thebulwark--2020-07-28--Three Tests for the Future of the Republican Party

Life is a learning experience .
Even the three months before a presidential election .
So it might make sense to ask a question : What will we learn over the next three months that could help us determine whether or not the Republican party and American conservatism are lost causes ?
There are three looming tests for Republican officials and prominent conservative leaders .
( 1 ) Will Republican leaders in Congress—particularly the Senate—work seriously with Democrats on a responsible coronavirus package ?
Or will they give the White House a veto over what they legislate ?
Are they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic proposals , aid for state and local election officials , and real help for dealing with the pandemic ?
Are they ready to pass legislation without emoluments , financial or psychic , for Donald Trump ?
And are they ultimately willing to vote with Democrats to override a potential presidential veto ?
To stick with the president at this late date on such important legislation would be such a pathetic sign of continued servility to Donald Trump as to make any promise of post-election redemption doubtful .
( 2 ) Will Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who aspire to be so in the future—and conservative luminaries be willing to say publicly they ’ re not voting for Donald Trump ’ s re-election ?
They don ’ t have to say they ’ re voting for Joe Biden .
( Though they should . )
But they should have the moral clarity and political courage to say out loud that Donald Trump should not have a second term in office .
If John Bolton can do this , can ’ t elected Republicans ?
Can ’ t conservative commentators ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders say clearly and ahead of time that they ’ re committed to a free , fair , and secure election this November ?
Will they commit to making sure mail-in and absentee voting work , and state unequivocally that they know these modes of voting are not ways of rigging the results ?
Will they work to ensure that the election results are honored without civic unrest and without debilitating doubt being cast on the legitimacy of the outcome ?
These would seem to be minimal tests of civic responsibility going forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next three months is the least we can expect from a responsible political party and political movement .
It is not clear why anyone should think that a party or movement that can not bring itself to perform these basic tasks would be salvageable .
If the great majority of Republicans and conservatives are unwilling to do these things , then the cause of freedom and democracy in the 21st century will rightly leave the Republican party and American conservatism , unpitied and unmourned , on the ash heap of history .

Life is a learning experience. Even the three months before a presidential election. So it might make sense to ask a question:
What will we learn over the next three months that could help us determine whether or not the Republican party and American conservatism are lost causes?
There are three looming tests for Republican officials and prominent conservative leaders.
(1) Will Republican leaders in Congress—particularly the Senate—work seriously with Democrats on a responsible coronavirus package?
Or will they give the White House a veto over what they legislate?
Are they ready to pass a package with serious economic proposals, aid for state and local election officials, and real help for dealing with the pandemic?
Are they ready to pass legislation without emoluments, financial or psychic, for Donald Trump?
And are they ultimately willing to vote with Democrats to override a potential presidential veto?
To stick with the president at this late date on such important legislation would be such a pathetic sign of continued servility to Donald Trump as to make any promise of post-election redemption doubtful.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
(2) Will Republican elected officials—present, past, and those who aspire to be so in the future—and conservative luminaries be willing to say publicly they’re not voting for Donald Trump’s re-election?
They don’t have to say they’re voting for Joe Biden. (Though they should.) But they should have the moral clarity and political courage to say out loud that Donald Trump should not have a second term in office.
If John Bolton can do this, can’t elected Republicans? Can’t conservative commentators?
(3) Will Republican and conservative leaders say clearly and ahead of time that they’re committed to a free, fair, and secure election this November?
Will they commit to making sure mail-in and absentee voting work, and state unequivocally that they know these modes of voting are not ways of rigging the results?
Will they work to ensure that the election results are honored without civic unrest and without debilitating doubt being cast on the legitimacy of the outcome?
These would seem to be minimal tests of civic responsibility going forward.
To do these three things over the next three months is the least we can expect from a responsible political party and political movement. It is not clear why anyone should think that a party or movement that cannot bring itself to perform these basic tasks would be salvageable.
If the great majority of Republicans and conservatives are unwilling to do these things, then the cause of freedom and democracy in the 21st century will rightly leave the Republican party and American conservatism, unpitied and unmourned, on the ash heap of history.


thebulwark--2020-07-28--Let Them Expense Cake!

Let Them Expense Cake!

If anything represents the bass-ackwards approach Republicans are taking to the coronavirus response , it might be the proposal , supported by President Trump , that Senator Tim Scott put into the latest round of coronavirus relief .
Scott wants to raise the deduction for business meals from 50 percent to a full 100 percent , which he says “ will lead to more customers , more opportunities for hardworking waitstaff and kitchen staff , and much-needed revenue for small businesses across the country.
” Um , what ?
Almost 150,000 Americans are dead , millions of kids won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this fall , people still can ’ t get fast accessible testing—and one of our top priorities is allowing a full deduction for business meals ?
Calling this “ out-of-touch ” would be generous because it would imply it was somewhere within the realm of actually being “ in touch.
” The only way this makes sense is if you want to skew “ relief ” towards steakhouses in Washington and New York .
Trump Hotel may be a lobbyist hotspot , but your local pizza place most assuredly is not .
Besides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country , hosting client meals and events , in the middle of a highly-contagious and deadly pandemic ?
For goodness sake , Google is keeping its employees home until July 2021 .
At the same time , billionaire hedge fund manager-turned Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has a plan !
Cut the $ 600 per week federal unemployment benefit to $ 200 a week .
“ It wouldn ’ t be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay more people to sit home than they would get working and get a job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News Sunday .
Yes !
Fairness !
That ’ s what Republicans are after !
Well , if that ’ s the case , do the restaurant workers , retail workers , and other working-class folks the Trump administration thinks are busy milking the system for a paid vacation get the meal deduction ?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA .
Don ’ t bother keeping those McDonald ’ s receipts .
These benefits aren ’ t for the Dollar Menu crowd , you fool .
Or maybe , Republicans want to help those kids and working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , working , and eating from home for the foreseeable future .
Can they expense meals ?
No ?
How about all the new “ office equipment ” needed to set-up makeshift school rooms at home ?
Those desks , chairs , and camera-ready laptops aren ’ t cheap .
No ?
They ’ re not expensable , either ?
Maybe mom and dad should set themselves up as a private company and then apply for the next round of PPP funding ?
Maybe they could carry forward some inflated business losses like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s how to do it , right ?
What do regular Joes need to do here to get their cut , like President Trump ’ s son-in-law and White House aide Jared Kushner family ( more billionaires ! )
, Kayne West ( another billionaire ! )
, or the random Florida man who scammed $ 4 million in coronavirus relief funding and blew it on a Lamborghini Huracán , jewelry , and the Setai Hotel in Miami Beach .
( Hey , at least we found someone who would expense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitality workers .
Hope he tipped well . )
When it comes to the rich and reckless , there ’ s all kind of money sloshing around .
Those $ 1,200 stimulus checks are pennies compared to the billions shoveled out the door to well-connected companies .
And we were supposed to consider it a victory that the government even disclosed the names of the companies who got the money , remember ?
The government has thrown at least $ 6 trillion at coronavirus spending , and the latest round is expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pile .
And not that a dime of it will do much good as long as conservative “ thought leaders ” are still debating the merits of basic mitigation strategies such as masks and social distancing .
We ’ re six months into this largely preventable crisis—which most of the developed world has gotten under control—and our president now wants a cookie because he finally put a mask on .
In the midst of this , tremendous political minds at the Republican National Committee decided it wouldn ’ t be safe to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traveling the country to come together in an enclosed arena to breathe all over each other .
And Kansas Republican senatorial candidate Kris Kobach is out on the hustings talking to anti-vaxxers and telling them “ I am 100 percent against mandatory vaccines , be it for COVID , or the flu , or anything else.
” There ’ s not enough money in the world to paper over this kind of idiocy .
And so our country remains hostage to the coronavirus .
We have ended up with the worst of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life , massive disruption to our lives—and a still-uncontained viral explosion .
What ’ s the Republican party doing about it ?
The White House inserted $ 1.75 billion in the new coronavirus spending bill to renovate the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington rather than have the bureau move and free up real estate for a potential hotel competitor across the street from the Trump International .
( No one wants to own up to how this money got there , either . )
Our government gave more money to a prop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child-care facilities in America .
People went to bars all summer long and drank their summer away while kids went without playdates and summer camp .
The National Football League plans to test all players daily so their games can go on , while regular plebes wait , wait , and wait some more for their test results .
None of it makes any sense .
As my former boss , Senator Ted Cruz said , “ What in the hell are we doing ?
”

If anything represents the bass-ackwards approach Republicans are taking to the coronavirus response, it might be the proposal, supported by President Trump, that Senator Tim Scott put into the latest round of coronavirus relief.
Scott wants to raise the deduction for business meals from 50 percent to a full 100 percent, which he says “will lead to more customers, more opportunities for hardworking waitstaff and kitchen staff, and much-needed revenue for small businesses across the country.”
Um, what? Almost 150,000 Americans are dead, millions of kids won’t be able to attend in-person classrooms this fall, people still can’t get fast accessible testing—and one of our top priorities is allowing a full deduction for business meals? Calling this “out-of-touch” would be generous because it would imply it was somewhere within the realm of actually being “in touch.” The only way this makes sense is if you want to skew “relief” towards steakhouses in Washington and New York. Trump Hotel may be a lobbyist hotspot, but your local pizza place most assuredly is not.
Besides, who in the world is traveling around the country, hosting client meals and events, in the middle of a highly-contagious and deadly pandemic? For goodness sake, Google is keeping its employees home until July 2021.
At the same time, billionaire hedge fund manager-turned Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has a plan! Cut the $600 per week federal unemployment benefit to $200 a week. “It wouldn’t be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay more people to sit home than they would get working and get a job,” Mnuchin told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Yes! Fairness! That’s what Republicans are after!
Well, if that’s the case, do the restaurant workers, retail workers, and other working-class folks the Trump administration thinks are busy milking the system for a paid vacation get the meal deduction? BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Don’t bother keeping those McDonald’s receipts. These benefits aren’t for the Dollar Menu crowd, you fool.
Or maybe, Republicans want to help those kids and working familiars who are going to be learning, working, and eating from home for the foreseeable future. Can they expense meals? No? How about all the new “office equipment” needed to set-up makeshift school rooms at home? Those desks, chairs, and camera-ready laptops aren’t cheap. No? They’re not expensable, either? Maybe mom and dad should set themselves up as a private company and then apply for the next round of PPP funding? Maybe they could carry forward some inflated business losses like all those real estate investors do. That’s how to do it, right?
What do regular Joes need to do here to get their cut, like President Trump’s son-in-law and White House aide Jared Kushner family (more billionaires!), Kayne West (another billionaire!), or the random Florida man who scammed $4 million in coronavirus relief funding and blew it on a Lamborghini Huracán, jewelry, and the Setai Hotel in Miami Beach. (Hey, at least we found someone who would expense their business meals and help those poor hospitality workers. Hope he tipped well.)
When it comes to the rich and reckless, there’s all kind of money sloshing around. Those $1,200 stimulus checks are pennies compared to the billions shoveled out the door to well-connected companies. And we were supposed to consider it a victory that the government even disclosed the names of the companies who got the money, remember?
The government has thrown at least $6 trillion at coronavirus spending, and the latest round is expected to throw at least another trillion on the pile.
And not that a dime of it will do much good as long as conservative “thought leaders” are still debating the merits of basic mitigation strategies such as masks and social distancing.
We’re six months into this largely preventable crisis—which most of the developed world has gotten under control—and our president now wants a cookie because he finally put a mask on. In the midst of this, tremendous political minds at the Republican National Committee decided it wouldn’t be safe to hold an in-person convention with thousands of people traveling the country to come together in an enclosed arena to breathe all over each other. And Kansas Republican senatorial candidate Kris Kobach is out on the hustings talking to anti-vaxxers and telling them “I am 100 percent against mandatory vaccines, be it for COVID, or the flu, or anything else.”
There’s not enough money in the world to paper over this kind of idiocy.
And so our country remains hostage to the coronavirus. We have ended up with the worst of all worlds: Massive spending, massive loss of life, massive disruption to our lives—and a still-uncontained viral explosion.
What’s the Republican party doing about it?
The White House inserted $1.75 billion in the new coronavirus spending bill to renovate the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington rather than have the bureau move and free up real estate for a potential hotel competitor across the street from the Trump International. (No one wants to own up to how this money got there, either.)
Our government gave more money to a prop up a single airline than to all child-care facilities in America.
People went to bars all summer long and drank their summer away while kids went without playdates and summer camp.
The National Football League plans to test all players daily so their games can go on, while regular plebes wait, wait, and wait some more for their test results. None of it makes any sense.
As my former boss, Senator Ted Cruz said, “What in the hell are we doing?”
Let them expense cake, I guess.


thebulwark--2020-07-29--The Fragile Vaccine Plan to Save the World

There is broad agreement that a COVID-19 vaccine is the surest route out of the present global crisis .
To that end , the United States launched Operation Warp Speed to secure 300 million doses by January 2021 for domestic consumption , and the European Union , China , Russia , and some others have similar plans underway .
But what about the rest of the world ?
The need will be vast ; the globe ’ s population is approaching 8 billion people , at least half of whom live in countries that are unlikely to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pre-2017 , one would have expected the United States , working with its allies , to coordinate an international response .
But the “ America First ” Trump administration has a reflexive aversion to multilateral efforts , no matter how necessary or meritorious they may be .
With the United States on the sidelines , it has fallen to two relatively small nonprofits , working with the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , to fill the leadership void .
The plan they have assembled—the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access ( COVAX ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on having sufficient funds to gain leverage with potential manufacturers .
The coming weeks may be decisive in determining its success or failure .
Over the past two decades , Bill and Melinda Gates , working through their foundation , have become central figures in global public health .
Both of the nonprofits spearheading the global COVID-19 vaccine plan are Gates endeavors .
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation ( CEPI ) was founded in 2017 with the intention of engaging governments and the commercial sector to improve readiness for a global public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been concerned that the emergence of a dangerous and contagious pathogen was inevitable at some point , and its arrival would expose a woefully underprepared world .
The COVID-19 conflagration has proved him right , and has thrust CEPI ’ s work to the forefront of the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 virus .
The other partner is Gavi .
The mission of this “ global vaccine alliance ” before the pandemic was to bring effective childhood vaccination campaigns to the poorest countries of the world .
Gavi estimates it has prevented 13 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
COVID-19 is pushing the organization beyond its traditional role , as it is now attempting to coordinate procurement for most of the world ’ s nations , not just the poorest , and under a timeline of eighteen months rather than multiple years .
For countries that commit to it , the COVAX Facility ’ s guarantee is the delivery of sufficient COVID-19 vaccines to protect high-priority populations by the end of 2021 .
More specifically , COVAX promises sufficient supply to cover the lesser of 20 percent of a country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health-care workers , residents age 65 and older , and those with high-risk pre-existing conditions .
The WHO estimates this targeted population constitutes 24 percent of the global population .
There are approximately 50 million health-care workers worldwide , 650 million people age 65 and older , and 1.15 billion people with significant underlying health risks .
If every country signed up with COVAX , the necessary supply to vaccinate this population would be nearly 4.3 billion doses , assuming two per person and 15 percent wastage .
If countries with half the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the required supply would be just over 2 billion doses , which is in line with the facility ’ s eighteen-month procurement goal .
CEPI and Gavi are building a large and diverse portfolio of potential vaccines candidates on the sound assumption that most of them will fail .
There are many things that can go wrong with vaccine development .
A vaccine candidate might be found to be unsafe because of its harmful side effects , even if those effects are seen in a relatively small number of patients .
Or it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease .
Or it may prove to be too difficult to produce at scale , or too costly to deliver because of expensive shipping and storage requirements .
Consequently , public health experts tend to be cautious about the likelihood of success of any one candidate , no matter how promising it might appear initially .
Hence the need for a diverse portfolio .
Others analysts have made this point , but it deserves emphasis because of its importance to the design of a successful vaccine procurement plan .
An example helps illustrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a 15 percent chance of success ( which is close to the historical success rate of vaccines entering human trials ) , a country betting on one developer would face an 85 percent probability of coming away emptyhanded .
However , if a country ( or a group of countries ) is able to invest in 10 candidates , each also with a 15 percent chance of success , the odds of coming away with no vaccines at all would be just 20 percent .
( This presumes that the vaccine candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them from failing for the same reason . )
The need to enter into multiple contractual relationships with potential manufacturers is one reason that securing a COVID-19 vaccine is such a daunting undertaking .
The cost and risk of committing to several developers at once , well before there is clarity on the safety and efficacy of their vaccine candidates , is prohibitive for most countries .
Moreover , there is a limited supply of global manufacturing capacity , which means there is great demand for it .
The United States , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other high-income countries have been scrambling for months to obtain pre-commitments on vaccine-manufacturing capacity for their own supplies .
Countries with smaller populations do not have sufficient leverage to compete with these other procurement programs .
CEPI ’ s role in COVAX is “ push ” funding , which makes it similar to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) in the United States .
CEPI is signing contracts with developers of promising candidates to help finance the final stages of research , run clinical trials , and scale up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has agreements in place with nine developers .
The portfolio includes three that also have contracts with the U.S. government ( Novavax , AstraZeneca , and Moderna ) and several that do not .
For instance , CEPI is supporting the vaccine candidates sponsored by the University of Queensland in Australia , Clover Biopharmaceuticals , and the partnership of the University of Pittsburgh , Institut Pasteur , and Themis Bioscience .
CEPI ’ s “ push ” is expected to work in concert with a “ pull ” from Gavi .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secured large supplies through advance market commitment ( AMC ) contracts with manufacturers .
With AMCs , Gavi promises vaccine sponsors that it will purchase a certain number of doses , at a predetermined price , if the sponsors can clear all of the necessary regulatory hurdles .
Without such a guarantee , manufacturers may be reluctant to take on the substantial risks that accompany vaccine development .
Gavi is now trying to assemble the financing from participating countries and donors to enter into AMCs with many of CEPI ’ s COVID-19 vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well—a plan that requires $ 18.1 billion , per a WHO estimate .
As of late June , only $ 3.4 had been committed to COVAX and related efforts on expanded testing and therapeutics .
The United States , China , Russia , and India have all declined so far to support the plan , and even the countries that have made commitments have contributed sums that are well below what will be required to make the vaccine facility a powerful force in the rapidly evolving COVID battle .
COVAX is the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next eighteen months for a large number of nations .
The countries with the lowest per capita incomes have no other realistic options and will benefit substantially from subsidization of their procurement requirements .
Other middle-income countries also will benefit from a coordinated international plan , even without subsidization , because their populations are too small to secure bilateral deals with a diverse array of manufacturers .
Their best option is to combine forces with other countries to improve their leverage in the global marketplace .
COVAX is potentially attractive to some high-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strings attached .
On their own , countries such as the U.K. , Japan , Canada , and Australia are perfectly capable of securing deals with the big players in the biopharmaceutical industry , and especially from their domestic companies .
Indeed , several promising vaccine candidates are based in these locations .
For instance , the U.K. has supported the Oxford-AstraZeneca effort and will be first in line for vaccines if and when it is approved for use .
Still , promising as the Oxford vaccine looks at the moment , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administered to large numbers of patients .
And if it doesn ’ t , the U.K. will need other options , which is why it recently signed agreements with two other manufacturers and has also expressed interest in the COVAX Facility .
Even so , advanced-economy countries see COVAX as a second-best option because it implies large numbers of lower-risk residents going unvaccinated all the way through 2021 .
The COVAX Facility ’ s goal is only to vaccinate high-priority groups by the end of next year based on a principle of fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facility procures will be distributed first based on vaccinating these populations in all COVAX-participating countries .
Only then will supply go to lower priority groups , and distribution will be based on population size , not ability-to-pay .
In other words , it could take multiple years for countries relying exclusively on COVAX to vaccinate their entire populations , which is a timeline that residents in the developed world are likely to find disappointing , and possibly intolerable .
Although the Trump administration is unlikely to see it this way , the CEPI-Gavi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the United States .
The world has not faced a crisis of this severity in many decades .
The situation cries out for a coordinated plan that harnesses global expertise and manufacturing capacity to deliver a solution as rapidly as possible , and not just for rich countries .
The United States would enhance its prestige if it led the development and execution of a plan that freed all of the world ’ s nations from the grip of this pandemic .
That is an achievable objective if Operation Warp Speed were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Operation Warp Speed ’ s goal is 300 million vaccines by January 2021 , and while nothing is assured , there are promising candidates that may allow the United States to overshoot this goal , if not by January then perhaps at some other point early in 2021 .
Working with the EU , the U.K. , Japan , and other allies , the United States should develop a vaccine commitment program that ensures any excess supply secured by these high-income democracies is shared rapidly with the COVAX Facility , perhaps even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need not conform perfectly to the WHO goal of “ equitable access ” to be seen by COVAX-participating countries as a welcome source of support .
Short of leading a coordinated international response , the United States could provide financial backing to COVAX , which is the route Senate Republicans are recommending in their latest COVID relief legislation .
A provision in their proposed bill would appropriate $ 3 billion to Gavi ’ s COVID vaccine-procurement program .
The final bill must be negotiated with congressional Democrats .
An effective global vaccination program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Proponents of a multilateral plan often note that COVID-19 is a global problem requiring a global solution , and while that formulation risks descent into cliché , it is also true .
If the virus is allowed to circulate the globe unchecked , there is a risk that it will mutate and require additional rounds of vaccination to prevent further epidemics , including in the United States .
Further , the longer the current pandemic goes on , the more damage it will cause to global economic growth , which will suppress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advanced economies .
The entire world is anxiously awaiting news that safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines are on the way .
The CEPI-Gavi effort increases the chances that such vaccines will reach half of the world ’ s population , if it is given the support it needs to work .
The United States has within its power the ability to support the COVAX Facility without undermining U.S. domestic goals .
It is plainly in our interests to do so .

There is broad agreement that a COVID-19 vaccine is the surest route out of the present global crisis. To that end, the United States launched Operation Warp Speed to secure 300 million doses by January 2021 for domestic consumption, and the European Union, China, Russia, and some others have similar plans underway. But what about the rest of the world?
The need will be vast; the globe’s population is approaching 8 billion people, at least half of whom live in countries that are unlikely to be able to secure vaccines on their own before 2022. Pre-2017, one would have expected the United States, working with its allies, to coordinate an international response. But the “America First” Trump administration has a reflexive aversion to multilateral efforts, no matter how necessary or meritorious they may be.
With the United States on the sidelines, it has fallen to two relatively small nonprofits, working with the World Health Organization (WHO), to fill the leadership void. The plan they have assembled—the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) Facility—is promising, but it depends entirely on having sufficient funds to gain leverage with potential manufacturers. The coming weeks may be decisive in determining its success or failure.
A Gates Production
Over the past two decades, Bill and Melinda Gates, working through their foundation, have become central figures in global public health. Both of the nonprofits spearheading the global COVID-19 vaccine plan are Gates endeavors.
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI) was founded in 2017 with the intention of engaging governments and the commercial sector to improve readiness for a global public health emergency. Bill Gates has long been concerned that the emergence of a dangerous and contagious pathogen was inevitable at some point, and its arrival would expose a woefully underprepared world. The COVID-19 conflagration has proved him right, and has thrust CEPI’s work to the forefront of the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The other partner is Gavi. The mission of this “global vaccine alliance” before the pandemic was to bring effective childhood vaccination campaigns to the poorest countries of the world. Gavi estimates it has prevented 13 million unnecessary deaths since its founding in 2000. COVID-19 is pushing the organization beyond its traditional role, as it is now attempting to coordinate procurement for most of the world’s nations, not just the poorest, and under a timeline of eighteen months rather than multiple years.
The COVAX Framework
For countries that commit to it, the COVAX Facility’s guarantee is the delivery of sufficient COVID-19 vaccines to protect high-priority populations by the end of 2021. More specifically, COVAX promises sufficient supply to cover the lesser of 20 percent of a country’s population, or all of its health-care workers, residents age 65 and older, and those with high-risk pre-existing conditions.
The WHO estimates this targeted population constitutes 24 percent of the global population. There are approximately 50 million health-care workers worldwide, 650 million people age 65 and older, and 1.15 billion people with significant underlying health risks.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
If every country signed up with COVAX, the necessary supply to vaccinate this population would be nearly 4.3 billion doses, assuming two per person and 15 percent wastage. If countries with half the world’s population sign up, the required supply would be just over 2 billion doses, which is in line with the facility’s eighteen-month procurement goal.
CEPI and Gavi are building a large and diverse portfolio of potential vaccines candidates on the sound assumption that most of them will fail.
There are many things that can go wrong with vaccine development. A vaccine candidate might be found to be unsafe because of its harmful side effects, even if those effects are seen in a relatively small number of patients. Or it might not produce sufficient protection against the disease. Or it may prove to be too difficult to produce at scale, or too costly to deliver because of expensive shipping and storage requirements. Consequently, public health experts tend to be cautious about the likelihood of success of any one candidate, no matter how promising it might appear initially. Hence the need for a diverse portfolio.
Others analysts have made this point, but it deserves emphasis because of its importance to the design of a successful vaccine procurement plan. An example helps illustrate the point. If each vaccine candidate has a 15 percent chance of success (which is close to the historical success rate of vaccines entering human trials), a country betting on one developer would face an 85 percent probability of coming away emptyhanded. However, if a country (or a group of countries) is able to invest in 10 candidates, each also with a 15 percent chance of success, the odds of coming away with no vaccines at all would be just 20 percent. (This presumes that the vaccine candidates are sufficiently varied to prevent all of them from failing for the same reason.)
The need to enter into multiple contractual relationships with potential manufacturers is one reason that securing a COVID-19 vaccine is such a daunting undertaking. The cost and risk of committing to several developers at once, well before there is clarity on the safety and efficacy of their vaccine candidates, is prohibitive for most countries. Moreover, there is a limited supply of global manufacturing capacity, which means there is great demand for it. The United States, China, Russia, the EU and some other high-income countries have been scrambling for months to obtain pre-commitments on vaccine-manufacturing capacity for their own supplies. Countries with smaller populations do not have sufficient leverage to compete with these other procurement programs.
Push and Pull Incentives
CEPI’s role in COVAX is “push” funding, which makes it similar to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in the United States. CEPI is signing contracts with developers of promising candidates to help finance the final stages of research, run clinical trials, and scale up manufacturing capacity.
To date, CEPI has agreements in place with nine developers. The portfolio includes three that also have contracts with the U.S. government (Novavax, AstraZeneca, and Moderna) and several that do not. For instance, CEPI is supporting the vaccine candidates sponsored by the University of Queensland in Australia, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, and the partnership of the University of Pittsburgh, Institut Pasteur, and Themis Bioscience.
CEPI’s “push” is expected to work in concert with a “pull” from Gavi. In an ongoing pneumococcal vaccination campaign, Gavi has secured large supplies through advance market commitment (AMC) contracts with manufacturers. With AMCs, Gavi promises vaccine sponsors that it will purchase a certain number of doses, at a predetermined price, if the sponsors can clear all of the necessary regulatory hurdles. Without such a guarantee, manufacturers may be reluctant to take on the substantial risks that accompany vaccine development.
Gavi is now trying to assemble the financing from participating countries and donors to enter into AMCs with many of CEPI’s COVID-19 vaccine partners, and possibly other manufacturers as well—a plan that requires $18.1 billion, per a WHO estimate. As of late June, only $3.4 had been committed to COVAX and related efforts on expanded testing and therapeutics. The United States, China, Russia, and India have all declined so far to support the plan, and even the countries that have made commitments have contributed sums that are well below what will be required to make the vaccine facility a powerful force in the rapidly evolving COVID battle.
The Fine Print
COVAX is the only real hope of securing vaccines over the next eighteen months for a large number of nations. The countries with the lowest per capita incomes have no other realistic options and will benefit substantially from subsidization of their procurement requirements. Other middle-income countries also will benefit from a coordinated international plan, even without subsidization, because their populations are too small to secure bilateral deals with a diverse array of manufacturers. Their best option is to combine forces with other countries to improve their leverage in the global marketplace.
COVAX is potentially attractive to some high-income countries too, but it comes with strings attached.
On their own, countries such as the U.K., Japan, Canada, and Australia are perfectly capable of securing deals with the big players in the biopharmaceutical industry, and especially from their domestic companies. Indeed, several promising vaccine candidates are based in these locations. For instance, the U.K. has supported the Oxford-AstraZeneca effort and will be first in line for vaccines if and when it is approved for use.
Still, promising as the Oxford vaccine looks at the moment, there is no guarantee it will work when administered to large numbers of patients. And if it doesn’t, the U.K. will need other options, which is why it recently signed agreements with two other manufacturers and has also expressed interest in the COVAX Facility.
Even so, advanced-economy countries see COVAX as a second-best option because it implies large numbers of lower-risk residents going unvaccinated all the way through 2021. The COVAX Facility’s goal is only to vaccinate high-priority groups by the end of next year based on a principle of fair and equitable access. Whatever supply the facility procures will be distributed first based on vaccinating these populations in all COVAX-participating countries. Only then will supply go to lower priority groups, and distribution will be based on population size, not ability-to-pay. In other words, it could take multiple years for countries relying exclusively on COVAX to vaccinate their entire populations, which is a timeline that residents in the developed world are likely to find disappointing, and possibly intolerable.
The U.S.’s Opportunity
Although the Trump administration is unlikely to see it this way, the CEPI-Gavi vaccine program could be an era-defining opportunity for the United States. The world has not faced a crisis of this severity in many decades. The situation cries out for a coordinated plan that harnesses global expertise and manufacturing capacity to deliver a solution as rapidly as possible, and not just for rich countries. The United States would enhance its prestige if it led the development and execution of a plan that freed all of the world’s nations from the grip of this pandemic.
That is an achievable objective if Operation Warp Speed were to work in tandem with CEPI-Gavi endeavor. Operation Warp Speed’s goal is 300 million vaccines by January 2021, and while nothing is assured, there are promising candidates that may allow the United States to overshoot this goal, if not by January then perhaps at some other point early in 2021. Working with the EU, the U.K., Japan, and other allies, the United States should develop a vaccine commitment program that ensures any excess supply secured by these high-income democracies is shared rapidly with the COVAX Facility, perhaps even simultaneously with domestic deliveries. This commitment need not conform perfectly to the WHO goal of “equitable access” to be seen by COVAX-participating countries as a welcome source of support.
Short of leading a coordinated international response, the United States could provide financial backing to COVAX, which is the route Senate Republicans are recommending in their latest COVID relief legislation. A provision in their proposed bill would appropriate $3 billion to Gavi’s COVID vaccine-procurement program. The final bill must be negotiated with congressional Democrats.
An effective global vaccination program serves U.S. interests beyond its reputational opportunity. Proponents of a multilateral plan often note that COVID-19 is a global problem requiring a global solution, and while that formulation risks descent into cliché, it is also true. If the virus is allowed to circulate the globe unchecked, there is a risk that it will mutate and require additional rounds of vaccination to prevent further epidemics, including in the United States. Further, the longer the current pandemic goes on, the more damage it will cause to global economic growth, which will suppress incomes in the United States and other advanced economies.
The entire world is anxiously awaiting news that safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines are on the way. The CEPI-Gavi effort increases the chances that such vaccines will reach half of the world’s population, if it is given the support it needs to work. The United States has within its power the ability to support the COVAX Facility without undermining U.S. domestic goals. It is plainly in our interests to do so.


thebulwark--2020-07-29--How the NFL Could Help Rename Military Bases

President Donald J. Trump ’ s sweat session with Fox News ’ s Chris Wallace on the patio outside of the Oval Office a few weeks ago was a classic Trumpian word-salad buffet that will power a dozen Sarah Cooper viral videos in the weeks to come .
The interview covered a lot of ground , and elements of it have already been analyzed in these pages .
Being among The Bulwark ’ s military veteran contributors , I naturally focused on this exchange , which occurred about halfway through the interview : WALLACE : The National Defense Authorization Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because in the bill—and this is supported by Republicans as well as Democrats—it would rename Army bases named for Confederate generals .
Now this is a bill that funds military operations , it gives soldiers a pay raise .
You ’ re going to veto that ?
TRUMP : They ’ ll get their pay raise .
Hey , look .
Don ’ t tell me this .
I got soldiers the biggest pay raises in the history of our military .
I got soldiers brand new equipment , brand new jets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.5 trillion—I did more for the military than any president that ’ s ever had this office .
WALLACE : But you ’ re going to veto this bill ?
TRUMP : Because I think that Fort Bragg , Fort Robert E. Lee , all of these forts that have been named that way for , uh , for a long time—decades and decades .
WALLACE : But the military says they ’ re for this— TRUMP : Excuse me .
Excuse me .
I don ’ t care what the military says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the decision .
Fort Bragg is a big deal .
We won two world wars .
Nobody even knows General Bragg .
We won two world wars .
Go to that community where Fort Bragg is .
It ’ s in a great state .
I love that state .
Go to that community , say , “ How do you like the idea of renaming Fort Bragg ?
” And .
.
.
then .
.
.
what are we going to name it ?
You going to name it after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you going to name it , Chris ?
Tell me what you ’ re going to name it .
So , there ’ s a whole thing here .
We won two world wars .
Two world wars , beautiful world wars that were vicious and horrible , and we won them out of Fort Bragg .
We won them out of , er , all of these forts that now they want to throw those names away ?
And no , I ’ m against that .
And you know what ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ even .
.
.
I don ’ t believe in polls because I see the fakest polls I ’ ve ever seen , but that poll was a 64 percent thing , which actually surprised me .
We won world wars out of these , out of these military bases .
No , I ’ m not going to go changing them .
I ’ m not going to go changing them .
So much to unpack there .
First , with Trump it ’ s always about the money .
Sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that our troops certainly could use , but in being spring-loaded to defend himself with that logic , the president demonstrates he has no feeling for the other elements that underpin military service—like unit cohesion based on an unmitigated sense of racial equality .
Remember , this is the same guy who walked into both teams ’ locker rooms before the last Army-Navy game and announced that he was making a policy change regarding their military obligation upon graduation so they could “ make a fortune ” playing professional sports .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which has to rank very high on the list of Vulgar Things to Label Wars .
And he casually throws out a self-own by declaring he doesn ’ t believe in polls while attempting to prove his point by asserting that a poll asking people how they felt about keeping Confederate names on bases “ was a 64 percent thing.
” But let ’ s back up a bit .
The battle line around this version of the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) was initially drawn by Trump in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : As a pure point of fact-checking : seven of the ten U.S. Army bases currently named after Confederate officers weren ’ t yet built during World War I .
Not that anyone should expect this to stop Trump from his trying to die on yet another racist Little Roundtop .
He ’ s got a John Wayne movie in his head ( don ’ t ask him which one ) , and he ’ s going with that .
Subsequent to Trump ’ s Fox News Sunday appearance , both the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a veto-proof majority .
The $ 740.5 billion bill gives the Department of Defense three years to make the appropriate name changes .
But what ’ s the answer to Trump ’ s question about what to name them ?
What POTUS posits as an unsolvable problem , sarcastically suggesting obvious non-starters and non-servicemen like Al Sharpton , is at once the easy and hard part .
Easy in that there are hundreds of good candidates ( e.g.
, “ Henry Johnson : The Black Death ” ) ; hard in that deciding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving politicians at the city , county , state , and national levels—one that could well take all of the three years that the Senate has allotted .
But we used to have a saying in the Navy fighter squadrons : “ Don ’ t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
” The recent congressional actions have made it clear that military installations that honor traitors should be renamed , so why wait when there is an interim step that is immediately available ?
And this interim step was developed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great in America : the NFL .
In the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement , the focus once again turned to Dan Snyder , the owner of the professional football team formerly known as the Washington Redskins .
Snyder had resisted pressure to change the team ’ s name for years but relented once FedEx announced they were pulling their stadium naming sponsorship if he didn ’ t change the name .
That kind of fiscal impact spoke to Snyder , arguably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ League , for how he has mismanaged the once-storied franchise over the years he ’ s been in charge .
The leading candidates for the new name according to sports prognosticators were Warriors , Red Tails , and Red Hawks .
Then franchise leadership surprised the world with their ( interim ) choice : the Washington Football Team .
Call it a cop-out if you ’ d like ; the argument was stopped dead in its track in the face of this decision—genius in its matter-of-fact pedestrianism .
The Department of Defense should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fort Bragg—currently named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg—would now be “ Fayetteville Army Base.
” The Buchanan House at the U.S .
Naval Academy—named for the school ’ s first superintendent who subsequently joined the Confederacy—would now be “ Superintendent ’ s Residence.
” And , if we wanted to go a step beyond the Confederacy , USS John C. Stennis—named for the segregationist Dixiecrat Senator who never saw a defense budget increase he didn ’ t vote for—could now be known as “ Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Number 74 .
”

President Donald J. Trump’s sweat session with Fox News’s Chris Wallace on the patio outside of the Oval Office a few weeks ago was a classic Trumpian word-salad buffet that will power a dozen Sarah Cooper viral videos in the weeks to come. The interview covered a lot of ground, and elements of it have already been analyzed in these pages.
Being among The Bulwark’s military veteran contributors, I naturally focused on this exchange, which occurred about halfway through the interview:
WALLACE: The National Defense Authorization Act, you have threatened to veto it because in the bill—and this is supported by Republicans as well as Democrats—it would rename Army bases named for Confederate generals. Now this is a bill that funds military operations, it gives soldiers a pay raise. You’re going to veto that? TRUMP: They’ll get their pay raise. Hey, look. Don’t tell me this. I got soldiers the biggest pay raises in the history of our military. I got soldiers brand new equipment, brand new jets, brand new rockets, brand new—$2.5 trillion—I did more for the military than any president that’s ever had this office. WALLACE: But you’re going to veto this bill? TRUMP: Because I think that Fort Bragg, Fort Robert E. Lee, all of these forts that have been named that way for, uh, for a long time—decades and decades. WALLACE: But the military says they’re for this— TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me. I don’t care what the military says. I do—I’m supposed to make the decision. Fort Bragg is a big deal. We won two world wars. Nobody even knows General Bragg. We won two world wars. Go to that community where Fort Bragg is. It’s in a great state. I love that state. Go to that community, say, “How do you like the idea of renaming Fort Bragg?” And . . . then . . . what are we going to name it? You going to name it after the Reverend Al Sharpton? What are you going to name it, Chris? Tell me what you’re going to name it. So, there’s a whole thing here. We won two world wars. Two world wars, beautiful world wars that were vicious and horrible, and we won them out of Fort Bragg. We won them out of, er, all of these forts that now they want to throw those names away? And no, I’m against that. And you know what? Most other people are. And I even . . . I don’t believe in polls because I see the fakest polls I’ve ever seen, but that poll was a 64 percent thing, which actually surprised me. We won world wars out of these, out of these military bases. No, I’m not going to go changing them. I’m not going to go changing them. WALLACE: So, you’ll veto it? TRUMP: I might, yeah. I might.
So much to unpack there. First, with Trump it’s always about the money. Sure, an incremental pay raise is a nice thing that our troops certainly could use, but in being spring-loaded to defend himself with that logic, the president demonstrates he has no feeling for the other elements that underpin military service—like unit cohesion based on an unmitigated sense of racial equality. Remember, this is the same guy who walked into both teams’ locker rooms before the last Army-Navy game and announced that he was making a policy change regarding their military obligation upon graduation so they could “make a fortune” playing professional sports.
He calls the world wars “beautiful,” which has to rank very high on the list of Vulgar Things to Label Wars. And he casually throws out a self-own by declaring he doesn’t believe in polls while attempting to prove his point by asserting that a poll asking people how they felt about keeping Confederate names on bases “was a 64 percent thing.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But let’s back up a bit. The battle line around this version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was initially drawn by Trump in the form of, surprisingly, a tweet:
I will Veto the Defense Authorization Bill if the Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (of all people!) Amendment, which will lead to the renaming (plus other bad things!) of Fort Bragg, Fort Robert E. Lee, and many other Military Bases from which we won Two World Wars, is in the Bill! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2020
As a pure point of fact-checking: seven of the ten U.S. Army bases currently named after Confederate officers weren’t yet built during World War I. Not that anyone should expect this to stop Trump from his trying to die on yet another racist Little Roundtop. He’s got a John Wayne movie in his head (don’t ask him which one), and he’s going with that. Subsequent to Trump’s Fox News Sunday appearance, both the House and Senate passed the 2021 NDAA with a veto-proof majority. The $740.5 billion bill gives the Department of Defense three years to make the appropriate name changes.
But what’s the answer to Trump’s question about what to name them? What POTUS posits as an unsolvable problem, sarcastically suggesting obvious non-starters and non-servicemen like Al Sharpton, is at once the easy and hard part. Easy in that there are hundreds of good candidates (e.g., “Henry Johnson: The Black Death”); hard in that deciding on a name is a convoluted process involving politicians at the city, county, state, and national levels—one that could well take all of the three years that the Senate has allotted.
But we used to have a saying in the Navy fighter squadrons: “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.” The recent congressional actions have made it clear that military installations that honor traitors should be renamed, so why wait when there is an interim step that is immediately available? And this interim step was developed by the source of all things that are great in America: the NFL.
In the wake of George Floyd’s killing and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, the focus once again turned to Dan Snyder, the owner of the professional football team formerly known as the Washington Redskins. Snyder had resisted pressure to change the team’s name for years but relented once FedEx announced they were pulling their stadium naming sponsorship if he didn’t change the name. That kind of fiscal impact spoke to Snyder, arguably the most-hated owner in the National Football League, for how he has mismanaged the once-storied franchise over the years he’s been in charge.
The leading candidates for the new name according to sports prognosticators were Warriors, Red Tails, and Red Hawks. Then franchise leadership surprised the world with their (interim) choice: the Washington Football Team. Call it a cop-out if you’d like; the argument was stopped dead in its track in the face of this decision—genius in its matter-of-fact pedestrianism.
The Department of Defense should adopt the same strategy without delay. Fort Bragg—currently named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg—would now be “Fayetteville Army Base.” The Buchanan House at the U.S. Naval Academy—named for the school’s first superintendent who subsequently joined the Confederacy—would now be “Superintendent’s Residence.” And, if we wanted to go a step beyond the Confederacy, USS John C. Stennis—named for the segregationist Dixiecrat Senator who never saw a defense budget increase he didn’t vote for—could now be known as “Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Number 74.”
Problem solved.


thebulwark--2020-07-29--The GOP Needs to Hit Rock Bottom

The GOP Needs to Hit Rock Bottom

The last thing I want to do is offend my friend David French , who is one of the most admirable voices in America today .
Nor , finding myself in the highly unusual position of disagreeing with him , do I want to pile on , since my colleague Charlie Sykes has already penned a response that is characteristically robust .
But the question of how conservatives should vote in November—whether to punish the entire Republican party by voting straight-ticket Democrat , or merely vote against Trump—is important and needs further airing .
David argues that conservatives need not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send a message : This assumes that the reason some plan to evict Republican senators is simply a matter of anger .
French uses the word “ vengeance.
” But voting against a candidate or even a whole party is not nihilism .
It ’ s not “ burning it all down.
” It ’ s the legal , constitutional way to express approval or disapproval .
The current Republican party has itself chosen to become the arsonist party .
It has decided to go along with undermining faith in institutions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disregarding laws , and tossing aside truth whenever the leader dictates .
The most demoralizing aspect of the past four years has not been that a boob conman was elected president but that one of the two great political parties surrendered to him utterly .
David suggests that voting against Republican senators is “ completely devoid of grace .
It ignores the monumental pressures that Donald Trump has placed on the entire GOP and the lack of good options that so many GOP officeholders faced.
” It ’ s certainly true that Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many times have they confided , behind closed doors , that they deplore Trump ’ s conduct , but explain that their hands are tied ?
If they speak up , they say , they will flush their careers down the drain .
Look at what happened to Jeff Flake , Mark Sanford , and Bob Corker !
But this overstates things .
A number of Republicans have stood up to Trump and maintained their electoral viability—especially when they challenged him on matters that he has shown little interest in , namely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , voted against the president ’ s USMCA trade agreement and ( gasp ) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining his reasoning .
When the president abruptly announced , following a phone call with Turkish leader Recep Erdoğan , that he was withdrawing American troops forthwith from Syria , a number of Republicans voiced horror .
Sen. Ben Sasse said it would lead to a “ slaughter.
” Sen. Ted Cruz said it would be “ DISGRACEFUL if we sat idly by while Turkey slaughters the Kurds , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly told President Trump he intends to do.
” Rep. Liz Cheney called it a “ catastrophic mistake that puts our gains against ISIS at risk and threatens America ’ s national security.
” Sens .
Lindsey Graham , Mitch McConnell , Mitt Romney , and Marco Rubio , former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley , and others weighed in as well .
When the president suggested lifting sanctions on Russia , Sen .
Rob Portman said it would be “ horrible ” for the United States .
And after Gen. James Mattis wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a “ mockery of the U.S. Constitution , ” Sen. Lisa Murkowski said , “ I was really thankful .
I thought General Mattis ’ s words were true , and honest and necessary and overdue.
” So , it is possible to speak up about this president and survive .
I use that word advisedly , because these Republican office holders often use words like “ kill ” or “ destroy ” or “ annihilate ” when contemplating what Trump would do to them if they raise their heads too far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that actually threatened them was the possibility of nasty tweets and the chance that they might lose their seats .
David is right that very few people in any walk of life display courage on anything , though craven Republicans holding House and Senate posts might want to pause from time to time to contemplate the extraordinary valor of protesters in Hong Kong , Iran , and Egypt who continue to put their freedom and sometimes their lives at risk by taking to the streets .
And before we extend too much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to ask : Should being an elected official really be one ’ s “ life work ?
” And must one cling to it even when it requires delegitimizing the very ideas that brought you into politics ?
As noted above , Republicans have criticized the president on policy matters , sometimes even harshly .
Where they have shrunk into their shells was on matters that are even more critical to the health of our republic .
They have , by their silence , given assent to his cruelty , his assaults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political violence , and his consistent demolition of institutions .
Institutions are like scaffolding .
When a society ’ s institutions are weakened , the whole edifice can come crashing down .
This often happens to countries as a consequence of war or natural disasters .
In our case , it was self-inflicted before the natural disaster ( coronavirus ) struck , and now , as masonry hits the pavement and floors sag , we are seeing the results .
Donald Trump undermined the institution of the free press , urging his followers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leader .
And Republicans were silent .
He weakened respect for law enforcement and the courts , suggesting that he was the victim of a “ deep state ” and that “ so-called judges ” need not be respected .
And Republicans were silent .
He enriched himself and his family .
And Republicans were silent .
He introduced doubt about accepting the results of elections .
He scorned allies and toadied to dictators .
And Republicans were silent .
He ran the executive branch like a gangster , demanding personal loyalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeff Sessions , who merely followed ethics rules .
He ignored the law to get his way on the border wall .
Silence again .
He violated the most sacred norms of a multi-ethnic society by encouraging racial hatred .
Crickets .
He made the United States guilty of separating babies from their mothers .
And Republicans were silent .
He undercut the credibility and honor of the Republican party by failing to dissociate it from kooks and criminals .
And Republicans were silent .
Elected officials , terrified of their own constituents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of a truly unprecedented assault on democratic values .
They believed that they were powerless and acted accordingly .
Since they were powerless when it counted , what difference would it make if voters were to make it official ?
Consider something else that Sen. Murkowski said in response to Gen. Mattis .
“ When I saw General Mattis ’ comments yesterday I felt like perhaps we are getting to a point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one person shows courage , others are emboldened .
If more Republicans had shown a willingness to stand for basic political hygiene , for elemental human decency earlier in this awful era , it might have become contagious .
But since that did not happen , the only thing that will send a message to the Republican party commensurate with its moral abdication over the past four years is to lose in a landslide .
Not just Trump , but his silent enablers too .

The last thing I want to do is offend my friend David French, who is one of the most admirable voices in America today. Nor, finding myself in the highly unusual position of disagreeing with him, do I want to pile on, since my colleague Charlie Sykes has already penned a response that is characteristically robust. But the question of how conservatives should vote in November—whether to punish the entire Republican party by voting straight-ticket Democrat, or merely vote against Trump—is important and needs further airing.
David argues that conservatives need not vote against Republican Senate candidates in order to send a message:
A rage, fury, and a “burn it all down” mentality is one of the maladies that brought us to the present moment. Repeating that same impulse, but with an entire party in the crosshairs, will only compound our political dysfunction.
This assumes that the reason some plan to evict Republican senators is simply a matter of anger. French uses the word “vengeance.” But voting against a candidate or even a whole party is not nihilism. It’s not “burning it all down.” It’s the legal, constitutional way to express approval or disapproval. The current Republican party has itself chosen to become the arsonist party. It has decided to go along with undermining faith in institutions, shredding norms, elevating conspiracy theories, disregarding laws, and tossing aside truth whenever the leader dictates. The most demoralizing aspect of the past four years has not been that a boob conman was elected president but that one of the two great political parties surrendered to him utterly.
David suggests that voting against Republican senators is “completely devoid of grace. It ignores the monumental pressures that Donald Trump has placed on the entire GOP and the lack of good options that so many GOP officeholders faced.”
It’s certainly true that Republicans perceived their options to be limited. How many times have they confided, behind closed doors, that they deplore Trump’s conduct, but explain that their hands are tied? If they speak up, they say, they will flush their careers down the drain. Look at what happened to Jeff Flake, Mark Sanford, and Bob Corker!
But this overstates things. A number of Republicans have stood up to Trump and maintained their electoral viability—especially when they challenged him on matters that he has shown little interest in, namely public policy. Sen. Pat Toomey for example, voted against the president’s USMCA trade agreement and (gasp) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining his reasoning.
It is the only trade pact ever meant to diminish trade. Since Nafta’s implementation, American exports to Mexico have grown more than fivefold. But imports grew even more, widening the trade deficit. The Trump administration finds this unacceptable, even though the trade deficit is mostly meaningless. Hence USMCA has a myriad of provisions to warm the hearts of protectionists.
When the president abruptly announced, following a phone call with Turkish leader Recep Erdoğan, that he was withdrawing American troops forthwith from Syria, a number of Republicans voiced horror. Sen. Ben Sasse said it would lead to a “slaughter.” Sen. Ted Cruz said it would be “DISGRACEFUL if we sat idly by while Turkey slaughters the Kurds, as public reports suggest that Turkish leader Erdogan explicitly told President Trump he intends to do.” Rep. Liz Cheney called it a “catastrophic mistake that puts our gains against ISIS at risk and threatens America’s national security.” Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and Marco Rubio, former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, and others weighed in as well.
When the president suggested lifting sanctions on Russia, Sen. Rob Portman said it would be “horrible” for the United States. And after Gen. James Mattis wrote an op-ed saying that Donald Trump was making a “mockery of the U.S. Constitution,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, “I was really thankful. I thought General Mattis’s words were true, and honest and necessary and overdue.”
So, it is possible to speak up about this president and survive. I use that word advisedly, because these Republican office holders often use words like “kill” or “destroy” or “annihilate” when contemplating what Trump would do to them if they raise their heads too far above the parapet. In fact, all that actually threatened them was the possibility of nasty tweets and the chance that they might lose their seats.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
David French writes:
If you think it’s obvious what they should have done, how many readers have faced such a choice: take a tough stand and likely lose your life’s work or muddle through and hope to emerge on the other side with your dignity and conscience intact? If you faced such a choice, did you take the stand and bear the cost?
David is right that very few people in any walk of life display courage on anything, though craven Republicans holding House and Senate posts might want to pause from time to time to contemplate the extraordinary valor of protesters in Hong Kong, Iran, and Egypt who continue to put their freedom and sometimes their lives at risk by taking to the streets. And before we extend too much grace to Republican office holders, we need to ask: Should being an elected official really be one’s “life work?” And must one cling to it even when it requires delegitimizing the very ideas that brought you into politics?
As noted above, Republicans have criticized the president on policy matters, sometimes even harshly. Where they have shrunk into their shells was on matters that are even more critical to the health of our republic. They have, by their silence, given assent to his cruelty, his assaults on truth, his dangerous flirtations with political violence, and his consistent demolition of institutions.
Institutions are like scaffolding. When a society’s institutions are weakened, the whole edifice can come crashing down. This often happens to countries as a consequence of war or natural disasters. In our case, it was self-inflicted before the natural disaster (coronavirus) struck, and now, as masonry hits the pavement and floors sag, we are seeing the results.
Donald Trump undermined the institution of the free press, urging his followers to disbelieve everything except what came from the leader. And Republicans were silent. He weakened respect for law enforcement and the courts, suggesting that he was the victim of a “deep state” and that “so-called judges” need not be respected. And Republicans were silent. He enriched himself and his family. And Republicans were silent. He introduced doubt about accepting the results of elections. He scorned allies and toadied to dictators. And Republicans were silent. He ran the executive branch like a gangster, demanding personal loyalty and abusing officials, like the hapless Jeff Sessions, who merely followed ethics rules. He ignored the law to get his way on the border wall. Silence again. He violated the most sacred norms of a multi-ethnic society by encouraging racial hatred. Crickets. He made the United States guilty of separating babies from their mothers. And Republicans were silent. He undercut the credibility and honor of the Republican party by failing to dissociate it from kooks and criminals. And Republicans were silent.
Elected officials, terrified of their own constituents, have cowered and temporized in the face of a truly unprecedented assault on democratic values. They believed that they were powerless and acted accordingly. Since they were powerless when it counted, what difference would it make if voters were to make it official?
Consider something else that Sen. Murkowski said in response to Gen. Mattis. “When I saw General Mattis’ comments yesterday I felt like perhaps we are getting to a point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up.”
When one person shows courage, others are emboldened. If more Republicans had shown a willingness to stand for basic political hygiene, for elemental human decency earlier in this awful era, it might have become contagious.
But since that did not happen, the only thing that will send a message to the Republican party commensurate with its moral abdication over the past four years is to lose in a landslide. Not just Trump, but his silent enablers too.


thebulwark--2020-07-30--Trump’s Election-Date Tweet Is a Classic Gaslighting Move

No , President Trump is not going to be able to delay the presidential election .
That doesn ’ t mean he ’ s not going to screw with it every other way he can , though .
Understand this : Trump has lost control of events .
More than 150,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus .
Washington ’ s biggest debate is over how many more trillions are needed to keep the economy on life support until a vaccine is available .
All the polls show Trump losing badly to a man his campaign depicts as a senile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dress up and trot out on the campaign trail like it ’ s Weekend at Bernie ’ s .
Trump knows he can ’ t win by competing in this reality .
So , he has to bluster , lie , and cheat his way into creating a reality of his own .
That ’ s what gaslighting is .
It ’ s what manipulators do to gain control over their targets to either make them succumb to the lie or go crazy trying to refute it .
I wrote about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us , to explain how Trump keeps running the same game repeatedly .
His birther campaign against President Obama is the textbook example , but he ’ s done it with all his businesses , his presidential campaign , and his presidency , too .
Gaslighting is a way of life for Trump .
Make no mistake : Trump is gaslighting this election .
Understanding how he does it is the only way we can survive it—so here ’ s a guide to how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead .
Not every instance of Trumpian gaslighting follows these five steps in this exact order , but in general , these are the five steps of his gaslighting m.o .
: 1 ) Stake a claim : In this case , President Trump has decided to cast doubt on the 2020 election by alleging , without any evidence , that mail-in ballots that have increased in popularity because of the coronavirus are fraudulent , illegal , and will cost him the election .
2 ) Advance and deny : Trump does this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifics , what “ other people are saying ” or his allies suggest he ’ s only “ asking questions ” about subjects no responsible person would push into the public discussion .
He fulfilled this step when he “ asked the question ” sure to grab attention this morning : “ Delay the Election until people can properly , securely and safely vote ?
?
?
” 3 ) Create suspense : You can bet that Trump will soon launch an “ investigation ” —whether through the Department of Justice , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s friendly Republican secretary of state—regarding mail-in ballots to cast doubt on the process further .
Doing so is designed to buy time for Trump also to sow chaos and trap his political enemies into making mistakes he can exploit .
Typically , the said investigation ’ s findings never come , although Trump likes to promise they will be public in “ two weeks.
” 4 ) Discredit opponents : While everyone awaits the sham investigation ’ s findings , Trump will find some targets to zero in on and instigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , this could be as high-profile as the Democratic ticket , or as obscure as county elections board members .
5 ) Claim victory : No matter the outcome of the election , Trump will claim that it was “ rigged , ” as he did the 2016 election that he won .
If Trump wins this time around , he ’ ll say he should have won by more significant margins .
If he loses , he will blame the mail-in ballots he ’ s been railing against since last spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
“ Everybody knows Trump does this .
How can it be stopped ?
” First and foremost , snuffing out his little gaslighting flames as soon as they get a whiff of oxygen—in this case , starting with his tweet about delaying the election .
Anyone who knows something about anything regarding the presidential election knows that Trump can not singlehandedly change the date .
Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress to set the date .
It has done so .
Congress would have to pass a new law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , in order to move the date of the election .
Elected officials who pretend this isn ’ t so should immediately be placed under the medical supervision of Trump ’ s alien-DNA-medicine- and demon-sperm-fearing doctor .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , a West Point and Harvard Law graduate , is ready for check-in .
He testified to Congress today that , “ In the end , the Department of Justice and others will make that legal determination.
” Don ’ t comfort yourself either , by saying , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t the only one in the Senate speaking out against Trump ’ s ill-advised actions .
For anyone in government , this is like a question on a basic competency test where you get half the points for just filling out your name .
Or , in Trump parlance , it ’ s the “ person ” in “ Person .
Woman .
Man .
Camera .
TV.
” It should be automatic ; you flunk if it ’ s not .
And guess what .
Lots of people flunked today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to comment before saying , as relayed from a reporter , the election is “ set in stone.
” John Cornyn said , “ I think it ’ s a joke , I guess , I don ’ t know how else to interpret it.
” Trump ’ s golfing buddy Lindsey Graham said , “ I don ’ t think that ’ s a particularly good idea.
” Kevin Cramer laughed that reporters were “ taking the bait ” and said that Trump ’ s tweet was “ clever.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump drive his most absurd narratives .
Think about Rick Perry playing footsie with Trump ’ s birtherism way back in 2011 .
Or Devin Nunes running interference for Trump during the Russia investigation .
Or the fact the racist writers at Tucker Carlson ’ s TV show have basically worked as off-the-books as the brain room for the Trump campaign .
So , yay .
Trump probably won ’ t try to unilaterally delay the election .
But what about the real issue .
The ballots ?
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the tinfoil hat on the GOP about mail-in ballots .
He scream-tweets about related conspiracies on an almost daily basis .
It got so bad that Twitter—yes , Twitter , that bastion of high-minded norms and values—finally had to slap him on the wrist about it .
His legal team is already contesting Pennsylvania ’ s mail-in ballot system .
Cue the Ron Paul gif : “ It ’ s happening !
” No one should avert their eyes and pretend that Trump ’ s gaslighting about vote-counting isn ’ t already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is spreading such lies and rumors about the 2020 election because he ’ s afraid of losing it .
And if we let his lies control the election , he won ’ t lose .
That ’ s how gaslighters win .

No, President Trump is not going to be able to delay the presidential election. That doesn’t mean he’s not going to screw with it every other way he can, though.
Understand this: Trump has lost control of events. More than 150,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus. Washington’s biggest debate is over how many more trillions are needed to keep the economy on life support until a vaccine is available. All the polls show Trump losing badly to a man his campaign depicts as a senile puppet that the Antifa left is going to dress up and trot out on the campaign trail like it’s Weekend at Bernie’s.
Trump knows he can’t win by competing in this reality. So, he has to bluster, lie, and cheat his way into creating a reality of his own. That’s what gaslighting is. It’s what manipulators do to gain control over their targets to either make them succumb to the lie or go crazy trying to refute it.
I wrote about this in my 2018 book, Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us, to explain how Trump keeps running the same game repeatedly. His birther campaign against President Obama is the textbook example, but he’s done it with all his businesses, his presidential campaign, and his presidency, too. Gaslighting is a way of life for Trump.
Make no mistake: Trump is gaslighting this election. Understanding how he does it is the only way we can survive it—so here’s a guide to how his gaslighting works and what to expect ahead. Not every instance of Trumpian gaslighting follows these five steps in this exact order, but in general, these are the five steps of his gaslighting m.o.:
1) Stake a claim: In this case, President Trump has decided to cast doubt on the 2020 election by alleging, without any evidence, that mail-in ballots that have increased in popularity because of the coronavirus are fraudulent, illegal, and will cost him the election.
2) Advance and deny: Trump does this when he alludes to, without any specifics, what “other people are saying” or his allies suggest he’s only “asking questions” about subjects no responsible person would push into the public discussion. He fulfilled this step when he “asked the question” sure to grab attention this morning: “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”
3) Create suspense: You can bet that Trump will soon launch an “investigation”—whether through the Department of Justice, an allied media source, or some state’s friendly Republican secretary of state—regarding mail-in ballots to cast doubt on the process further. Doing so is designed to buy time for Trump also to sow chaos and trap his political enemies into making mistakes he can exploit. Typically, the said investigation’s findings never come, although Trump likes to promise they will be public in “two weeks.”
4) Discredit opponents: While everyone awaits the sham investigation’s findings, Trump will find some targets to zero in on and instigate fights. When it comes to the election, this could be as high-profile as the Democratic ticket, or as obscure as county elections board members.
5) Claim victory: No matter the outcome of the election, Trump will claim that it was “rigged,” as he did the 2016 election that he won. If Trump wins this time around, he’ll say he should have won by more significant margins. If he loses, he will blame the mail-in ballots he’s been railing against since last spring.
“So what!” you say. “Everybody knows Trump does this. How can it be stopped?” First and foremost, snuffing out his little gaslighting flames as soon as they get a whiff of oxygen—in this case, starting with his tweet about delaying the election.
Anyone who knows something about anything regarding the presidential election knows that Trump cannot singlehandedly change the date. Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress to set the date. It has done so. Congress would have to pass a new law, and the president would have to sign it, in order to move the date of the election. Elected officials who pretend this isn’t so should immediately be placed under the medical supervision of Trump’s alien-DNA-medicine- and demon-sperm-fearing doctor.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a West Point and Harvard Law graduate, is ready for check-in. He testified to Congress today that, “In the end, the Department of Justice and others will make that legal determination.”
Don’t comfort yourself either, by saying, well, at least this time, Mitt Romney wasn’t the only one in the Senate speaking out against Trump’s ill-advised actions. For anyone in government, this is like a question on a basic competency test where you get half the points for just filling out your name. Or, in Trump parlance, it’s the “person” in “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.” It should be automatic; you flunk if it’s not.
And guess what. Lots of people flunked today.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell initially declined to comment before saying, as relayed from a reporter, the election is “set in stone.” John Cornyn said, “I think it’s a joke, I guess, I don’t know how else to interpret it.” Trump’s golfing buddy Lindsey Graham said, “I don’t think that’s a particularly good idea.” Kevin Cramer laughed that reporters were “taking the bait” and said that Trump’s tweet was “clever.”
It only takes a few flunkies to help President Trump drive his most absurd narratives. Think about Rick Perry playing footsie with Trump’s birtherism way back in 2011. Or Devin Nunes running interference for Trump during the Russia investigation. Or the fact the racist writers at Tucker Carlson’s TV show have basically worked as off-the-books as the brain room for the Trump campaign.
So, yay. Trump probably won’t try to unilaterally delay the election. But what about the real issue. The ballots?
It’s not a secret that Trump wants to put on the tinfoil hat on the GOP about mail-in ballots. He scream-tweets about related conspiracies on an almost daily basis. It got so bad that Twitter—yes, Twitter, that bastion of high-minded norms and values—finally had to slap him on the wrist about it. His legal team is already contesting Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot system. Cue the Ron Paul gif: “It’s happening!”
No one should avert their eyes and pretend that Trump’s gaslighting about vote-counting isn’t already happening or won’t work. Trump is spreading such lies and rumors about the 2020 election because he’s afraid of losing it. And if we let his lies control the election, he won’t lose. That’s how gaslighters win.


thebulwark--2020-07-30--Where Does Joe Biden Go to Get His Apology?

Well , it happened and President Trump went there , suggesting maybe we delay the election .
As Charlie Sykes observes in his daily newsletter , this is just a “ daily distraction ” by Trump .
He has no authority to do this ; only Congress can change federal election dates .
( Though , don ’ t be surprised to see a Trump toady propose a bill to do this , or propose giving the executive the authority to move elections . )
Conservatives are , rightly , fond of reminding liberals that Romney was mocked for ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geopolitical foe during the 2012 campaign .
Do you want to know who was mocked by conservatives for suggesting that Donald Trump might do this ?
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. , at a fundraiser : “ Mark my words , I think he is gon na try to kick back the election somehow , come up with some rationale why it can ’ t be held.
” Let ’ s take a trip down memory lane and look back at how some on the right reacted .
At the Washington Examiner , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 28 with the headline : “ ‘ He ’ ll seize power !
’ ‘ He ’ ll postpone the election !
’ The Trump schemes that never happen.
” Antle , a keen observer of politics , writes that there is no mechanism for this to happen absent Congress .
Here ’ s Antle quoting Jonathan Turley : “ Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley calls the idea the ‘ ultimate conspiracy theory ’ and ‘ little more than constitutional mythology , used for political advantage.
’ ” To be clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps this will be a one-off tweet from the president ; maybe he ’ s just trolling to distract from the disastrous economic news .
Even still , go back and read what Biden was mocked for : We know in Trump World , most of the President ’ s bad ideas start with tweets .
Does this count as trying ?
No .
Has Trump already floated a rationale as to why the election can ’ t be held ?
Yes .
But the time machine of bad takes must go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when Henry Olsen wrote at the Washington Post : “ Nonetheless , Biden chose to taint the president essentially with a charge of treason.
” Some other gems from Olsen ’ s essay : In fairness to Olsen , that last one was issued months before Portland and the DHS goon squads .
Surely now , even Olsen will agree that the rhetoric ( and actions ) that are harmful to democracy are coming from Donald Trump , not Joe Biden .
It took Mitt Romney a few years to get his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to wait , too .

Well, it happened and President Trump went there, suggesting maybe we delay the election. As Charlie Sykes observes in his daily newsletter, this is just a “daily distraction” by Trump. He has no authority to do this; only Congress can change federal election dates. (Though, don’t be surprised to see a Trump toady propose a bill to do this, or propose giving the executive the authority to move elections.)
Conservatives are, rightly, fond of reminding liberals that Romney was mocked for (accurately) saying Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe during the 2012 campaign. Do you want to know who was mocked by conservatives for suggesting that Donald Trump might do this?
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., at a fundraiser: “Mark my words, I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held.”
Let’s take a trip down memory lane and look back at how some on the right reacted.
At the Washington Examiner, my friend Jim Antle wrote a story on April 28 with the headline: “‘He’ll seize power!’ ‘He’ll postpone the election!’ The Trump schemes that never happen.”
Antle, a keen observer of politics, writes that there is no mechanism for this to happen absent Congress.
Here’s Antle quoting Jonathan Turley: “Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley calls the idea the ‘ultimate conspiracy theory’ and ‘little more than constitutional mythology, used for political advantage.’”
To be clear, Turley is talking about Biden here.
Perhaps this will be a one-off tweet from the president; maybe he’s just trolling to distract from the disastrous economic news. Even still, go back and read what Biden was mocked for:
“Mark my words, I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held.”
We know in Trump World, most of the President’s bad ideas start with tweets. Does this count as trying? No. Has Trump already floated a rationale as to why the election can’t be held? Yes.
But the time machine of bad takes must go back a few days to April 24, when Henry Olsen wrote at the Washington Post: “Nonetheless, Biden chose to taint the president essentially with a charge of treason.”
Treason!
Some other gems from Olsen’s essay:
“[Biden’s accusation] was not only clearly over the line but also unmasks how low the supposedly moderate Biden will go to win. . . . This rhetoric is both unfounded and harmful to democracy. Trump has not done anything that a hopeful dictator would do, such as restrict press freedom, curtail political activity or arrest political opponents.”
In fairness to Olsen, that last one was issued months before Portland and the DHS goon squads.
Surely now, even Olsen will agree that the rhetoric (and actions) that are harmful to democracy are coming from Donald Trump, not Joe Biden.
It took Mitt Romney a few years to get his apology. I expect maybe Joe Biden will have to wait, too.