thebulwark--2020-06-06--Trump and Churchill: MAGA Fever Dream

Trump and Churchill: MAGA Fever Dream

The title of Nick Adams ’ new book , “ Trump and Churchill : Defenders of Western Civilization , ” has it half right : Trump is very much like Churchill .
Instead , Trump very much resembles Winston ’ s father , Lord Randolph Churchill .
The elder Churchill was born into privilege , reached high office , and was prone to caustic , unhinged outbursts as he battled a brain ravaged by syphilis .
Near the end of his life , according to biographer William Manchester , Randolph would stand in Parliament , “ denouncing the government in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there.
” At times , Churchill “ could not engage in a coherent conversation , ” having entered what his friend Frank Harris called the “ malignant monkey ” stage of insanity .
Adams ’ book , however , makes the preposterous case that President Donald Trump is better for Western civilization than even the man who rescued the world from Nazism and Socialism .
The very title , to quote Churchill himself , “ defends itself against the risk of it being read.
” It ’ s such a ridiculous proposition that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Newt Gingrich , author of the book ’ s foreword .
“ As a longtime student of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and a supporter of President Trump , I have to confess that until I read Nick ’ s book it had never occurred to me to join the two as historic phenomenon , ” Gingrich writes .
And this is a man who authored a Trump hagiography so adoring its foreword was provided by Trump ’ s son , Eric .
But the comparison made perfect sense to Trump himself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Simon and Schuster publication ” of the book .
“ Certainly a great honor to be compared , in any way , to Winston Churchill , ” Trump wrote .
On Wednesday , the White House made the connection even more explicit , comparing Trump ’ s staged Monday photo-op in front of St. John ’ s Episcopal Church to Churchill inspecting the rubble in bombed-out London during WWII .
Famously , Churchill did not have to tear gas his own citizens to make way for his inspections , as Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they disassociated themselves from the book .
The corporate office told me they sometimes distribute books from other publishers on their website .
Adams ’ s actual publisher is Post Hill Press , upon whose website one can purchase Adams ’ Donald Trump coloring book .
“ Trump and Churchill , ” on the other hand , is not for children – it is pure pornography for the Red Hat crowd , so much so that it should be delivered in a brown paper wrapper .
Of course , to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winston Churchill will invoke aneurysm-inducing bouts of laughter .
And indeed , “ Trump and Churchill ” is , unintentionally , the funniest book I have read this year .
It almost seems unfair to call it “ garbage , ” because most actual garbage at some point had some value to someone .
Before we actually dive into Trump ’ s new favorite tome , let ’ s just tick off some of the obvious ways Trump and Churchill are barely members of the same genus : Churchill was a man of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve in the Second Boer War , was captured , and escaped .
( Leading to his famous declaration , “ There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result.
” ) As a young man , Trump dodged military service , saying at one point that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases was his “ Vietnam.
” Churchill was one of the grandest orators of the 20th century , inspiring millions of people to be courageous while displaying a brilliant wit .
Trump is a witless crank who elicits laughs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are beneath the dignity of a world leader to say .
In doing so , he encourages people to be nasty and brutish to one another .
He is not inspiring , he is de-spiring .
( “ One was a great orator ; the other is a great tweeter , ” Adams writes in trying to compare the two . )
During the Blitz , Churchill used to stand on roof tops , at great personal risk , to watch the German bombs fall on London .
During weekend protests by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retreated to a White House bunker .
Oh , and another minor point – Churchill stared down both Hitler and Stalin , saving the world from catastrophe and sparing millions of lives .
Trump , on the other hand , has stared down Rosie O ’ Donnell and Stormy Daniels .
Meanwhile , his bromances with dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un have become legendary .
But let us suspend reality and briefly take Adams ’ book semi-seriously .
In the introduction ( which seems to take up at least one-third of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were two people in history with whom he could chat on a park bench for an hour , it would be Trump and Churchill .
Which is fine , but seems to be a thin reed on which to ascribe a comparison from one to the other .
( For my park bench interlocutors , I would choose Ronald Reagan and Lady Gaga , but I ’ m not sure that makes Gaga a great world leader – although , in fairness , I haven ’ t heard her thoughts on the Marshall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do is to construct one vague principle – “ Western civilization ” – and assert that Trump is superior to Churchill in defending it .
This is not a Kissinger level analysis of America and the world order , no , “ Western civilization ” as Adams characterizes it is no more than an abstraction and weaponization of socially conservative scruples .
“ I never thought I would see in my lifetime a political figure who was even close to Churchill , ” Adams writes .
“ I didn ’ t think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political candidacy and leadership of Donald Trump .
He was the leader I had been waiting to see.
” According to Adams , a recent Australian immigrant to America , defending “ Western civilization , ” means preventing transgender people from using bathrooms that are different from their biological sex – he mentions this example over and over again , as if Stalin ’ s political prisoners were primarily worried about having to pee next to a drag queen .
Another of the values inimical to Western civilization , according to Adams , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of speech , including the right to criticize or praise one ’ s government ; to write books , pamphlets , or on social media about one ’ s views on any issue.
” Serendipitously , the day I read this passage , Donald Trump was crafting an executive order threatening to regulate Twitter for adding a further explanation tag to his tweets .
Free speech , indeed .
“ President Donald J. Trump will end up in the history books as a greater defender of Western civilization than even Prime Minister Winston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for defeating Nazi Germany and protecting Great Britain , and Europe at large , from being perpetually ruled by fascists , ” he writes .
While obviously not intended to be a serious work of history , Adams ’ knowledge of Churchill ’ s life and politics are akin to an eighth-grader frantically googling “ who won world war two ” the night before a paper is due .
At one point , he identifies the great William Manchester as the author of “ The Last Lion , ” the third in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but as anyone who has read the book knows , it was almost entirely written by Paul Reid after Manchester was afflicted by multiple strokes and then died .
Adams compares the literary output of both Churchill , who wrote volumes of high-level war accounts and biographies , to Trump , who Adams says is “ himself is a prolific writer and one of the best.
” Clearly , nobody has told Adams that virtually all of Trump ’ s books have been ghostwritten .
In fact , the book is padded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , attempting to compare the two .
In one chapter , Adams – and I am not kidding – compares Churchill ’ s legendary “ We Shall Fight on the Beaches ” speech following Dunkirk to Trump ’ s inaugural address .
The book unloads a deluge of howlers , including these observations , which were evidently written by an actual human being : • “ In fact , while Churchill may have had his disputes with other European leaders and President Roosevelt , those people were more or less on his side.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for comment . )
• “ It has been a habit now for almost twenty years that whenever I visit England , I seek out Churchill locations such as Chartwell and the Cabinet War Rooms .
In the U.S. , I ’ ve even made the trek to Fulton , Missouri , where Churchill delivered his much famed ‘ Iron Curtain ’ speech—the greatest address by a foreigner on American soil —with President Truman watching .
Similarly , when I find myself in New York ; Chicago ; Washington , D.C. ; or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local Trump Hotel.
” • After noting Churchill ’ s willingness to “ go it alone ” in warning about the Nazis , the book says , “ President Trump has often had to go at it alone , including venturing further into the real estate game in New York than his father did.
” • “ And though the high-stakes game of New York real estate is still not as pressure-filled as trying to defeat Nazi Germany , Trump ’ s skills in real estate helped make him a great leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a story that Jean Cocteau could entertain friends at parties by stripping naked , lying back on a table , and bringing himself to orgasm solely by using the power of his mind .
As it turns out , Cocteau ’ s imaginative powers prove to be far less vivid than those of a typical Trump supporter , who believes a man who overcomes problems he , himself creates and an ambiguous cloud of conspiracy are comparable to a singular leader who beat back an existential evil that landed on his doorstep @

Trump and Churchill
Defenders of Western Civilization
by Nick Adams
Post Hill, 224 pp., $26
The title of Nick Adams’s new book, Trump and Churchill: Defenders of Western Civilization, has it half right: Trump is very much like Churchill.
Just not Winston Churchill.
Instead, Trump very much resembles Winston’s father, Lord Randolph Churchill. The elder Churchill was born into privilege, reached high office, and was prone to caustic, unhinged outbursts as he battled a brain ravaged by syphilis.
Near the end of his life, according to biographer William Manchester, Randolph would stand in Parliament, “denouncing the government in the crudest language members had ever heard there.” At times, Churchill “could not engage in a coherent conversation,” having entered what his friend Frank Harris called the “malignant monkey” stage of insanity.
Adams’s book, however, makes the preposterous case that President Donald Trump is better for Western civilization than even the man who rescued the world from Nazism and Socialism. The very title, to quote Churchill himself, “defends itself against the risk of it being read.”
It’s such a ridiculous proposition that making the comparison hadn’t occurred to Newt Gingrich, author of the book’s foreword.
“As a longtime student of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and a supporter of President Trump, I have to confess that until I read Nick’s book it had never occurred to me to join the two as historic phenomenon,” Gingrich writes. And this is a man who authored a Trump hagiography so adoring its foreword was provided by Trump’s son, Eric.
But the comparison made perfect sense to Trump himself, who tweeted congratulations to Adams for “the @simonschuster publication” of the book. “Certainly a great honor to be compared, in any way, to Winston Churchill,” Trump wrote.
Congratulations to author Nick Adams on the @simonschuster publication of your new book, “Trump and Churchill, Defenders of Western Civilization”. Certainly a great honor to be compared, in any way, to Winston Churchill. @NickAdamsinUSA — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
On Wednesday, the White House made the connection even more explicit, comparing Trump’s staged Monday photo-op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church to Churchill inspecting the rubble in bombed-out London during WWII. Famously, Churchill did not have to tear-gas his own citizens to make way for his inspections, as Trump did.
I checked with Simon and Schuster, and they disassociated themselves from the book. The corporate office told me they sometimes distribute books from other publishers on their website. Adams’s actual publisher is Post Hill Press, upon whose website one can purchase Adams’s Donald Trump coloring book.
Trump and Churchill, on the other hand, is not for children—it is pure pornography for the Red Hat crowd, so much so that it should be delivered in a brown paper wrapper.
Of course, to any sentient human, comparing Donald Trump to Winston Churchill will invoke aneurysm-inducing bouts of laughter. And indeed, Trump and Churchill is, unintentionally, the funniest book I have read this year. It almost seems unfair to call it “garbage,” because most actual garbage at some point had some value to someone.
Before we actually dive into Trump’s new favorite tome, let’s just tick off some of the obvious ways Trump and Churchill are barely members of the same genus:
Churchill was a man of great personal courage, as he volunteered to serve in the Second Boer War, was captured, and escaped. (Leading to his famous declaration, “There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result.”)
As a young man, Trump dodged military service, saying at one point that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases was his “Vietnam.”
Churchill was one of the grandest orators of the 20th century, inspiring millions of people to be courageous while displaying a brilliant wit.
Trump is a witless crank who elicits laughs from his followers by simply saying things that are beneath the dignity of a world leader to say. In doing so, he encourages people to be nasty and brutish to one another. He is not inspiring, he is de-spiring. (“One was a great orator; the other is a great tweeter,” Adams writes in trying to compare the two.)
During the Blitz, Churchill used to stand on rooftops, at great personal risk, to watch the German bombs fall on London. During weekend protests by American citizens over police violence, Trump retreated to a White House bunker.
Oh, and another minor point—Churchill stared down both Hitler and Stalin, saving the world from catastrophe and sparing millions of lives.
Trump, on the other hand, has stared down Rosie O’Donnell and Stormy Daniels. Meanwhile, his bromances with dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un have become legendary.
But let us suspend reality and briefly take Adams’s book semi-seriously. In the introduction (which seems to take up at least one-third of the book), Adams says if there were two people in history with whom he could chat on a park bench for an hour, it would be Trump and Churchill.
Which is fine, but seems to be a thin reed on which to ascribe a comparison from one to the other. (For my park-bench interlocutors, I would choose Ronald Reagan and Lady Gaga, but I’m not sure that makes Gaga a great world leader—although, in fairness, I haven’t heard her thoughts on the Marshall Plan.)
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…
What Adams attempts to do is to construct one vague principle—“Western civilization”—and assert that Trump is superior to Churchill in defending it. This is not a Kissinger-level analysis of America and the world order, no, “Western civilization” as Adams characterizes it is no more than an abstraction and weaponization of socially conservative scruples.
“I never thought I would see in my lifetime a political figure who was even close to Churchill,” Adams writes. “I didn’t think it was possible. Then along came the political candidacy and leadership of Donald Trump. He was the leader I had been waiting to see.”
According to Adams, a recent Australian immigrant to America, defending “Western civilization,” means preventing transgender people from using bathrooms that are different from their biological sex—he mentions this example over and over again, as if Stalin’s political prisoners were primarily worried about having to pee next to a drag queen.
Another of the characteristic values of Western civilization, according to Adams, is the “right to the freedom of speech, including the right to criticize or praise one’s government; to write books, pamphlets, or on social media about one’s views on any issue.” Serendipitously, the day I read this passage, Donald Trump was crafting an executive order threatening to regulate Twitter for adding a further explanation tag to his tweets. Free speech, indeed.
Yet Adams remains undeterred.
“President Donald J. Trump will end up in the history books as a greater defender of Western civilization than even Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a man who deserves enormous credit for defeating Nazi Germany and protecting Great Britain, and Europe at large, from being perpetually ruled by fascists,” he writes.
While obviously not intended to be a serious work of history, Adams’s knowledge of Churchill’s life and politics are akin to an eighth-grader frantically googling “who won world war two” the night before a paper is due. At one point, he identifies the great William Manchester as the author of Defender of the Realm, the third volume in Manchester’s The Last Lion trilogy about Churchill, but as anyone who has read the book knows, it was almost entirely written by Paul Reid after Manchester was afflicted by multiple strokes and then died.
Adams compares the literary output of both Churchill, who wrote volumes of high-level war accounts and biographies, to Trump, who Adams says is “himself is a prolific writer and one of the best.” Clearly, nobody has told Adams that virtually all of Trump’s books have been ghostwritten.
In fact, the book is padded with long passages from both Churchill and Trump, attempting to compare the two. In one chapter, Adams—and I am not kidding—compares Churchill’s legendary “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech following Dunkirk to Trump’s inaugural address.
The book unloads a deluge of howlers, including these observations, which were evidently written by an actual human being:
“President Trump’s slogan is ‘Make America Great Again,’ like Churchill made England great again.”
“In fact, while Churchill may have had his disputes with other European leaders and President Roosevelt, those people were more or less on his side.” (Hitler and Mussolini were unavailable for comment.)
“It has been a habit now for almost twenty years that whenever I visit England, I seek out Churchill locations such as Chartwell and the Cabinet War Rooms. In the U.S., I’ve even made the trek to Fulton, Missouri, where Churchill delivered his much famed ‘Iron Curtain’ speech—the greatest address by a foreigner on American soil—with President Truman watching. Similarly, when I find myself in New York; Chicago; Washington, D.C.; or Las Vegas, I always seek out the local Trump Hotel.”
After noting Churchill’s willingness to “go it alone” in warning about the Nazis, the book says, “President Trump has often had to go at it alone, including venturing further into the real estate game in New York than his father did.”
“And though the high-stakes game of New York real estate is still not as pressure-filled as trying to defeat Nazi Germany, Trump’s skills in real estate helped make him a great leader to defeat radical Islam.”
There’s a story that Jean Cocteau could entertain friends at parties by stripping naked, lying back on a table, and bringing himself to orgasm solely by using the power of his mind. As it turns out, Cocteau’s imaginative powers prove to be far less vivid than those of a typical Trump supporter, who believes a man who overcomes problems he, himself creates and an ambiguous cloud of conspiracy are comparable to a singular leader who beat back an existential evil that landed on his doorstep.


thebulwark--2020-06-07--We’re Way Past “Enough”

We’re Way Past “Enough”

Each day there is a new outrage from Donald Trump .
From Tweeting a video that claimed “ The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat , ” to calling for “ total domination ” in major US cities , to desecrating the image of a Bible and using force against peaceful protesters in order to pose for a political photo .
As George Will recently wrote , with Trump , there is no bottom .
Donald Trump ’ s actions have so demeaned and debased our country and the role of president , that we ’ ve become accustomed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unimaginable ( a president who makes racist statements and calls a free press the ‘ enemy ’ of the people , who explicitly supports political violence , who lies to the face of Americans without reproach or consequence ) have become commonplace in the United States .
Trump ’ s actions have become normalized and legitimized .
He has not been removed from office .
Only one sitting national Republican—Justin Amash—has left the party in protest of his fundamental unfitness .
His lies , autocratic tendencies , and dismantling of legislative and executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After nearly four years , we have seen enough to know who and what this man is .
And every single Republican senator or representative who does not explicitly condemn Trump ’ s behavior , or call for his removal—either now or through the November presidential election—is complicit in any further abuses , mismanagement , or crimes that will occur under his watch .
Republicans who were elected to serve the interests of our country continue to look away , believing they are not responsible .
But they are .
We all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Bush White House .
Many other lifelong Republicans and conservatives have spoken out against Trump .
And despite what his sycophantic supporters will tell you , we are neither members of a Deep State nor closeted radicals trying to subvert the will of the people .
We are Americans who love this country , and in many cases , have dedicated years of our lives to public service .
Many are men and women who served in uniform , vowing to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we would like to know : Where are the elected members of the Republican party who are willing to do the same ?
Admiral Mike Mullen , who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bush , broke his silence this week , writing : “ I have .
.
.
been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump ’ s leadership , but we are at an inflection point , and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CIA and NSA , did the same , taking to his Twitter account to speak out against Trump and his attempts to co-opt the military for political purposes .
And now retired general James Mattis , Trump ’ s first secretary of Defense , has spoken out , saying he is “ angry and appalled ” about what has unfolded this week .
“ When I joined the military , some 50 years ago , I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution .
Never did I dream that troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief , ” Mattis wrote .
Equating the president ’ s governing tactics with those used by Nazi Germany , Mattis went on to say that “ Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try .
Instead he tries to divide us .
We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ years without mature leadership.
” These are not left-wing radicals .
These are men who spent their lives fighting on the front lines to protect and defend this country .
Compare that to Donald Trump—a would-be-general , who has tried to use America ’ s most sacred institution to project the image of strength and confidence that we all know he so fundamentally lacks .
Donald Trump is not strong .
He is weak .
But in his weakness , he is dangerous .
He represents the antithesis of everything that millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and treasure for over the past 250 years .
We can not allow ourselves to become numb to his efforts to destabilize the fundamental tenets of American democracy .
We can no longer allow him to weaponize the office of the president and destroy our national character and reputation .
We need leadership .
We need compassion .
And we need Republican senators and representatives who love this country more than they love their own political fortunes , and are willing to do what is right , even if it will cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
Trump must go .

Each day there is a new outrage from Donald Trump. From Tweeting a video that claimed “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” to calling for “total domination” in major US cities, to desecrating the image of a Bible and using force against peaceful protesters in order to pose for a political photo. As George Will recently wrote, with Trump, there is no bottom.
Donald Trump’s actions have so demeaned and debased our country and the role of president, that we’ve become accustomed to them. Things we previously thought unimaginable (a president who makes racist statements and calls a free press the ‘enemy’ of the people, who explicitly supports political violence, who lies to the face of Americans without reproach or consequence) have become commonplace in the United States.
Trump’s actions have become normalized and legitimized.
He has not been removed from office. Only one sitting national Republican—Justin Amash—has left the party in protest of his fundamental unfitness. His lies, autocratic tendencies, and dismantling of legislative and executive safeguards continue without consequence—or sometimes even notice.
After nearly four years, we have seen enough to know who and what this man is. And every single Republican senator or representative who does not explicitly condemn Trump’s behavior, or call for his removal—either now or through the November presidential election—is complicit in any further abuses, mismanagement, or crimes that will occur under his watch.
Republicans who were elected to serve the interests of our country continue to look away, believing they are not responsible. But they are. We all are.
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…
I spent three years working in the Bush White House. Many other lifelong Republicans and conservatives have spoken out against Trump. And despite what his sycophantic supporters will tell you, we are neither members of a Deep State nor closeted radicals trying to subvert the will of the people.
We are Americans who love this country, and in many cases, have dedicated years of our lives to public service. Many are men and women who served in uniform, vowing to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to our country.
And now we would like to know: Where are the elected members of the Republican party who are willing to do the same?
Admiral Mike Mullen, who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bush, broke his silence this week, writing: “I have . . . been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump’s leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.”
General Michael Hayden, who led the CIA and NSA, did the same, taking to his Twitter account to speak out against Trump and his attempts to co-opt the military for political purposes.
And now retired general James Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of Defense, has spoken out, saying he is “angry and appalled” about what has unfolded this week.
“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief,” Mattis wrote.
Equating the president’s governing tactics with those used by Nazi Germany, Mattis went on to say that “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”
These are not left-wing radicals. These are men who spent their lives fighting on the front lines to protect and defend this country. Compare that to Donald Trump—a would-be-general, who has tried to use America’s most sacred institution to project the image of strength and confidence that we all know he so fundamentally lacks.
Donald Trump is not strong. He is weak.
But in his weakness, he is dangerous. He represents the antithesis of everything that millions of Americans have given their lives, blood, and treasure for over the past 250 years. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to his efforts to destabilize the fundamental tenets of American democracy.
We can no longer allow him to weaponize the office of the president and destroy our national character and reputation.
We need leadership. We need compassion. And we need Republican senators and representatives who love this country more than they love their own political fortunes, and are willing to do what is right, even if it will cost them election in November.
Enough is enough. Trump must go.


thebulwark--2020-06-08--Arizona GOP’s 10-Year Plan to Turn the State Blue

Recent polls suggest that Democrat Mark Kelly is likely to handily win the Senate race in Arizona against the incumbent Republican Martha McSally , who was appointed to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of John McCain .
( She was actually the second McCain replacement : Jon Kyl , who left the Senate in 2013 after three terms , kept the seat warm briefly in late 2018 . )
McSally—who in the 2018 midterms had lost a close Senate race to Kyrsten Sinema—seemed in some respects on track to be a decent senator : By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had sponsored more bills than any other freshman senator .
But , as we shall see , instead of acting responsibly as a senator on behalf of her state , she has decided that her primary responsibility is to be loyal to Donald Trump .
And Trump , too , looks likely to lose the state to Joe Biden .
Arizona was a mini-battleground state in 2016 , when Trump ultimately took its eleven Electoral College votes .
In 2018 , its Senate race went blue—Synema ’ s narrow win over McSally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it will be only the second time Arizona voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1948 .
And , if McSally loses , the formerly solid-red state will have two Democratic senators for the first time since 1953 , as well as a majority-Democratic delegation in the House of Representatives .
Arizona is a politically complicated state .
It was the birthplace of Barry Goldwater—in 1909 , three years before Arizona became a state—and so the birthplace of a kind of Western American conservatism that rose to national prominence with Goldwater ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then to ascendancy with Ronald Reagan ’ s election in 1980 .
Traditionally , conservative Arizonans have generally had a soft spot for Hispanics because they are their friends .
This is why the Koch brothers ’ libertarian infrastructure has been so influential on the right in Arizona , through organizations such as the Libre Initiative ( a Hispanic empowerment nonprofit ) and Americans for Prosperity .
Both Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin performed above their national averages in the state in 2016 .
In fact , Johnson ’ s 4.1 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s 3.5 percent margin of victory in the state .
The state provides a good case study of what happens when a political party lets the inmates take charge .
Arizona ’ s population is growing for several reasons : because of its economic boom since the 2008 crash , because it ’ s a destination for California tax refugees , and because of international emigration from Latin America .
Overall , Arizona is becoming more and more brown ; the population is now about 56 percent white , 31 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And white people living in the state ’ s metropolitan areas , like Phoenix and Tucson , inevitably have Hispanic friends they want to protect .
This hadn ’ t been a problem in the past for the Republican party .
The GOP in Arizona had been associated with the likes of McCain , Kyl , and Jeff Flake , all champions of immigration and engagement with local Hispanic communities .
But more recently , Arizona Republicans decided to antagonize the Hispanic voters they needed to win at the state level .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP has alienated many white voters , too .
The shift in the Arizona GOP began around 2010 .
How did it happen ?
After Janet Napolitano joined the Obama administration in 2009 , Jan Brewer succeeded her as governor of Arizona .
Two years later , Brewer won her own full term as governor , and Russell Pearce was elected to be the senate president .
Pearce had neo-Nazi and white nationalist connections .
His major agendum was the passing of the infamous S.B .
1070 , with the support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers , signed into law by Brewer .
That harshly anti-illegal-immigrant law would be struck down by the United States Supreme Court over its provision “ authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable , ” otherwise known as racial profiling .
An early indicator of how the GOP ’ s stance on immigration had alienated Arizonans : A year after S.B .
1070 became law , Pearce was removed from office in a recall election , becoming the first Arizona lawmaker ever to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept him around , though , making him its vice chairman , until he was forced out even from that job for saying that women on Medicaid should be sterilized .
Clearly the eugenicism runs deep with him . )
The state ’ s gerrymandered congressional districts have also had an effect on the party and its immigration stance .
Case in point : The 4th congressional district—which is demographically the whitest district in Arizona , and among the most sparsely populated , encompassing most of the state ’ s western part—first elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an anti-immigration hardliner and a close ally of the anti-immigrant Iowa congressman Steve King ( who lost a primary re-election bid last week ) .
Like Gosar , all of the other Republicans in the Arizona congressional delegation came into office in the last decade .
And like Gosar , they all currently have rankings of A or A+ from the anti-immigration group Numbers USA .
By 2014 , the state GOP had shifted so far that it passed a resolution censuring McCain—its longtime incumbent senator and the GOP ’ s presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmful ” record .
What had sparked the resolution was McCain ’ s championing of the Border Security , Economic Opportunity , and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 that had passed the Senate and was stalled in the House .
The same year , the governorship opened up again as Brewer ’ s term came to a close .
Polls in July 2014 showed that the difference between the top contenders for the Republican nomination , Doug Ducey and Christine Jones , was within the margin of error .
But an August 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgraced—Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio boosted Ducey and helped get him the nomination .
After securing the nomination , Ducey would continue to make joint appearances with Arpaio .
He won the general election that year .
In 2018—the year Ducey ran for and won re-election—two members of Arizona ’ s congressional delegation , Rep. Gosar and the similarly anti-Hispanic Rep. Andy Biggs , signed a letter calling for forced labor for illegal immigrants for a $ 1 a day wage , something that one might call slavery .
The same year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a failed 2016 Republican challenger to John McCain for his U.S. Senate seat , announced her intention to challenge incumbent Jeff Flake .
Knowing that he would lose , Flake announced he would retire rather than run for re-election .
This created an opening for Martha McSally , who was at the time pro-immigration , having twice won a House seat twice in Hispanic-heavy southern Arizona .
But in the race to replace Flake , McSally had to fight off two other major Republican contenders who were strongly anti-immigration : not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was trying to stage a comeback .
To secure the nomination , McSally took a hard line on immigration .
Then , during the general election , she lamely tried to portray her opponent , Kyrsten Sinema , as an elite by calling her “ Hollywood Sinema ” and framing her as too feminine .
McSally lost to Sinema by a very narrow margin , with 70 percent of Latinos voting for Sinema .
Arizona had elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in 30 years .
Why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McSally ?
Because Ward is just awful .
She liked to pal around with Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka .
She won praise from white nationalists .
She associated with alt-right figures like Mike Cernovich .
A day after McCain ’ s announcement of his illness , she suggested that McCain should resign and the governor should appoint her .
The day that McCain announced that he had stopped treatment , she claimed that the announcement was timed to hurt her Senate campaign .
McCain would die a day later .
Her husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on one of Ward ’ s former volunteers for switching allegiance to McSally .
With baggage like that , surely the state GOP would want nothing to do with Ward , right ?
Wrong : Five months after losing the primary , Ward was elected the chairwoman of the state GOP .
Ever since , Ward has made headline after headline in the Arizona press for her ridiculous actions , outrageous tweets , and mismanagement—not to mention an allegation of corruption .
In a fundraising email from last September , Ward wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly dead in his tracks.
” This is grotesque .
Kelly , the Democratic nominee , is nationally famous in his own right for being a NASA astronaut ( and the twin brother of another NASA astronaut ) but also for being the husband of former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords , who was shot in the head at point-blank range in an attack that nearly killed her and did kill six others .
McSally , too , has been making a name for herself as an anti-immigration , anti-media , MAGA senator .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ liberal hack ” this past January because he dared to ask her “ should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial ?
” She proceeded to send out fundraising emails crowing about this triumphant attack against CNN .
She received her reward in the form of a shout-out from the Trump campaign ’ s Twitter account .
She has dropped her previous support for a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers in favor of a much stricter policy .
In the Arizona House of Representatives , Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several legislative staffers from both parties I have talked to , after November ’ s election , the chamber could well flip Democratic for the first time since 1967 .
The state senate is also in play .
Which is why the Democratic National Committee is investing its resources in local elections .
Among the reasons the Republican party might lose its grasp on the legislature is that Arizona ’ s GOP state lawmakers have been involved in a parade of scandals over the past few years : • Most infamously , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resignation after a recording of his racist remarks surfaced in 2018 .
( Full disclosure : I have met Stringer several times , and I heard more racist and anti-Semitic comments from him in one night than I have heard in my six years living in the United States . )
Stringer didn ’ t resign .
Then , in 2019 , it was revealed that he had been convicted of horrific sex crimes in the 1980s .
Stringer then resigned—but he soon ran for and won a GOP state committeeman position , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state party chair and run for a national committeeman position during the party ’ s national convention .
Meanwhile , he is running for public office again , for the position of county attorney for Yavapai County .
• In early 2018 , state representative Don Shooter was expelled from the legislature for sexual harassment .
• A Republican state senator who was a longtime state representative , Michelle Ugenti Rita , was accused this past February of sexual harassment .
• Also in February , state representative David Cook was caught in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an influential lobbyist .
Cook faces bribery and campaign-finance-violation charges related to his affair .
• Kelly Townsend , a state representative since 2013 , suggested a year ago that vaccines are a Communist plot , then weirdly suggested that mandatory vaccines are like “ government-imposed tattoos , ” which naturally offended people since it sounded like she was comparing vaccination to the Holocaust .
Amidst this lunacy , Governor Ducey , for better or worse , has tried to stay out of partisan politics , and Arizonans do not see him as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican party .
( He did call for Stringer ’ s resignation , to his credit . )
The fact that Ducey was a successful businessman—he was the longtime president and CEO of Cold Stone Creamery—has helped keep his reputation out of the muck .
And his approval ratings in April were very high , as voters supported his handling of the COVID-19 crisis .
That may change , though , as the rate of new cases in the state has suddenly spiked upward since the beginning of June .
Meanwhile , polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections—just five months away—voters could send a clear signal of disapproval to the state ’ s Republicans .
The party once known for immigrant-friendly statesmen is now associated with racism , xenophobia , lunacy , scandal , and corruption .
In a state that is becoming browner , Republicans are increasingly known for kicking Hispanics .
But is the state ’ s GOP capable of heeding a clear signal ?
Can it learn from electoral defeat and turn back toward more reasonable , moderate policies and candidates ?
Don ’ t bet on @ @

Recent polls suggest that Democrat Mark Kelly is likely to handily win the Senate race in Arizona against the incumbent Republican Martha McSally, who was appointed to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of John McCain. (She was actually the second McCain replacement: Jon Kyl, who left the Senate in 2013 after three terms, kept the seat warm briefly in late 2018.)
McSally—who in the 2018 midterms had lost a close Senate race to Kyrsten Sinema—seemed in some respects on track to be a decent senator: By the end of her first year, she had sponsored more bills than any other freshman senator. But, as we shall see, instead of acting responsibly as a senator on behalf of her state, she has decided that her primary responsibility is to be loyal to Donald Trump.
And Trump, too, looks likely to lose the state to Joe Biden. Arizona was a mini-battleground state in 2016, when Trump ultimately took its eleven Electoral College votes. In 2018, its Senate race went blue—Sinema’s narrow win over McSally. If Biden wins the state in November, it will be only the second time Arizona voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1948. And, if McSally loses, the formerly solid-red state will have two Democratic senators for the first time since 1953, as well as a majority-Democratic delegation in the House of Representatives.
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…
Arizona is a politically complicated state. It was the birthplace of Barry Goldwater—in 1909, three years before Arizona became a state—and so the birthplace of a kind of Western American conservatism that rose to national prominence with Goldwater’s failed presidential bid in 1964 and then to ascendancy with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980.
Traditionally, conservative Arizonans have generally had a soft spot for Hispanics because they are their friends. This is why the Koch brothers’ libertarian infrastructure has been so influential on the right in Arizona, through organizations such as the Libre Initiative (a Hispanic empowerment nonprofit) and Americans for Prosperity. Both Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin performed above their national averages in the state in 2016. In fact, Johnson’s 4.1 percent of the vote in Arizona was greater than Trump’s 3.5 percent margin of victory in the state.
The state provides a good case study of what happens when a political party lets the inmates take charge. Arizona’s population is growing for several reasons: because of its economic boom since the 2008 crash, because it’s a destination for California tax refugees, and because of international emigration from Latin America. Overall, Arizona is becoming more and more brown; the population is now about 56 percent white, 31 percent Latino, and 4 percent black. And white people living in the state’s metropolitan areas, like Phoenix and Tucson, inevitably have Hispanic friends they want to protect. This hadn’t been a problem in the past for the Republican party. The GOP in Arizona had been associated with the likes of McCain, Kyl, and Jeff Flake, all champions of immigration and engagement with local Hispanic communities.
But more recently, Arizona Republicans decided to antagonize the Hispanic voters they needed to win at the state level. And by antagonizing and demonizing Hispanic Arizonans, the GOP has alienated many white voters, too.
The shift in the Arizona GOP began around 2010. How did it happen?
After Janet Napolitano joined the Obama administration in 2009, Jan Brewer succeeded her as governor of Arizona. Two years later, Brewer won her own full term as governor, and Russell Pearce was elected to be the senate president. Pearce had neo-Nazi and white nationalist connections. His major agendum was the passing of the infamous S.B. 1070, with the support of white-nationalist groups and the votes of Republican lawmakers, signed into law by Brewer. That harshly anti-illegal-immigrant law would be struck down by the United States Supreme Court over its provision “authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable,” otherwise known as racial profiling. An early indicator of how the GOP’s stance on immigration had alienated Arizonans: A year after S.B. 1070 became law, Pearce was removed from office in a recall election, becoming the first Arizona lawmaker ever to be so removed. (The state party kept him around, though, making him its vice chairman, until he was forced out even from that job for saying that women on Medicaid should be sterilized. Clearly the eugenicism runs deep with him.)
The state’s gerrymandered congressional districts have also had an effect on the party and its immigration stance. Case in point: The 4th congressional district—which is demographically the whitest district in Arizona, and among the most sparsely populated, encompassing most of the state’s western part—first elected Rep. Paul Gosar in 2010. He is an anti-immigration hardliner and a close ally of the anti-immigrant Iowa congressman Steve King (who lost a primary re-election bid last week). Like Gosar, all of the other Republicans in the Arizona congressional delegation came into office in the last decade. And like Gosar, they all currently have rankings of A or A+ from the anti-immigration group Numbers USA.
By 2014, the state GOP had shifted so far that it passed a resolution censuring McCain—its longtime incumbent senator and the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2008—over his “disastrous and harmful” record. What had sparked the resolution was McCain’s championing of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 that had passed the Senate and was stalled in the House.
The same year, the governorship opened up again as Brewer’s term came to a close. Polls in July 2014 showed that the difference between the top contenders for the Republican nomination, Doug Ducey and Christine Jones, was within the margin of error. But an August 1 endorsement from the notoriously anti-Hispanic—and soon-to-be nationally disgraced—Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio boosted Ducey and helped get him the nomination. After securing the nomination, Ducey would continue to make joint appearances with Arpaio. He won the general election that year.
In 2018—the year Ducey ran for and won re-election—two members of Arizona’s congressional delegation, Rep. Gosar and the similarly anti-Hispanic Rep. Andy Biggs, signed a letter calling for forced labor for illegal immigrants for a $1 a day wage, something that one might call slavery.
The same year, Kelli Ward, a former state senator and a failed 2016 Republican challenger to John McCain for his U.S. Senate seat, announced her intention to challenge incumbent Jeff Flake. Knowing that he would lose, Flake announced he would retire rather than run for re-election. This created an opening for Martha McSally, who was at the time pro-immigration, having twice won a House seat in Hispanic-heavy southern Arizona.
But in the race to replace Flake, McSally had to fight off two other major Republican contenders who were strongly anti-immigration: not just Ward but “Sheriff Joe,” who was trying to stage a comeback. To secure the nomination, McSally took a hard line on immigration. Then, during the general election, she lamely tried to portray her opponent, Kyrsten Sinema, as an elite by calling her “Hollywood Sinema” and framing her as too feminine. McSally lost to Sinema by a very narrow margin, with 70 percent of Latinos voting for Sinema. Arizona had elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in 30 years.
Why did Kelli Ward lose the GOP nomination to McSally? Because Ward is just awful. She liked to pal around with Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka. She won praise from white nationalists. She associated with alt-right figures like Mike Cernovich. A day after McCain’s announcement of his illness, she suggested that McCain should resign and the governor should appoint her. The day that McCain announced that he had stopped treatment, she claimed that the announcement was timed to hurt her Senate campaign. McCain would die a day later. Her husband is infamous for such acts as spitting on one of Ward’s former volunteers for switching allegiance to McSally.
With baggage like that, surely the state GOP would want nothing to do with Ward, right? Wrong: Five months after losing the primary, Ward was elected the chairwoman of the state GOP. Ever since, Ward has made headline after headline in the Arizona press for her ridiculous actions, outrageous tweets, and mismanagement—not to mention an allegation of corruption. In a fundraising email from last September, Ward wrote that “we’ll stop gun-grabber Mark Kelly dead in his tracks.” This is grotesque. Kelly, the Democratic nominee, is nationally famous in his own right for being a NASA astronaut (and the twin brother of another NASA astronaut) but also for being the husband of former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head at point-blank range in an attack that nearly killed her and did kill six others.
McSally, too, has been making a name for herself as an anti-immigration, anti-media, MAGA senator. She called CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju a “liberal hack” this past January because he dared to ask her “should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?” She proceeded to send out fundraising emails crowing about this triumphant attack against CNN. She received her reward in the form of a shout-out from the Trump campaign’s Twitter account. She has dropped her previous support for a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers in favor of a much stricter policy.
In the Arizona House of Representatives, Republicans have a narrow 31-29 majority; according to several legislative staffers from both parties I have talked to, after November’s election, the chamber could well flip Democratic for the first time since 1967. The state senate is also in play. Which is why the Democratic National Committee is investing its resources in local elections.
Among the reasons the Republican party might lose its grasp on the legislature is that Arizona’s GOP state lawmakers have been involved in a parade of scandals over the past few years:
Most infamously, former representative David Stringer faced calls for his resignation after a recording of his racist remarks surfaced in 2018. (Full disclosure: I have met Stringer several times, and I heard more racist and anti-Semitic comments from him in one night than I have heard in my six years living in the United States.) Stringer didn’t resign. Then, in 2019, it was revealed that he had been convicted of horrific sex crimes in the 1980s. Stringer then resigned—but he soon ran for and won a GOP state committeeman position, which allows him to vote for the state party chair and run for a national committeeman position during the party’s national convention. Meanwhile, he is running for public office again, for the position of county attorney for Yavapai County.
In early 2018, state representative Don Shooter was expelled from the legislature for sexual harassment.
A Republican state senator who was a longtime state representative, Michelle Ugenti Rita, was accused this past February of sexual harassment.
Also in February, state representative David Cook was caught in an extramarital affair with the daughter of an influential lobbyist. Cook faces bribery and campaign-finance-violation charges related to his affair.
Kelly Townsend, a state representative since 2013, suggested a year ago that vaccines are a Communist plot, then weirdly suggested that mandatory vaccines are like “government-imposed tattoos,” which naturally offended people since it sounded like she was comparing vaccination to the Holocaust.
Amidst this lunacy, Governor Ducey, for better or worse, has tried to stay out of partisan politics, and Arizonans do not see him as the face of the state’s Republican party. (He did call for Stringer’s resignation, to his credit.) The fact that Ducey was a successful businessman—he was the longtime president and CEO of Cold Stone Creamery—has helped keep his reputation out of the muck. And his approval ratings in April were very high, as voters supported his handling of the COVID-19 crisis. That may change, though, as the rate of new cases in the state has suddenly spiked upward since the beginning of June.
Meanwhile, polls continue to suggest that in the 2020 elections—just five months away—voters could send a clear signal of disapproval to the state’s Republicans. The party once known for immigrant-friendly statesmen is now associated with racism, xenophobia, lunacy, scandal, and corruption. In a state that is becoming browner, Republicans are increasingly known for kicking Hispanics. But is the state’s GOP capable of heeding a clear signal? Can it learn from electoral defeat and turn back toward more reasonable, moderate policies and candidates? Don’t bet on it.


thebulwark--2020-06-08--If Germany Won’t Help Bail Out Italy, Who Will?

It would be an understatement to say that the European Central Bank ( ECB ) and the German Constitutional Court are not getting along .
Last month , the court ruled that the ECB might have exceeded its authority by pursuing an aggressive government bond-buying program .
The ECB ’ s response has been to pretend that the ruling didn ’ t exist .
As the conflict between these two powerful European institutions escalates , it is not only Italy ’ s economic future that is threatened , but the whole of Europe ’ s .
In its recent review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easing policy , the German Constitutional Court took to task the German government and the German central bank , the Deutsche Bundesbank , for not having challenged the ECB ’ s unorthodox monetary policy .
The court found that the ECB likely exceeded its authority by not respecting the Eurozone ’ s principle of “ proportionality.
” The court is now threatening to preclude the Bundesbank , the ECB ’ s largest member bank , from participating in the ECB ’ s bond-buying program unless the Bundesbank provides a convincing legal defense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ECB ’ s immediate reaction was to declare that it was subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and not to that of the German Constitutional Court .
Since the European Court of Justice had already ruled that the ECB ’ s bond-buying program was within its mandate , the ECB saw no need to respond to the German court .
Now , as if to thumb its nose at the German court , the ECB has expanded the program under dispute .
It enlarged its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ €1,350 billion .
Along the way , it disregarded its former policy of buying government bonds of individual member countries only in strict proportion to those countries ’ ECB capital contribution .
Now , the ECB is choosing to exercise complete discretion as to which countries ’ government bonds it will buy and in what proportion .
It is unlikely that the disproportionate amount of Italian government debt that the ECB has bought over the last two months will have escaped the German court ’ s notice .
Neither will the court be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April and May , the ECB purchased €50 billion in Italian government bonds—almost exactly equal to the Italian government ’ s gross financing needs over those two months .
All of this could put the ECB on a serious collision course with the German court later this summer .
If the German court had a problem with the ECB ’ s past quantitative easing program , how much more will it object to an expanded ECB bond-buying program ?
Moreover , even if the German court were to accept the ECB ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the ECB to meet its inflation objective in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic , how will the ECB convince the German court that buying a disproportionate amount of Italian bonds does not constitute monetary financing of a member country ’ s government deficit—exactly the practice that sticks in the German court ’ s craw ?
Twenty years ago , when Germany gave up the Deutsche Mark for the Euro , its worst fear was that the newly created ECB would engage in the monetary financing of a wayward member country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such an eventuality , Germany insisted that the Treaty of Lisbon include Article 123 , which explicitly prohibits the ECB from doing so .
One can be sure that the German court will now raise the fundamental question of how the ECB ’ s secondary market purchase of the equivalent of the Italian government ’ s entire gross financing needs does not constitute monetary financing of a member country ’ s budget deficit .
The outcome of this dispute matters the most for Italy , whose economy is among those in Europe hardest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose public finances are on an unsustainable path .
The only thing that will allow Italy to avoid defaulting on its government debt will be for the ECB to continue buying large quantities of Italian government bonds .
However , if the German court rules that the Bundesbank may not participate in an ECB bond-buying program that exceeds the ECB ’ s mandate , a hobbled ECB will not be up to the task of bailing out Italy .
The third-largest economy in the Eurozone could face a second sovereign debt crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ succeed in using some form of political magic to get the German Constitutional Court to back down from its confrontation with the ECB .
Just as hope is not a strategy , magic is not a policy .
But having come this far , it ’ s unlikely the German court will retreat of its own accord .

It would be an understatement to say that the European Central Bank (ECB) and the German Constitutional Court are not getting along.
Last month, the court ruled that the ECB might have exceeded its authority by pursuing an aggressive government bond-buying program. The ECB’s response has been to pretend that the ruling didn’t exist. As the conflict between these two powerful European institutions escalates, it is not only Italy’s economic future that is threatened, but the whole of Europe’s.
In its recent review of the ECB’s past quantitative easing policy, the German Constitutional Court took to task the German government and the German central bank, the Deutsche Bundesbank, for not having challenged the ECB’s unorthodox monetary policy. The court found that the ECB likely exceeded its authority by not respecting the Eurozone’s principle of “proportionality.” The court is now threatening to preclude the Bundesbank, the ECB’s largest member bank, from participating in the ECB’s bond-buying program unless the Bundesbank provides a convincing legal defense of the ECB’s actions.
The ECB’s immediate reaction was to declare that it was subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and not to that of the German Constitutional Court. Since the European Court of Justice had already ruled that the ECB’s bond-buying program was within its mandate, the ECB saw no need to respond to the German court.
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…
Now, as if to thumb its nose at the German court, the ECB has expanded the program under dispute. It enlarged its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) from €750 billion to €1,350 billion. Along the way, it disregarded its former policy of buying government bonds of individual member countries only in strict proportion to those countries’ ECB capital contribution. Now, the ECB is choosing to exercise complete discretion as to which countries’ government bonds it will buy and in what proportion.
It is unlikely that the disproportionate amount of Italian government debt that the ECB has bought over the last two months will have escaped the German court’s notice. Neither will the court be likely to dismiss as coincidence that in April and May, the ECB purchased €50 billion in Italian government bonds—almost exactly equal to the Italian government’s gross financing needs over those two months.
All of this could put the ECB on a serious collision course with the German court later this summer.
If the German court had a problem with the ECB’s past quantitative easing program, how much more will it object to an expanded ECB bond-buying program? Moreover, even if the German court were to accept the ECB’s likely explanation that expanded bond-buying was needed for the ECB to meet its inflation objective in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, how will the ECB convince the German court that buying a disproportionate amount of Italian bonds does not constitute monetary financing of a member country’s government deficit—exactly the practice that sticks in the German court’s craw?
Twenty years ago, when Germany gave up the Deutsche Mark for the Euro, its worst fear was that the newly created ECB would engage in the monetary financing of a wayward member country’s budget deficit. To guard against such an eventuality, Germany insisted that the Treaty of Lisbon include Article 123, which explicitly prohibits the ECB from doing so. One can be sure that the German court will now raise the fundamental question of how the ECB’s secondary market purchase of the equivalent of the Italian government’s entire gross financing needs does not constitute monetary financing of a member country’s budget deficit.
The outcome of this dispute matters the most for Italy, whose economy is among those in Europe hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and whose public finances are on an unsustainable path. The only thing that will allow Italy to avoid defaulting on its government debt will be for the ECB to continue buying large quantities of Italian government bonds. However, if the German court rules that the Bundesbank may not participate in an ECB bond-buying program that exceeds the ECB’s mandate, a hobbled ECB will not be up to the task of bailing out Italy. The third-largest economy in the Eurozone could face a second sovereign debt crisis.
Hopefully, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will succeed in using some form of political magic to get the German Constitutional Court to back down from its confrontation with the ECB. Just as hope is not a strategy, magic is not a policy. But having come this far, it’s unlikely the German court will retreat of its own accord.


thebulwark--2020-06-08--The 2020 Cake Is (Almost) Baked

The 2020 Cake Is (Almost) Baked

Axios reports that Trump ’ s 2020 campaign team met last week to figure out , well , everything .
Jonathan Swan ’ s scoop is really something : President Trump ’ s top political advisers , in a private meeting last week , said their boss needs to add more hopeful , optimistic and unifying messages to balance his harsh law-and-order rhetoric .
Why it matters : They ’ re deeply concerned about “ brutal ” internal polling for the president in the aftermath of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and George Floyd ’ s killing .
Behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top political advisers at campaign headquarters on Thursday afternoon , the president ’ s 2016 campaign manager , Corey Lewandowski , raised a question that many close to the campaign have been asking themselves recently : “ What ’ s our message ?
” When an incumbent president is trying to figure out his message in June , that ’ s not a sign of strength .
It ’ s the electoral equivalent of the birds and other wildlife all suddenly rushing inland while the Republican Senate frolics on the beach .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign you ’ ll find the phrase “ a long time away.
” The idea being that there ’ s still plenty of time left between now and November 3 and just about anything could happen .
Neither of those two propositions is really true .
First : There ’ s not a ton of time left .
That weekend we just had ?
There are only 20 of them left between now and Election Day .
That ’ s it .
It is much , much later than you think .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sure , it ’ s possible that “ anything ” could happen .
Joe Biden could drop dead ; Trump could resign ; Kang and Kodos could show up .
But take a look at how small the variation has been : In the dozens and dozens of polls taken over the last year , Donald Trump has led Joe Biden in exactly four of them .
Donald Trump is the most well-known and polarizing figure in the country .
Everyone knows him and most people know what they think of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living Democratic politician who is not a former president .
He has been a national figure for 40 years .
He is the last Democratic vice president .
Most people know what they think of him , too .
More than any presidential election in our lifetimes , this cake started out pre-baked .
And the natural level of the race is roughly Biden +6 .
Is there time left ?
Sure .
But what are voters really going to learn about these two candidates that isn ’ t already priced into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of people because they didn ’ t believe the polls .
During the Republican primaries , Trump kept leading and people kept assuming that the polls were wrong or that they would suddenly change .
Going into the general election , the polls showed Hillary Clinton had a real but narrow lead over Trump nationally .
The national result was a Clinton popular vote win within the margin of error of where the polling was .
The only polling which turned out to be wonky were the final state-level polls in Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump performed slightly better than the margin of error .
As a result , there ’ s been a weird reality-distortion field around Trump ’ s re-elect odds , where people look at the objective numbers and then throw them out the window on the assumption that , Hey , it ’ s Trump !
Anything can happen !
If you came down from Mars and were looking at the 2020 race for the first time and trying to get a purely data-driven sense of what ’ s happening , here are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Trump ’ s job approval rating has been significantly underwater with his total approval number rarely getting to 43 percent , even .
These figures , too , have been remarkably stable .
• The country ’ s right track/wrong track numbers have been consistently brutal , with the spread never getting closer than -10 and currently sitting at -38 : • On the generic congressional ballot , Democrats have held a substantial lead since early 2019—and that lead has been slowly widening for the last 17 weeks .
It now stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s personal favorable/unfavorable number—not his job approval—has been net negative throughout his administration , with an average spread of about -15 .
He ’ s currently a net -13 .
• Biden ’ s personal favorable/unfavorable number is close to neutral , having trended a little bit negative since Trump starting spending ads against him .
He ’ s currently a net -1.4 .
• Biden ’ s polling lead over Trump is the biggest and most durable advantage any challenger has ever held over an incumbent president since the advent of modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s support number has been hovering around 42 percent .
• As a challenger , Biden has been near the 50 percent mark .
So ask yourself this : If you remove the emotional influence of 2016 and just go by the numbers , what sort of odds would you have to get at this point in order to lure you into putting $ 100 on Trump ?
The entire idea of a Trump comeback is predicated on the assumption that over the next 20 weeks , there can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flock to support Trump in even greater numbers than they were back in the pre-pandemic days of early January .
But even during those relatively good times , Biden held a strong lead .
( On January 1 , Biden was .
.
.
+6 . )
Looking out at the horizon , it ’ s hard to see where good news for Trump is going to come from .
From unemployment numbers that are only in the mid-teens ?
If that ’ s your message to voters—Trump 2020 : It could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good luck .
A figure people don ’ t like and whose job performance they don ’ t approve of selling bad results as a “ comeback ” against a better-liked opponent who ’ s been leading for a year seems unlikely to work .
And don ’ t forget that with each passing week that Trump doesn ’ t make up ground , the momentum pushing against him increases .
One of the truisms of politics is : Bad gets worse .
Losing campaigns have their own logic and the fact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People glom onto the side that ’ s winning as a bandwagon effect takes hold .
The losing campaign gets the stench of death around it .
The most likely outcome is that Biden wins by 6 points or so .
Though it is possible that the race could still move .
And if it does , I ’ d say that Biden +10 is about as likely as Trump +1 .

Axios reports that Trump’s 2020 campaign team met last week to figure out, well, everything. Jonathan Swan’s scoop is really something:
President Trump’s top political advisers, in a private meeting last week, said their boss needs to add more hopeful, optimistic and unifying messages to balance his harsh law-and-order rhetoric. Why it matters: They’re deeply concerned about “brutal” internal polling for the president in the aftermath of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and George Floyd’s killing. Behind the scenes: During a meeting of top political advisers at campaign headquarters on Thursday afternoon, the president’s 2016 campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, raised a question that many close to the campaign have been asking themselves recently: “What’s our message?”
When an incumbent president is trying to figure out his message in June, that’s not a sign of strength.
It’s the electoral equivalent of the birds and other wildlife all suddenly rushing inland while the Republican Senate frolics on the beach.
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…
In just about every story written about the campaign you’ll find the phrase “a long time away.” The idea being that there’s still plenty of time left between now and November 3 and just about anything could happen.
Neither of those two propositions is really true.
First: There’s not a ton of time left. That weekend we just had? There are only 20 of them left between now and Election Day. That’s it. It is much, much later than you think.
Second: This race has been remarkably stable. Sure, it’s possible that “anything” could happen. Joe Biden could drop dead; Trump could resign; Kang and Kodos could show up. But take a look at how small the variation has been:
In the dozens and dozens of polls taken over the last year, Donald Trump has led Joe Biden in exactly four of them.
Donald Trump is the most well-known and polarizing figure in the country. Everyone knows him and most people know what they think of him.
Joe Biden is the most famous living Democratic politician who is not a former president. He has been a national figure for 40 years. He is the last Democratic vice president. Most people know what they think of him, too.
More than any presidential election in our lifetimes, this cake started out pre-baked. And the natural level of the race is roughly Biden +6.
Is there time left? Sure. But what are voters really going to learn about these two candidates that isn’t already priced into the equation?
Not much.
The 2016 election results surprised lots of people because they didn’t believe the polls. During the Republican primaries, Trump kept leading and people kept assuming that the polls were wrong or that they would suddenly change.
They didn’t.
Going into the general election, the polls showed Hillary Clinton had a real but narrow lead over Trump nationally. The national result was a Clinton popular vote win within the margin of error of where the polling was. The only polling which turned out to be wonky were the final state-level polls in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, where Trump performed slightly better than the margin of error.
As a result, there’s been a weird reality-distortion field around Trump’s re-elect odds, where people look at the objective numbers and then throw them out the window on the assumption that, Hey, it’s Trump! Anything can happen!
If you came down from Mars and were looking at the 2020 race for the first time and trying to get a purely data-driven sense of what’s happening, here are the numbers you’d look at:
Trump’s job approval rating has been significantly underwater with his total approval number rarely getting to 43 percent, even. These figures, too, have been remarkably stable.
The country’s right track/wrong track numbers have been consistently brutal, with the spread never getting closer than -10 and currently sitting at -38:
On the generic congressional ballot, Democrats have held a substantial lead since early 2019—and that lead has been slowly widening for the last 17 weeks. It now stands at 9 points.
Trump’s personal favorable/unfavorable number—not his job approval—has been net negative throughout his administration, with an average spread of about -15. He’s currently a net -13.
Biden’s personal favorable/unfavorable number is close to neutral, having trended a little bit negative since Trump starting spending ads against him. He’s currently a net -1.4.
Biden’s polling lead over Trump is the biggest and most durable advantage any challenger has ever held over an incumbent president since the advent of modern polling.
As an incumbent president, Trump’s support number has been hovering around 42 percent.
As a challenger, Biden has been near the 50 percent mark.
So ask yourself this: If you remove the emotional influence of 2016 and just go by the numbers, what sort of odds would you have to get at this point in order to lure you into putting $100 on Trump?
The entire idea of a Trump comeback is predicated on the assumption that over the next 20 weeks, there can be so much good news that voters will flock to support Trump in even greater numbers than they were back in the pre-pandemic days of early January.
But even during those relatively good times, Biden held a strong lead. (On January 1, Biden was . . . +6.)
Looking out at the horizon, it’s hard to see where good news for Trump is going to come from.
From unemployment numbers that are only in the mid-teens? If that’s your message to voters—Trump 2020: It could be worse! . . . Well, good luck. A figure people don’t like and whose job performance they don’t approve of selling bad results as a “comeback” against a better-liked opponent who’s been leading for a year seems unlikely to work.
And don’t forget that with each passing week that Trump doesn’t make up ground, the momentum pushing against him increases.
One of the truisms of politics is: Bad gets worse. Losing campaigns have their own logic and the fact of losing makes it harder to change direction. People glom onto the side that’s winning as a bandwagon effect takes hold. The losing campaign gets the stench of death around it.
The most likely outcome is that Biden wins by 6 points or so. Though it is possible that the race could still move.
And if it does, I’d say that Biden +10 is about as likely as Trump +1.