous to call it a strategy—is premised on the idea that he is going to lose. His own advisers acknowledge that there are very few people who can be persuaded to vote for him, and his aim therefore is to do whatever he can to hold his strong supporters while reducing the overall level of turnout.
Trump’s team feels confident that approximately 40% of the electorate supports him and notes his approval rating has remained unusually stable during his term. The president’s campaign advisers believe it comes down to getting a bigger proportion of the smaller group of people who love Trump to turn out than the larger group of voters who express tepid support for Biden.
Some people realize this is not going to work, but when they offer alternative strategies they just sound like morons:
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, said Trump can win with “a little more message discipline” and a focus on policies that separate him and Biden. “Just make it more about policy and less about your personality,” Graham told reporters.
Asking Trump to stop being a narcissist is some kind of psychiatric malpractice, since a narcissist isn’t free to think about other people. Asking him to talk policy is laughable. And to ask him to debate policy with a man who has spent a lifetime in the Senate and White House is a suicide mission. Lindsey Graham might as well advise Trump to levitate while farting firecrackers.
His advisers are too optimistic in any case, since Trump has fallen below 40 percent in several recent national surveys, and in many new battleground state polls. Fox News now has him down by a point in Texas. If you’re being honest, there’s no reason to see the present as some nadir or low-water mark for Trump. There’s virtually no reason to think he’ll suddenly become a more effective crisis manager or that the current crises are about to lessen in their severity. If he’s down in Texas today, he’s likely to lose there. Hoping for some miracle on COVID-19 is not a medical or a political strategy, and it’s clear that the outbreak is as bad today as it has been at any point so far. This is going to prolong and deepen the economic damage.
Trump seems to have realized this, which is why he said on Wednesday that Biden “is going to be president because some people don’t love me.” For once, he’s probably right.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-28--A Lesson from Eastern Europe on How to Deal with Problematic Statues

The bulk of Soviet-era statues in Budapest and in countries once behind the Iron Curtain have been removed , relocated , and reinterpreted .
The idea is not to erase history , but to contextualize it .
In Budapest , Freedom Square ’ s remaining monument is a fenced-off reminder of the Soviets ’ World War II liberating army .
The obelisk sits next to the U.S. Embassy , just below the American ambassador ’ s window .
Unlike other Soviet monuments in the city , a treaty guarantees this one ’ s place , preservation and protection .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been removed and relegated to a final resting place outside town in Memento Park .
The park boasts “ the biggest statues of the Cold War ” and shows how to reinterpret a nation ’ s painful past .
Supersized statues of Communist-era commissars stand quietly in the elements .
Stalin ’ s empty boots .
A lunging Lenin .
A modernist bust of Marx .
A museum barracks full of educational material puts the era and objects into complete and nuanced context .
School groups and tourists visit regularly .
Hungary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time hailed Memento Park ’ s creation for its measured approach .
Göncz said it “ utilizes politically neutral means of art to emphasize the dignity of democracy and the responsibility of historical thinking.
” America could use its own Memento Park to present and interpret Confederate symbols of a resoundingly defeated past .
Historic context creates a cold understanding of the past , countering mythology and revisionism .
Countries throughout Eastern Europe have moved their monuments from prominent pedestals to out-of-the-way detoxified destinations .
Tallinn , Estonia has an outdoor garden of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Maarjamäe Palace .
It ’ s disarming to see a larger-than-life Stalin dumped on his back or Lenin ’ s brutal bust resting its chin on overgrown lawns .
In Prague , a Soviet IS-2m heavy tank on a massive stone block was erected to honor the Soviet mechanized divisions who fought Nazi forces and helped free Czechoslovakia at the end of WWII .
Soviet tanks , however , also reminded Czechoslovaks of a pernicious recent past — they were used to put down the 1968 Prague Spring uprising .
Following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Czechoslovak artists took buckets of paint and visually disarmed the formerly ominous Soviet Tank Square memorial .
It became known as the Pink Tank .
Eastern European nations found it easier to remove the Soviet symbols and statues of their occupiers and oppressors , but even the Russians themselves put lots of their Soviet-era monuments out to pasture .
Shortly after the 1991 Moscow coup that tried to overthrow President Mikhail Gorbachev and helped end the Soviet empire , statues of former heroes , ruthless functionaries and self-aggrandizing leaders were taken down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Park ’ s “ Graveyard to Fallen Monuments.
” In its stillness , the Fallen Monuments park still arouses dread—infamous figures such as “ Iron Felix ” Dzerzhinsky , who founded the Soviet secret police , stir strong emotions .
Despite Eastern Europe and Russia ’ s rapid monument removal following the upheavals at the end of the last century , there are now movements to resurrect the past , rehabilitate the rotten and re-litigate history .
In Russia , some of the Sovietica is being salvaged and Stalin is being painted positively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , is a perfect example of how expediency and opportunism drive politicians and parties to leverage symbols of the past to score popular points today .
While a national consensus continues to revile its Soviet past , there is also a movement to use symbolism and a redacted past to rewrite a new national narrative .
Freedom Square is now home to a controversial memorial that seemingly absolves Hungary for its Holocaust role , portraying the entire country as victim .
In the history game , it is always easier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but harder for a nation to face its own past squarely .
The good news ?
Freedom Square also hosts a striding , sunny Ronald Reagan statue moving confidently toward the still-standing Soviet obelisk .
A nearby Budapest tech park privately put up a statue of computer visionary and Apple founder Steve Jobs .
In Hungary , enlightened modern history seems in a race to outweigh and out-monument the past .
The United States may be in a similar race .
The Smithsonian Institution is the world ’ s largest museum and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contextualizing U.S. history and storing fallen statues .
The Smithsonian ’ s new leader , Lonnie Bunch , would be the perfect caretaker and curator .
Bunch was previously the founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture—could he oversee a way out-of-the way “ Memento Park DC ” ?

The bulk of Soviet-era statues in Budapest and in countries once behind the Iron Curtain have been removed, relocated, and reinterpreted. The idea is not to erase history, but to contextualize it.
In Budapest, Freedom Square’s remaining monument is a fenced-off reminder of the Soviets’ World War II liberating army. The obelisk sits next to the U.S. Embassy, just below the American ambassador’s window. Unlike other Soviet monuments in the city, a treaty guarantees this one’s place, preservation and protection.
Other Communist monuments in Budapest, however, have been removed and relegated to a final resting place outside town in Memento Park. The park boasts “the biggest statues of the Cold War” and shows how to reinterpret a nation’s painful past. Supersized statues of Communist-era commissars stand quietly in the elements. Stalin’s empty boots. A lunging Lenin. A modernist bust of Marx. A museum barracks full of educational material puts the era and objects into complete and nuanced context. School groups and tourists visit regularly.
Hungary’s President Árpád Göncz at the time hailed Memento Park’s creation for its measured approach. Göncz said it “utilizes politically neutral means of art to emphasize the dignity of democracy and the responsibility of historical thinking.” America could use its own Memento Park to present and interpret Confederate symbols of a resoundingly defeated past. Historic context creates a cold understanding of the past, countering mythology and revisionism.
Countries throughout Eastern Europe have moved their monuments from prominent pedestals to out-of-the-way detoxified destinations. Tallinn, Estonia has an outdoor garden of bronze and stone sculptures strewn helter-skelter at the Maarjamäe Palace. It’s disarming to see a larger-than-life Stalin dumped on his back or Lenin’s brutal bust resting its chin on overgrown lawns.
In Prague, a Soviet IS-2m heavy tank on a massive stone block was erected to honor the Soviet mechanized divisions who fought Nazi forces and helped free Czechoslovakia at the end of WWII. Soviet tanks, however, also reminded Czechoslovaks of a pernicious recent past — they were used to put down the 1968 Prague Spring uprising. Following the 1989 Velvet Revolution, a group of Czechoslovak artists took buckets of paint and visually disarmed the formerly ominous Soviet Tank Square memorial. It became known as the Pink Tank.
Eastern European nations found it easier to remove the Soviet symbols and statues of their occupiers and oppressors, but even the Russians themselves put lots of their Soviet-era monuments out to pasture. Shortly after the 1991 Moscow coup that tried to overthrow President Mikhail Gorbachev and helped end the Soviet empire, statues of former heroes, ruthless functionaries and self-aggrandizing leaders were taken down. Soviet sculptural detritus was moved to Gorky Park’s “Graveyard to Fallen Monuments.” In its stillness, the Fallen Monuments park still arouses dread—infamous figures such as “Iron Felix” Dzerzhinsky, who founded the Soviet secret police, stir strong emotions.
Despite Eastern Europe and Russia’s rapid monument removal following the upheavals at the end of the last century, there are now movements to resurrect the past, rehabilitate the rotten and re-litigate history. In Russia, some of the Sovietica is being salvaged and Stalin is being painted positively by Russian President Vladimir Putin.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-29--Washington Monthly Announces the 2020 Kukula Award Winners

The Washington Monthly magazine is proud to announce two winners of its inaugural Kukula Award for Excellence in Nonfiction Book Reviewing—the only journalism prize dedicated to highlighting and encouraging high-quality reviews of serious , public affairs–focused books .
The award honors the memory of the late Kukula Kapoor Glastris , the magazine ’ s longtime and beloved books editor .
Among larger publications ( with 12 or more editorial staff ) , the winner is : • Casey Cep , The New Yorker , for her review of “ Black Radical : The Life and Times of William Monroe Trotter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller publications ( with fewer than 12 editorial staff ) , the prize goes to : • Boris Dralyuk , the Los Angeles Review of Books , for his review of “ Stalin ’ s Scribe : Literature , Ambition , and Survival : The Life of Mikhail Sholokhov ” by Brian J. Boeck .
A panel of six judges—veteran journalists and authors—praised Cep ’ s review as “ a captivating , judicious , and finely crafted narrative summation of a biography that deserves a far wider readership than it received about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , William Monroe Trotter .
His unwavering radical vision of black equality made Trotter an outcast in his time , but cast a beacon by which modern civil rights and Black Lives Matter activists have guided themselves.
” About Dralyuk ’ s winning entry , they said , “ With clarity , economy , and force , Boris Dralyuk ’ s review of a new biography of Stalinist-era writer Mikhail Sholokhov , author of the anti-Bolshevik novel ‘ And Quiet Flows the Don ’ , tells a surprisingly contemporary tale of an honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his close association with tyrannical power .
His is a thoughtful , cogent review of a misunderstood literary figure.
” “ An enthusiastic congratulations to Boris , Casey , and our inaugural finalists , ” said Washington Monthlyeditor in chief Paul Glastris , Kukula ’ s husband of 31 years , “ and our gratitude to the many other talented writers who submitted exemplary book reviews for consideration.
” Nonfiction book reviewing plays a key role in transmitting hard-won reporting , research , and ideas on major issues of the day , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to policymakers and citizens who can ’ t possibly read more than a fraction of the important books being published each year .
The aim of the new Kukula Award is to highlight the work of the individuals who practice this undervalued craft—work Kukula devoted herself to editing and publishing .
The panel selected the winners and eight other finalists from more than 100 outstanding book review submissions published across a wide range of print and online media in 2019 .
Winners were honored for their clear and artful exposition ; original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enlighten readers with new and valuable information .
Judges gave priority to works of politics , public affairs , history , and biography .
Cep and Dralyuk each will receive a $ 1,000 cash prize .
Other finalists for the 2020 Kukula Award in the large publications category were Sophie Pinkham in The New York Review of Books , for her review of a trio of books on the lessons of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster by Kate Brown , Adam Higginbotham , and Serhii Plokhy ; Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Dictator : The Cult of Personality in the Twentieth Century ” by Frank Dikötter ; Laura Miller in Slate , for her review of “ You Had to Be There : Rape Jokes ” by Vanessa Place ; and Carlos Lozada in The Washington Post , for his review of “ The Case for Nationalism : How It Made Us Powerful , United , and Free ” by Rich Lowry .
In the smaller category , finalists were Morten Høi Jensen in Literary Hub , for his review of “ On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roth ; Jordan Michael Smithin Longreads , for his review of “ Seeking the Fabled City ” by Allan Levine and “ A Specter Haunting Europe ” by Paul Hanebrink ; Paul W. Gleasonin the Los Angeles Review of Books , for his review of “ The Diversity Delusion ” by Heather Mac Donald ; and John Siman in Naked Capitalism , for his review of “ Crisis of Conscience : Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud ” by Tom Mueller .
Debra Dickerson , essayist , Washington Monthlyeditorial advisory board member , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blackness : Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners .
Gregg Easterbrook , a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , a Washington Monthlycontributing editor , and author of Better Than It Looks : Reasons for Optimism in an Age of Fearand 11 other books .
Haley Sweetland Edwards , a senior editor at Timemagazine , a Washington Monthlycontributing editor , and author of Shadow Courts : The Tribunals That Rule Global Trade .
Paul Glastris , editor in chief at the Washington Monthly , co-author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Right School for You .
Phillip Longman , policy director at the Open Markets Program , senior editor at the Washington Monthly , and author of The Empty Cradle : How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It and numerous other books .
Stephanie Mencimer , senior reporter at Mother Jones , contributing editor at the Washington Monthly , and author of Blocking the Courthouse Door .
The beloved and brilliant books editor of the Washington Monthly , Kukula ( “ Kuku ” to her legions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review section the home of some of the magazine ’ s best thinking and writing .
A keen editor and diplomatic manager of writers , she served as den mother and provisioner of delicious late-night home-cooked meals to a generation of young Washington Monthly journalists .
“ I ’ ve never met anyone whose combination of personal goodness , plus intellectual and professional abilities , exceeded Kukula ’ s , ” the journalist James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic .
To learn more about Kukula ’ s life , please read Kuku : @ @ @ @

The Washington Monthly magazine is proud to announce two winners of its inaugural Kukula Award for Excellence in Nonfiction Book Reviewing—the only journalism prize dedicated to highlighting and encouraging high-quality reviews of serious, public affairs–focused books. The award honors the memory of the late Kukula Kapoor Glastris, the magazine’s longtime and beloved books editor.
Among larger publications (with 12 or more editorial staff), the winner is:
Casey Cep, The New Yorker, for her review of “Black Radical: The Life and Times of William Monroe Trotter” by Kerri K. Greenidge.
Among smaller publications (with fewer than 12 editorial staff), the prize goes to:
Boris Dralyuk, the Los Angeles Review of Books, for his review of “Stalin’s Scribe: Literature, Ambition, and Survival: The Life of Mikhail Sholokhov” by Brian J. Boeck.
A panel of six judges—veteran journalists and authors—praised Cep’s review as “a captivating, judicious, and finely crafted narrative summation of a biography that deserves a far wider readership than it received about a largely forgotten turn-of-the-2oth century black newspaper publisher, William Monroe Trotter. His unwavering radical vision of black equality made Trotter an outcast in his time, but cast a beacon by which modern civil rights and Black Lives Matter activists have guided themselves.”
About Dralyuk’s winning entry, they said, “With clarity, economy, and force, Boris Dralyuk’s review of a new biography of Stalinist-era writer Mikhail Sholokhov, author of the anti-Bolshevik novel ‘And Quiet Flows the Don’, tells a surprisingly contemporary tale of an honest intellectual driven to drink and degradation by his close association with tyrannical power. His is a thoughtful, cogent review of a misunderstood literary figure.”
“An enthusiastic congratulations to Boris, Casey, and our inaugural finalists,” said Washington Monthly editor in chief Paul Glastris, Kukula’s husband of 31 years, “and our gratitude to the many other talented writers who submitted exemplary book reviews for consideration.” Nonfiction book reviewing plays a key role in transmitting hard-won reporting, research, and ideas on major issues of the day, like racial injustice and the rise of illiberalism, to policymakers and citizens who can’t possibly read more than a fraction of the important books being published each year. The aim of the new Kukula Award is to highlight the work of the individuals who practice this undervalued craft—work Kukula devoted herself to editing and publishing.
The panel selected the winners and eight other finalists from more than 100 outstanding book review submissions published across a wide range of print and online media in 2019. Winners were honored for their clear and artful exposition; original and persuasive thesis; and ability to enlighten readers with new and valuable information. Judges gave priority to works of politics, public affairs, history, and biography. Cep and Dralyuk each will receive a $1,000 cash prize.
Other finalists for the 2020 Kukula Award in the large publications category were Sophie Pinkham in The New York Review of Books, for her review of a trio of books on the lessons of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster by Kate Brown, Adam Higginbotham, and Serhii Plokhy; Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker, for his review of “How to Be a Dictator: The Cult of Personality in the Twentieth Century” by Frank Dikötter; Laura Miller in Slate, for her review of “You Had to Be There: Rape Jokes” by Vanessa Place; and Carlos Lozada in The Washington Post, for his review of “The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free” by Rich Lowry. In the smaller category, finalists were Morten Høi Jensen in Literary Hub, for his review of “On the End of the World” by Joseph Roth; Jordan Michael Smithin Longreads, for his review of “Seeking the Fabled City” by Allan Levine and “A Specter Haunting Europe” by Paul Hanebrink; Paul W. Gleasonin the Los Angeles Review of Books, for his review of “The Diversity Delusion” by Heather Mac Donald; and John Siman in Naked Capitalism, for his review of “Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud” by Tom Mueller.
About our Judges
Debra Dickerson, essayist,Washington Monthly editorial advisory board member, and author most recently of The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners.
Gregg Easterbrook, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Washington Monthly contributing editor, and author of Better Than It Looks: Reasons for Optimism in an Age of Fearand 11 other books.
Haley Sweetland Edwards, a senior editor at Time magazine, a Washington Monthly contributing editor, and author of Shadow Courts: The Tribunals That Rule Global Trade.
Paul Glastris, editor in chief at the Washington Monthly, co-author of The Other College Guide: A Roadmap to the Right School for You.
Phillip Longman, policy director at the Open Markets Program, senior editor at the Washington Monthly, and author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It and numerous other books.
Stephanie Mencimer, senior reporter at Mother Jones, contributing editor at the Washington Monthly, and author of Blocking the Courthouse Door.
About Kukula Kapoor Glastris
The beloved and brilliant books editor of the Washington Monthly, Kukula (“Kuku” to her legions of friends and fans) made the book review section the home of some of the magazine’s best thinking and writing. A keen editor and diplomatic manager of writers, she served as den mother and provisioner of delicious late-night home-cooked meals to a generation of young Washington Monthly journalists. “I’ve never met anyone whose combination of personal goodness, plus intellectual and professional abilities, exceeded Kukula’s,” the journalist James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic. To learn more about Kukula’s life, please read Kuku: A Love Story.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-01--Why Do Reporters Assume Candidates of Color Are Insurgents?

One of the things we can learn from the primaries that were held on Tuesday , June 23rd is that—with increased reliance on mail-in ballots during a pandemic—election results will be delayed .
A week later , we ’ re beginning to finally get some idea of the outcomes .
For example , in the Kentucky Senate Democratic primary , Amy McGrath has beaten Charles Booker , whose late surge came up just a bit short .
With ten candidates vying to be the Democrat to take on Mitch McConnell , McGrath was initially viewed as having a lock on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breonna Taylor by Louisville police officers , followed by the death of George Floyd , sent Booker to the streets to join the protests against police brutality .
It was at that point that his candidacy surged , especially in the Democratic stronghold around Louisville .
In the end , however , that wasn ’ t enough to overtake McGrath ’ s strength in the rest of the state .
Before learning those results , Michael Barbaro interviewed Jonathan Martin about that race in an episode of “ The Daily ” titled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Future.
” Their discussion focused on McGrath as the Democratic establishment candidate , while Booker was endorsed by politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez because of his support for things like Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal .
But Barbaro and Martin made a mistake that we sometimes see from political analysts when they assume that candidates of color automatically fit in the “ insurgent ” or “ progressive ” wing of the Democratic Party .
Here is part of that discussion .
Martin : So this is less about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a tall order in Kentucky , than it is about what ’ s happening in the Democratic Party .
And it ’ s not just in Kentucky .
Also on Tuesday , there is a competitive primary featuring Eliot Engel , who ’ s the long-serving chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , who ’ s facing a primary from an African-American , Jamaal Bowman .
In Virginia , a fairly conservative district , there is also an African-American running in that primary .
So what I ’ m really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can progressives gather strength , organize and sort of overcome the establishment candidates in some of these races ?
… Barbaro : [ I ] sn ’ t the greater risk for Democratic leaders , on a really practical level , that they are missing this moment ?
They are not getting behind candidates .
And they risk losing touch with this very powerful constituency that seems to be ascendant within the party .
Martin : Right !
The left would say , this is what the moment is , and this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands .
Given the virus , given issues of racial injustice , given the economic collapse , the moment cries out for real substantive sweeping policy changes in America , and that if you don ’ t abide that , if you don ’ t recognize that , then you ’ re out of touch as a Democratic leader .
And I think this conversation — this tension between the left and the center in the Democratic party , I think , is really going to come to the fore .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously aligned with what some might call the “ insurgent ” wing of the Democratic Party .
That is demonstrated by his position on several high-profile issues as well as the endorsements he received .
But he lost the Democratic primary to Amy McGrath in a state that Trump won by 30 points in 2016 and where he still enjoys a 17 percent net approval rating .
On the other hand , it certainly appears that Jamaal Bowman , who would also be categorized as part of the insurgent wing , is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That , however , is happening in New York ’ s 16th congressional district , which the Cook Political Report rates as D+24 .
The African American Martin refers to as running in a fairly conservative district in Virginia is Cameron Webb .
He received endorsements from politicians like Kamala Harris , John Lewis , and Jim Clyburn .
As someone who worked on Obama ’ s health care team , he supports building on the Affordable Care Act as a way to get to universal coverage and affordability .
In the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Trump mini-me in a district that is rated R+6 .
So when Politico reports that “ Progressives snatch much-needed wins in primary gauntlet , ” the first thing to check is the political leanings of the state or district in which they ran .
Regardless of race , insurgent Democrats tend to win in states or districts that are deeply blue .
As you can see , the three African American men mentioned by Martin don ’ t fit some sort of stereotype when it comes to the issues or their positioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same can be said of the freshman class of 2018 .
On the insurgent left are candidates of color like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar from deeply blue congressional districts , while representatives like Sharice Davids , Collin Alred , and Lauren Underwood are more moderate and were elected in districts that had trended Republican .
Finally , we know that it was Black voters—especially in Southern states—who supported Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary .
In other words , they didn ’ t align themselves with the insurgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is more rooted among northern liberals .
What we can say with certainty is that , when it comes to political candidates , women and people of color are ascendant in the Democratic Party .
But it is just lazy journalism to suggest that they are captured by either the “ establishment ” or “ insurgent ” wing of the party .

One of the things we can learn from the primaries that were held on Tuesday, June 23rd is that—with increased reliance on mail-in ballots during a pandemic—election results will be delayed. A week later, we’re beginning to finally get some idea of the outcomes.
For example, in the Kentucky Senate Democratic primary, Amy McGrath has beaten Charles Booker, whose late surge came up just a bit short. With ten candidates vying to be the Democrat to take on Mitch McConnell, McGrath was initially viewed as having a lock on the nomination. But the killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police officers, followed by the death of George Floyd, sent Booker to the streets to join the protests against police brutality. It was at that point that his candidacy surged, especially in the Democratic stronghold around Louisville. In the end, however, that wasn’t enough to overtake McGrath’s strength in the rest of the state.
Before learning those results, Michael Barbaro interviewed Jonathan Martin about that race in an episode of “The Daily” titled, “The Battle Over the Democratic Party’s Future.” Their discussion focused on McGrath as the Democratic establishment candidate, while Booker was endorsed by politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez because of his support for things like Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal. But Barbaro and Martin made a mistake that we sometimes see from political analysts when they assume that candidates of color automatically fit in the “insurgent” or “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. Here is part of that discussion.
Martin: So this is less about eventually beating McConnell, which is going to be a tall order in Kentucky, than it is about what’s happening in the Democratic Party. And it’s not just in Kentucky. Also on Tuesday, there is a competitive primary featuring Eliot Engel, who’s the long-serving chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who’s facing a primary from an African-American, Jamaal Bowman. In Virginia, a fairly conservative district, there is also an African-American running in that primary. So what I’m really interested in watching these primaries unfold is can progressives gather strength, organize and sort of overcome the establishment candidates in some of these races?… Barbaro: [I]sn’t the greater risk for Democratic leaders, on a really practical level, that they are missing this moment? They are not getting behind candidates. And they risk losing touch with this very powerful constituency that seems to be ascendant within the party. Martin: Right! The left would say, this is what the moment is, and this is about what the country now needs and demands. Given the virus, given issues of racial injustice, given the economic collapse, the moment cries out for real substantive sweeping policy changes in America, and that if you don’t abide that, if you don’t recognize that, then you’re out of touch as a Democratic leader. And I think this conversation — this tension between the left and the center in the Democratic party, I think, is really going to come to the fore.
In the case of Charles Booker, he is obviously aligned with what some might call the “insurgent” wing of the Democratic Party. That is demonstrated by his position on several high-profile issues as well as the endorsements he received. But he lost the Democratic primary to Amy McGrath in a state that Trump won by 30 points in 2016 and where he still enjoys a 17 percent net approval rating.
On the other hand, it certainly appears that Jamaal Bowman, who would also be categorized as part of the insurgent wing, is going to beat the incumbent Eliot Engel. That, however, is happening in New York’s 16th congressional district, which the Cook Political Report rates as D+24.
The African American Martin refers to as running in a fairly conservative district in Virginia is Cameron Webb. He received endorsements from politicians like Kamala Harris, John Lewis, and Jim Clyburn. As someone who worked on Obama’s health care team, he supports building on the Affordable Care Act as a way to get to universal coverage and affordability. In the general election, Webb will be running against a Trump mini-me in a district that is rated R+6.
So when Politico reports that “Progressives snatch much-needed wins in primary gauntlet,” the first thing to check is the political leanings of the state or district in which they ran. Regardless of race, insurgent Democrats tend to win in states or districts that are deeply blue.
As you can see, the three African American men mentioned by Martin don’t fit some sort of stereotype when it comes to the issues or their positioning on our standard left/right political continuum. The same can be said of the freshman class of 2018. On the insurgent left are candidates of color like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar from deeply blue congressional districts, while representatives like Sharice Davids, Collin Alred, and Lauren Underwood are more moderate and were elected in districts that had trended Republican.
Finally, we know that it was Black voters—especially in Southern states—who supported Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary. In other words, they didn’t align themselves with the insurgent left that, as Marcus Johnson suggested, is more rooted among northern liberals.
What we can say with certainty is that, when it comes to political candidates, women and people of color are ascendant in the Democratic Party. But it is just lazy journalism to suggest that they are captured by either the “establishment” or “insurgent” wing of the party.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-01--Trump’s Bungled Pandemic Response Is Crushing American Incomes

Donald Trump may have normalized cognitive dissonance for many of his supporters and some young people .
But wishing away the pandemic does not affect reality .
The May data on personal incomes released last week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis ( BEA ) is a serious case in point .
The data show that our nearly singular failure to wrestle the pandemic to manageable proportions has cut quickly and deeply into wage and salary income across the country .
The only force staving off desperate conditions for many households was the one-time checks the government sent most Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now with the resurgence of COVID-19 infections , Congress has little choice but to approve another round of checks and extend the generous unemployment benefits .
If Congress does approve a lot more help , millions of American households will still face financial peril – and if Congress fails to step up again , tens of millions of Americans could confront financial ruin .
As a dose of reality , the new income data show that our current conditions are roughly three times as severe as the Great Recession .
All personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.0 percent over the three months from March through May .
It took nine months for personal income to fall that much during the Great Recession .
Wage and salary income actually increased by 3.3 percent in May , as the payroll grants under the CARES program kicked in and businesses began to reopen .
Even so , wage and salary income fell 7.9 percent from March through May , again more than during the entire Great Recession .
The reason that total personal income fell “ only ” 3.0 percent over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wage and salary income fell an astounding 7.9 percent in three months was due almost entirely to those government checks and jobless benefits .
After setting aside government transfers , the BEA reports that total personal income fell 7.5 percent in three months .
We seem headed now for another round of the pandemic that looks much like March through May .
In March , as the virus quickly spun out of control , businesses began to shut down by mid-month and Congress expanded jobless benefits .
By April , with millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and salary income falling 7.7 percent in one month , the government sent out the emergency checks .
By May , as the spread of the virus slowed after physical-distancing measures were imposed across the country , many businesses began to reopen , so wage and salary income rose .
Yet through it all , the Trump administration never put in place nationwide testing and contact tracing .
Lulled by the president ’ s baseless assurance that he had beaten back the pandemic , millions of people resumed their lives without bothering to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take other basic precautions .
So now , in late June , we find ourselves headed back to where we were in March .
Across much of the country , the virus is spinning out of control again , and state governments are beginning to shut down businesses they let reopen in late May and early June .
The business shutdowns will likely spread again until new cases of COVID-19 fall sharply again , perhaps in August or September .
For a measure of what this could mean for the incomes of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to reject another round of emergency checks , recall the recent findings by the Federal Reserve that 37 percent of households can not handle an unexpected $ 400 expense on their own .
The agency recommended those people either charge it to their credit card debt , sell off some possessions , or try to borrow it from family , friends , a payday lender , or a bank – and that was in good economic times .
To be sure , the 3.0 percent drop in total personal income over three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are fine , thanks to support from the Federal Reserve and Treasury : The S & P 500 was nearly 100 points higher on June 29 ( 3,053.24 ) than on February 28 ( 2,954.22 ) .
Alas , the 58 percent of households those earning less than $ 50,000 account for 1.8 percent of all capital gains income .
But set that aside and approach what ’ s happening to personal income as an average income loss of 3.0 percent for everyone .
That would translate into a $ 1,858 shortfall for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 ) – nearly five times what 37 percent of Americans said they couldn ’ t handle when the economy was growing .
If phase two of the pandemic unfolds like phase one , personal income and total wages and salaries will fall substantially further .
If income losses over the next three months are comparable to what already happened in March through May , a median income household could face an average income hit of $ 3,718 with another round of government assistance and an average hit of $ 6,503 if government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second time .
Congress will likely step up again , and the president will try to claim credit .
But for the majority of Americans with few resources beyond their paychecks and home equity , this pandemic and the administration ’ s bafflingly inept response will scar their financial well-being for a long time .

Donald Trump may have normalized cognitive dissonance for many of his supporters and some young people. But wishing away the pandemic does not affect reality. The May data on personal incomes released last week by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is a serious case in point. The data show that our nearly singular failure to wrestle the pandemic to manageable proportions has cut quickly and deeply into wage and salary income across the country. The only force staving off desperate conditions for many households was the one-time checks the government sent most Americans and the temporary expansion of jobless benefits.
Now with the resurgence of COVID-19 infections, Congress has little choice but to approve another round of checks and extend the generous unemployment benefits. If Congress does approve a lot more help, millions of American households will still face financial peril – and if Congress fails to step up again, tens of millions of Americans could confront financial ruin.
As a dose of reality, the new income data show that our current conditions are roughly three times as severe as the Great Recession. All personal income fell 4.2 percent in May and 3.0 percent over the three months from March through May. It took nine months for personal income to fall that much during the Great Recession. Wage and salary income actually increased by 3.3 percent in May, as the payroll grants under the CARES program kicked in and businesses began to reopen. Even so, wage and salary income fell 7.9 percent from March through May, again more than during the entire Great Recession.
The reason that total personal income fell “only” 3.0 percent over the three months—the steepest drop on record—while total wage and salary income fell an astounding 7.9 percent in three months was due almost entirely to those government checks and jobless benefits. After setting aside government transfers, the BEA reports that total personal income fell 7.5 percent in three months.
We seem headed now for another round of the pandemic that looks much like March through May. In March, as the virus quickly spun out of control, businesses began to shut down by mid-month and Congress expanded jobless benefits. By April, with millions of businesses shuttered or struggling, and wage and salary income falling 7.7 percent in one month, the government sent out the emergency checks. By May, as the spread of the virus slowed after physical-distancing measures were imposed across the country, many businesses began to reopen, so wage and salary income rose.
Yet through it all, the Trump administration never put in place nationwide testing and contact tracing. Lulled by the president’s baseless assurance that he had beaten back the pandemic, millions of people resumed their lives without bothering to social distance, wear masks, and take other basic precautions. So now, in late June, we find ourselves headed back to where we were in March. Across much of the country, the virus is spinning out of control again, and state governments are beginning to shut down businesses they let reopen in late May and early June. The business shutdowns will likely spread again until new cases of COVID-19 fall sharply again, perhaps in August or September.
For a measure of what this could mean for the incomes of millions of Americans, especially if Senate Republicans continue to reject another round of emergency checks, recall the recent findings by the Federal Reserve that 37 percent of households cannot handle an unexpected $400 expense on their own. The agency recommended those people either charge it to their credit card debt, sell off some possessions, or try to borrow it from family, friends, a payday lender, or a bank – and that was in good economic times.
To be sure, the 3.0 percent drop in total personal income over three months has not hit everyone. Investors are fine, thanks to support from the Federal Reserve and Treasury: The S&P 500 was nearly 100 points higher on June 29 (3,053.24) than on February 28 (2,954.22). Alas, the 58 percent of households those earning less than $50,000 account for 1.8 percent of all capital gains income. But set that aside and approach what’s happening to personal income as an average income loss of 3.0 percent for everyone. That would translate into a $1,858 shortfall for a median-income household ($61,937 in 2018)– nearly five times what 37 percent of Americans said they couldn’t handle when the economy was growing.
If phase two of the pandemic unfolds like phase one, personal income and total wages and salaries will fall substantially further. If income losses over the next three months are comparable to what already happened in March through May, a median income household could face an average income hit of $3,718 with another round of government assistance and an average hit of $6,503 if government help doesn’t come through a second time.
Congress will likely step up again, and the president will try to claim credit. But for the majority of Americans with few resources beyond their paychecks and home equity, this pandemic and the administration’s bafflingly inept response will scar their financial well-being for a long time.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-30--Is Trump Projecting When He Accuses Others of Treason?

Since Donald Trump became president , a theme has emerged on social media : “ There is a tweet for everything , ” meaning you can almost always find a past tweet of Trump criticizing precisely what he is doing now .
Here ’ s a current example : Going back to Obama ’ s time in office , Trump was obviously obsessed with the fact that his predecessor played golf , tweeting about it at least 27 times , including this one .
I previously wrote that this habit of accusing others of things he ’ s guilty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is no great mystery about why there is a tweet for everything .
Anyone as sociopathic as Donald Trump engages in projection when attacking their opponents .
That is because they are incapable of empathy or being able to see another person ’ s point of view .
Absent any other point of reference , they simply project their own reactions onto others .
Trump is obviously obsessed with playing golf , so regardless of the facts , he projected that obsession onto Obama .
That raises some serious questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of treason .
The Washington Post put together a video of several of those allegations .
JM Rieger reports that “ Trump has accused no fewer than 12 people and entities of treason over the past three years.
” From those examples , it becomes obvious that the president assumes that anything that threatens him personally is treasonous .
But to get an actual definition of the word , we need only look to the U.S. Constitution , where treason is the only crime that is actually defined .
Article three , Section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s obsession with accusing others of treason , is this yet another example of projection ?
Is the president accusing others of a crime for which he is guilty ?
I ’ ll grant you that that is a loaded question .
But it is precisely why we need answers to the questions about Russia ’ s payment of bounties to Islamic extremists in Afghanistan for the killing of U.S. soldiers .
We must know what Trump knew about the intelligence and what he did ( or didn ’ t do ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adversary targeted the killing of our soldiers on the battlefield would be a classic example of “ giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
” Even more damning would be advocating on behalf of Russia ’ s reinstatement into the G-7 while they are paying bounties for the killing of our soldiers .
Here is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about that on Sunday .
Pelosi reminds us of all of the “ gifts ” Trump has given to Russia ’ s president and that the last time she was at the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that , “ With you Mr. President , all roads lead to Putin.
” If Trump knew about Russia ’ s bounty on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and did nothing but grant more gifts to Putin , that should trigger an investigation into whether the President of the United States is guilty of treason .

Since Donald Trump became president, a theme has emerged on social media: “There is a tweet for everything,” meaning you can almost always find a past tweet of Trump criticizing precisely what he is doing now. Here’s a current example:
Going back to Obama’s time in office, Trump was obviously obsessed with the fact that his predecessor played golf, tweeting about it at least 27 times, including this one.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/525495434928988160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E525495434928988160&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbnation.com%2Fgolf%2F2017%2F3%2F27%2F15073086%2Fdonald-trump-tweets-barack-obama-golf
I previously wrote that this habit of accusing others of things he’s guilty of doing himself is a matter of projection.
There is no great mystery about why there is a tweet for everything. Anyone as sociopathic as Donald Trump engages in projection when attacking their opponents. That is because they are incapable of empathy or being able to see another person’s point of view. Absent any other point of reference, they simply project their own reactions onto others. Trump is obviously obsessed with playing golf, so regardless of the facts, he projected that obsession onto Obama.
That raises some serious questions about Trump’s habit of accusing others of treason. The Washington Post put together a video of several of those allegations.
JM Rieger reports that “Trump has accused no fewer than 12 people and entities of treason over the past three years.” From those examples, it becomes obvious that the president assumes that anything that threatens him personally is treasonous. But to get an actual definition of the word, we need only look to the U.S. Constitution, where treason is the only crime that is actually defined. Article three, Section three states the following.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Given Trump’s obsession with accusing others of treason, is this yet another example of projection? Is the president accusing others of a crime for which he is guilty? I’ll grant you that that is a loaded question. But it is precisely why we need answers to the questions about Russia’s payment of bounties to Islamic extremists in Afghanistan for the killing of U.S. soldiers. We must know what Trump knew about the intelligence and what he did (or didn’t do) in response. Sitting back while an adversary targeted the killing of our soldiers on the battlefield would be a classic example of “giving aid and comfort to our enemies.” Even more damning would be advocating on behalf of Russia’s reinstatement into the G-7 while they are paying bounties for the killing of our soldiers.
Here is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about that on Sunday.
Pelosi reminds us of all of the “gifts” Trump has given to Russia’s president and that the last time she was at the White House for a meeting, she told him that, “With you Mr. President, all roads lead to Putin.”
If Trump knew about Russia’s bounty on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and did nothing but grant more gifts to Putin, that should trigger an investigation into whether the President of the United States is guilty of treason.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-30--Trump’s Red Wall Is Beginning to Crumble

Nicole Galloway , the State Auditor of Missouri , is running for governor .
She hired the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group to poll her race and they tested the Biden-Trump contest as part of their survey .
In the business , this is called a “ partisan poll ” because it ’ s paid for by a candidate .
One advantage to a partisan poll is that a candidate is not compelled to release the data if they don ’ t like the results .
Some polling outfits are not above producing the results their clients wants to see , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll can give a struggling campaign some juice and help them attract volunteers , raise money , and get free media attention .
For these reasons , you should always be skeptical of partisan polls , especially when they produce startling headlines .
The Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group survey isn ’ t particularly great news for Auditor Galloway .
She has a 40 percent to 47 percent deficit against incumbent Republican governor Mike Parsons .
The pollsters helpfully characterize this as “ closing the gap ” and state that Parson ’ s lead has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past seventeen months.
” FiveThirtyEight gives the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group a middling B/C grade and says they have a D+1.3 mean-reverted bias .
By contrast , the Trafalgar Group that does polling for Trump receives a C- rating and a R+0.9 mean-reverted bias .
The best way to interpret this is that the Galloway poll is likely to be too optimistic for the Democrats .
So , with that caveat in mind , the survey found that Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump in Missouri by a 47 percent to 45 percent margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistent with national polls showing a double-digit Biden lead and state polls showing Biden ahead in other states Donald Trump won in 2016.
” But it ’ s really not consistent with that .
Trump won Missouri in 2016 by a thunderous 56.4 percent to 37.9 percent margin .
Polls showing Biden outperforming Clinton by eight-to-ten points nationally and in key battleground states would not support a swing of this magnitude in Missouri .
But , when we take the pro-Democratic bias of the pollster into account , we can see how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s the real takeaway from these results .
It ’ s unlikely that Biden is actually leading in Missouri but he could be approaching parity .
And , with the trajectory things are on , that ’ s a recipe for eventually carrying the state .
I think this is just one more date point that indicates that things are beginning to tilt heavily against Trump .
Combined with a mid-June poll showing Biden down by two points in Arkansas and a recent Fox News poll showing him ahead by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seeing a crumbling of the red wall in places where few people expected a competitive race .

Nicole Galloway, the State Auditor of Missouri, is running for governor. She hired the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group to poll her race and they tested the Biden-Trump contest as part of their survey. In the business, this is called a “partisan poll” because it’s paid for by a candidate. One advantage to a partisan poll is that a candidate is not compelled to release the data if they don’t like the results. Some polling outfits are not above producing the results their clients wants to see, and a good (even if dishonest) poll can give a struggling campaign some juice and help them attract volunteers, raise money, and get free media attention. For these reasons, you should always be skeptical of partisan polls, especially when they produce startling headlines.
The Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group survey isn’t particularly great news for Auditor Galloway. She has a 40 percent to 47 percent deficit against incumbent Republican governor Mike Parsons. The pollsters helpfully characterize this as “closing the gap” and state that Parson’s lead has been”slashed in half over the past seventeen months.”
FiveThirtyEight gives the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group a middling B/C grade and says they have a D+1.3 mean-reverted bias. By contrast, the Trafalgar Group that does polling for Trump receives a C- rating and a R+0.9 mean-reverted bias. The best way to interpret this is that the Galloway poll is likely to be too optimistic for the Democrats.
So, with that caveat in mind, the survey found that Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump in Missouri by a 47 percent to 45 percent margin. The pollsters insist this “is consistent with national polls showing a double-digit Biden lead and state polls showing Biden ahead in other states Donald Trump won in 2016.” But it’s really not consistent with that. Trump won Missouri in 2016 by a thunderous 56.4 percent to 37.9 percent margin. Polls showing Biden outperforming Clinton by eight-to-ten points nationally and in key battleground states would not support a swing of this magnitude in Missouri. But, when we take the pro-Democratic bias of the pollster into account, we can see how it could bring Missouri into the competitive range.
That’s the real takeaway from these results. It’s unlikely that Biden is actually leading in Missouri but he could be approaching parity. And, with the trajectory things are on, that’s a recipe for eventually carrying the state. I think this is just one more data point that indicates that things are beginning to tilt heavily against Trump. Combined with a mid-June poll showing Biden down by two points in Arkansas and a recent Fox News poll showing him ahead by one point in Texas, we’re seeing a crumbling of the red wall in places where few people expected a competitive race.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-30--How Would a Competent President Respond to Russia Right Now?

Since the New York Times published their article on Friday about Russia offering Afghan militants bounties for killing U.S. troops , I have been trying to follow the Trump administration ’ s response .
Initially , it was to claim that the president hadn ’ t been briefed about the “ alleged intelligence.
” Trump added in a tweet that intelligence services didn ’ t find the information credible , which is why he hadn ’ t been briefed .
Then on Monday , Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany repeated that claim , saying that Trump hadn ’ t been briefed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the veracity of the intelligence .
We also know from reports that “ the administration discussed several potential responses , but the White House has yet to authorize any step.
” What none of these responses denies is that there is intelligence indicating that Russia has offered to pay bounties to Afghan militants for killing U.S. soldiers .
As the administration lies and tries to spin their way out of this , it would be helpful to put it all in perspective by taking a look at what a competent administration does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is exactly what happened in July 2016 .
According to a book by Greg Miller titled The Apprentice : Trump , Russia and the Subversion of American Democracy , then-CIA Director John Brennan personally poured over intelligence reports about Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election .
By early August , according to a report in the Washington Post , Brennan had compiled his own dossier and delivered it to the White House .
Early last August , an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it carried “ eyes only ” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people : President Barack Obama and three senior aides .
Inside was an intelligence bombshell , a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin ’ s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race .
But it went further .
The intelligence captured Putin ’ s specific instructions on the operation ’ s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her opponent , Donald Trump .
In other words , intelligence indicating a Russian threat to the election went straight to the president and three senior aides .
Because there were dissenting opinions about the veracity of the intelligence , a task force made up of representatives from the CIA , the FBI , and the DNI was formed to collect further information .
Here is how they described the president ’ s directive .
While all of that was happening , members of Congress were briefed as well .
Then on October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Jeh Johnson and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a public statement .
Finally , on January 6 , 2017 , U.S. intelligence services published a report titled , “ Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S.
Elections , ” with this as the key finding .
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow ’ s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order , but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness , level of activity , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election .
Russia ’ s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process , denigrate Secretary Clinton , and harm her electability and potential presidency .
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump .
On the same day , the Obama administration announced sanctions against Russians for their interference in the election and closed several compounds in the U.S. that housed Russian operatives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast because , after being subjected to this president ’ s combination of malevolence and incompetence , we can forget what it is we expect from our Commander-in-Chief in response to threats we face as a country .
Hiding in a bunker and blaming “ fake news ” isn ’ t leadership .
That ’ s a three year old throwing a temper tantrum .

Since the New York Times published their article on Friday about Russia offering Afghan militants bounties for killing U.S. troops, I have been trying to follow the Trump administration’s response. Initially, it was to claim that the president hadn’t been briefed about the “alleged intelligence.”
Trump added in a tweet that intelligence services didn’t find the information credible, which is why he hadn’t been briefed. Then on Monday, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany repeated that claim, saying that Trump hadn’t been briefed because there are “dissenting opinions” about the veracity of the intelligence. We also know from reports that “the administration discussed several potential responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any step.”
What none of these responses denies is that there is intelligence indicating that Russia has offered to pay bounties to Afghan militants for killing U.S. soldiers. As the administration lies and tries to spin their way out of this, it would be helpful to put it all in perspective by taking a look at what a competent administration does when confronted with a specific Russian threat. That is exactly what happened in July 2016.
According to a book by Greg Miller titled The Apprentice: Trump, Russia and the Subversion of American Democracy, then-CIA Director John Brennan personally poured over intelligence reports about Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. By early August, according to a report in the Washington Post, Brennan had compiled his own dossier and delivered it to the White House.
Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides. Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race. But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.
In other words, intelligence indicating a Russian threat to the election went straight to the president and three senior aides. Because there were dissenting opinions about the veracity of the intelligence, a task force made up of representatives from the CIA, the FBI, and the DNI was formed to collect further information. Here is how they described the president’s directive.
Obama instructed aides to pursue ways to deter Moscow and proceed along three main paths: Get a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russia’s role and intent; shore up any vulnerabilities in state-run election systems; and seek bipartisan support from congressional leaders for a statement condemning Moscow and urging states to accept federal help.
While all of that was happening, members of Congress were briefed as well. Then on October 7, 2016, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a public statement.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.
Finally, on January 6, 2017, U.S. intelligence services published a report titled, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,” with this as the key finding.
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
On the same day, the Obama administration announced sanctions against Russians for their interference in the election and closed several compounds in the U.S. that housed Russian operatives.
I offer all of that as a contrast because, after being subjected to this president’s combination of malevolence and incompetence, we can forget what it is we expect from our Commander-in-Chief in response to threats we face as a country. Hiding in a bunker and blaming “fake news” isn’t leadership. That’s a three year old throwing a temper tantrum.