thebulwark--2020-07-01--America’s Underlying Injustice Won’t Just Disappear

That ’ s how many people voted for Donald Trump on November 8 , 2016 , believing him to be either better , safer , or more disruptive to our corrupt political culture than Hillary Clinton .
That ’ s how many people voted for Hillary Clinton , believing her to be either better , safer , or more conducive to our political progress than Donald Trump .
That ’ s the number of voters in Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin who put Trump over the top in the electoral college and into office .
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote at all .
And all of them—236,838,342 Americans—are watching what ’ s happening right now , making their assessments about how we will govern , deciding whether there will be a place for them in what will inevitably be , no matter who wins , a new America .
Which means the election is happening already .
If you believe that November 3 , 2020 will bring an end to our national nightmare of toxicity and polarization , guess what ?
But it might just have a chance of being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can get there , after inauguration day on January 20 , 2021 , the curtain will rise on the opening act of the hard and unglamorous business of governing again .
Which means both parties will have to own their part in contributing to forty years of declining economic mobility , an unconscionably racist prison-industrial complex , 1 in 5 children living in poverty , a stock market economy wholly unhooked from the workers who drive it , and so much corruption and money in politics that the percentage of Americans who support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bearing on whether that law will pass .
By allowing this national period of staggering selfishness , corruption , and duplicity , we have all failed .
Now we have to fix it .
And a little humility won ’ t hurt that process a bit .
To have even a prayer of addressing these issues and the host of others that await us , we need to show that we will not answer the egregious excesses of the past four years with egregious excesses of our own : groupthink , pointing fingers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter mob .
We must find the grace to welcome others into our big tent , including those with whom we have disagreed in the past , if we want to build the future .
Is this a call for appeasement or betraying our demands for justice , transparency , and accountability ?
No , it ’ s an awareness that ours are not the only passions out there .
The media would have us believe there are only two cultures in America right now : Red and Blue .
But in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of us can possibly be aware of .
After these past four years , no one should be so arrogant as to think that the America we see in our respective circles grants us an understanding—moral or otherwise—of all of those communities .
If we get so narrow-minded in our anger and pain and resentment and righteousness so as to lose those same 77,744 voters , then all our protests and rallies and efforts will have been for naught .
We can not honestly seek solutions to the underlying injustices in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and looking at our own failures .
We have to allow room for mistakes and offer a roadmap for redemption .
We can not have reconciliation without truth .
We need our experts , yes , but we must acknowledge that many of them are indeed embarrassingly out of touch .
We need our politicians , as disappointing as some of them may be .
We need our most passionate voices , as short-sighted as some of them may be .
We need our moderates , as infuriatingly circumspect as many of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives , not only because electoral math and the future of any meaningful governance requires us to find the way forward with them , but because aspects of America are fundamentally conservative in ways progressives want to wish away , but will never be able to .
We either start getting there together .
Or we won ’ t get anywhere at all .
The Framers designed a government that barely works and only works at all when nobody gets everything they want .
The reason they did that is because every other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends up as tyranny .
So quit pretending there ’ s ever going to be consensus on anything , quit complaining how bad everything is , and quit living in a magical reality that somehow you ’ re going to get precisely what you think is the best path for our country and for all the communities that imperfectly unite it .
If you ’ re not willing to be part of the flawed but ever-evolving , ever-disappointing solution , then you ’ re part of the problem .
And if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to care about your stated ideals anyway .
Just tell us how you ’ re going to help make it better .

62,984,828.
That’s how many people voted for Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, believing him to be either better, safer, or more disruptive to our corrupt political culture than Hillary Clinton.
65,853,514 .
That’s how many people voted for Hillary Clinton, believing her to be either better, safer, or more conducive to our political progress than Donald Trump.
77,744.
That’s the number of voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who put Trump over the top in the electoral college and into office.
108,000,000.
That’s the number of U.S. citizens who decided not to vote at all.
And all of them—236,838,342 Americans—are watching what’s happening right now, making their assessments about how we will govern, deciding whether there will be a place for them in what will inevitably be, no matter who wins, a new America. Which means the election is happening already.
If you believe that November 3, 2020 will bring an end to our national nightmare of toxicity and polarization, guess what?
It won’t.
But it might just have a chance of being the beginning of the end.
If we can get there, after inauguration day on January 20, 2021, the curtain will rise on the opening act of the hard and unglamorous business of governing again.
Which means both parties will have to own their part in contributing to forty years of declining economic mobility, an unconscionably racist prison-industrial complex, 1 in 5 children living in poverty, a stock market economy wholly unhooked from the workers who drive it, and so much corruption and money in politics that the percentage of Americans who support a given law has literally 0% bearing on whether that law will pass.
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…
By allowing this national period of staggering selfishness, corruption, and duplicity, we have all failed. Now we have to fix it. And a little humility won’t hurt that process a bit.
To have even a prayer of addressing these issues and the host of others that await us, we need to show that we will not answer the egregious excesses of the past four years with egregious excesses of our own: groupthink, pointing fingers, bowing to the terrors of the Twitter mob. We must find the grace to welcome others into our big tent, including those with whom we have disagreed in the past, if we want to build the future.
Is this a call for appeasement or betraying our demands for justice, transparency, and accountability? No, it’s an awareness that ours are not the only passions out there. The media would have us believe there are only two cultures in America right now: Red and Blue. But in fact, our country comprises more cultures than any of us can possibly be aware of. After these past four years, no one should be so arrogant as to think that the America we see in our respective circles grants us an understanding—moral or otherwise—of all of those communities.
If we get so narrow-minded in our anger and pain and resentment and righteousness so as to lose those same 77,744 voters, then all our protests and rallies and efforts will have been for naught. We cannot honestly seek solutions to the underlying injustices in American society without allowing differences of opinion, and looking at our own failures.
We have to allow room for mistakes and offer a roadmap for redemption.
We cannot have reconciliation without truth.
We need our experts, yes, but we must acknowledge that many of them are indeed embarrassingly out of touch. We need our politicians, as disappointing as some of them may be. We need our most passionate voices, as short-sighted as some of them may be. We need our moderates, as infuriatingly circumspect as many of them may be. And we need our conservatives, not only because electoral math and the future of any meaningful governance requires us to find the way forward with them, but because aspects of America are fundamentally conservative in ways progressives want to wish away, but will never be able to.
We either start getting there together.
Or we won’t get anywhere at all.
The Framers designed a government that barely works and only works at all when nobody gets everything they want. The reason they did that is because every other form of government is worse, and ends up as tyranny. So quit pretending there’s ever going to be consensus on anything, quit complaining how bad everything is, and quit living in a magical reality that somehow you’re going to get precisely what you think is the best path for our country and for all the communities that imperfectly unite it.
If you’re not willing to be part of the flawed but ever-evolving, ever-disappointing solution, then you’re part of the problem. And if you’re part of the problem, nobody’s going to care about your stated ideals anyway.
Just tell us how you’re going to help make it better.


thebulwark--2020-06-30--Reflecting on Betsy Rothstein’s ‘Mirror’

The news cycle being what it is , I had missed the passing of Betsy Rothstein by half a day .
Strangely , I am confident that she would have preferred it that way , as Betsy—a longtime gossip columnist , and since 2013 the force behind the Daily Caller ’ s gossip feature , “ The Mirror ” —was intensely private .
In reading Olivia Nuzzi ’ s remembrance of Betsy , one thing became clear to me : The thing I will miss most about her is not her writerly voice—that I ’ ll surely miss—but that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than I did .
Nuzzi shared inside jokes with Betsy and talked about death .
But the last time Betsy and I spoke , we talked about something we both disliked : the Washington Examiner and its embattled editor , Hugo Gurdon .
I had no idea that Betsy had cancer .
Probably because I was the kind of friend she didn ’ t want to burden with such news .
I first met Betsy in 2011 at a happy hour for FishBowlDC , where she then worked .
I had just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so I was looking for work .
It was late December ( when nobody hires ) , and I showed up for the free drinks in a camouflage Arctic BDU jacket and on my name tag I just wrote CLOTURE CLUB , the name of a Capitol Hill-centric website I ran with a friend in my spare time .
Betsy loved characters and the combination of my strange jacket and stranger name tag drew her in like a magnet .
I didn ’ t tell her my name at first , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spill .
If you met Betsy in real life , you were done .
While in writing she could be mean or brutally honest , in person she was sweet and disarming .
Shortly after I met Betsy , I joined her in the world of media , working at CQ/Roll Call , and later , at the Weekly Standard .
We became fast friends because Betsy did not care about what people thought about her .
I used to care , but this is one area where Betsy influenced me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not that she , like some of the psychopaths in journalism and politics , would get off on people hating her .
She just truly , deeply , did not care .
We didn ’ t always agree on who was bad , but we mostly did and would trade gossip and tips from time to time .
But as Tucker Carlson wrote about Betsy , “ She almost never talked about her own life .
Some of her friends had no idea where she ’ d grown up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I never talked about her siblings with her , but I knew where Betsy grew up because it was a short hop from where I did in Ohio .
In 2015 , the evening of the first GOP debate in Cleveland was a production night for TWS , and it was my job to put the magazine online for people to read .
So by the time I arrived at the debate hall , the press room was nearly full .
The only seat I could find was next to David Martosko of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Townhall , and Betsy .
The wi-fi was batty and Martosko generously let me piggyback on his hotspot .
As the four of us chatted , it turned out that three of us were from Northeast Ohio .
Martosko and I went to the same high school , and Betsy volunteered where she was from .
Believe me when I tell you this : As bad as the Orange man is , there is nobody better to witness the birth pangs of a new political hellscape with than an irreverent American original like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cried .
We kissed a few hours goodbye .
A few years into my time at TWS , Betsy shared with me her “ Mirror Questionnaire.
” It is a three-page document with a series of revealing questions you ’ re supposed to fill out for her column .
In true Betsy style , she let those who answered the questions pose a question to future respondents .
Betsy believed in fairness : You show yourself to me , I let you get a seat at the table .
On the advice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I politely declined to participate .
Probably because my wife wouldn ’ t want me to reveal who my celebrity crush was .
( Answer then : Dana Perino . )
Betsy ’ s questions were interesting , fun , and revealing .
Here ’ s one that , based on her passing , is quite timely : “ If Heaven exists , what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates ?
” I know the answer Betsy got , and would like mine to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Similarly , “ Any brushes with death ?
If so , please describe.
” How a person is supposed to approach answering this is anyone ’ s guess : “ Pick one—flabby thighs , cankles or love handles ?
” Betsy also asked , on a scale of 1 to 10 , how hairy your butt is .
( My answer ?
2 . )
And “ When was the last time you were , if ever , naked outside ?
” ( Answer : Hilton Head , 1994 . )
I regret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife is far more cautious than I am .
Looking back , one question Betsy posed has an obvious answer .
A thought that makes you want to cry ?
The end of the Betsy Rothstein era .
Even in death , Betsy can still get some people to spill .
Rest in peace .

The news cycle being what it is, I had missed the passing of Betsy Rothstein by half a day. Strangely, I am confident that she would have preferred it that way, as Betsy—a longtime gossip columnist, and since 2013 the force behind the Daily Caller’s gossip feature, “The Mirror”—was intensely private.
In reading Olivia Nuzzi’s remembrance of Betsy, one thing became clear to me: The thing I will miss most about her is not her writerly voice—that I’ll surely miss—but that I didn’t get to know her better than I did. Nuzzi shared inside jokes with Betsy and talked about death. But the last time Betsy and I spoke, we talked about something we both disliked: the Washington Examiner and its embattled editor, Hugo Gurdon. I had no idea that Betsy had cancer. Probably because I was the kind of friend she didn’t want to burden with such news.
I first met Betsy in 2011 at a happy hour for FishBowlDC, where she then worked. I had just left my last job on Capitol Hill, so I was looking for work. It was late December (when nobody hires), and I showed up for the free drinks in a camouflage Arctic BDU jacket and on my name tag I just wrote CLOTURE CLUB, the name of a Capitol Hill-centric website I ran with a friend in my spare time.
Betsy loved characters and the combination of my strange jacket and stranger name tag drew her in like a magnet. I didn’t tell her my name at first, but Betsy has a way of getting people to spill. If you met Betsy in real life, you were done. While in writing she could be mean or brutally honest, in person she was sweet and disarming.
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…
Shortly after I met Betsy, I joined her in the world of media, working at CQ/Roll Call, and later, at the Weekly Standard. We became fast friends because Betsy did not care about what people thought about her. I used to care, but this is one area where Betsy influenced me, changing my opinion. Screw ’em. It’s not that she, like some of the psychopaths in journalism and politics, would get off on people hating her. She just truly, deeply, did not care.
We didn’t always agree on who was bad, but we mostly did and would trade gossip and tips from time to time. But as Tucker Carlson wrote about Betsy, “She almost never talked about her own life. Some of her friends had no idea where she’d grown up or how many siblings she had.”
I never talked about her siblings with her, but I knew where Betsy grew up because it was a short hop from where I did in Ohio. In 2015, the evening of the first GOP debate in Cleveland was a production night for TWS, and it was my job to put the magazine online for people to read. So by the time I arrived at the debate hall, the press room was nearly full.
The only seat I could find was next to David Martosko of the Daily Mail, Guy Benson from Townhall, and Betsy. The wi-fi was batty and Martosko generously let me piggyback on his hotspot. As the four of us chatted, it turned out that three of us were from Northeast Ohio. Martosko and I went to the same high school, and Betsy volunteered where she was from.
Believe me when I tell you this: As bad as the Orange man is, there is nobody better to witness the birth pangs of a new political hellscape with than an irreverent American original like Betsy Rothstein. We laughed. We cried. We kissed a few hours goodbye.
A few years into my time at TWS, Betsy shared with me her “Mirror Questionnaire.” It is a three-page document with a series of revealing questions you’re supposed to fill out for her column. In true Betsy style, she let those who answered the questions pose a question to future respondents. Betsy believed in fairness: You show yourself to me, I let you get a seat at the table.
On the advice of my PR agent (my wife) I politely declined to participate. Probably because my wife wouldn’t want me to reveal who my celebrity crush was. (Answer then: Dana Perino.)
Betsy’s questions were interesting, fun, and revealing. Here’s one that, based on her passing, is quite timely: “If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?” I know the answer Betsy got, and would like mine to be the same: You were honest.
Similarly, “Any brushes with death? If so, please describe.”
How a person is supposed to approach answering this is anyone’s guess: “Pick one—flabby thighs, cankles or love handles?”
Betsy also asked, on a scale of 1 to 10, how hairy your butt is. (My answer? 2.) And “When was the last time you were, if ever, naked outside?” (Answer: Hilton Head, 1994.)
I regret not taking the questionnaire, but my wife is far more cautious than I am.
Looking back, one question Betsy posed has an obvious answer. A thought that makes you want to cry?
The end of the Betsy Rothstein era.
Even in death, Betsy can still get some people to spill. Rest in peace.


thebulwark--2020-06-30--Anti-Anti-Trumpism: Book Review Edition

Anti-Anti-Trumpism: Book Review Edition

Yesterday National Review published an article that editor Rich Lowry described as “ perhaps the most devastating book review you ’ ll ever read.
” It turned out that “ perhaps ” was doing yeoman ’ s work there .
The book being reviewed was It Was All a Lie , a forthcoming ( in August ) re-examination of a life spent working in Republican politics and the malign influence of racism on the party , written by Stuart Stevens .
Here are some disclosures for you , dear reader : Stevens is someone I know and admire .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviewer is Matthew Scully , who is a former colleague of mine ( and Stevens ’ s ) and has been a speechwriter par excellence for Republican presidential contenders from George W. Bush to Donald J. Trump .
This story has all of the conflicts !
For starters , he ’ s a guy known in the business for his history of shivving former colleagues .
So it ’ s not entirely surprising that his latest target isn ’ t just a random book he happened to pick up on Amazon .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stevens hired him to write speeches for Mitt Romney ’ s presidential campaign , of which Stevens was the top strategist .
Scully mentions their association fleetingly , with a glancing reference to being “ a colleague ” of Stevens ’ s on the Bush 2000 and Romney 2012 campaigns .
After that he settles into his longform review—it clocks in at nearly 5,000 words—with a string of passive-aggressive remarks about his erstwhile client ’ s political résumé .
He concludes that Stevens ’ s influence as chief strategist of Mitt Romney ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Scully ’ s telling , Stevens ruined the presidential aspirations of a severely awkward Massachusetts governor who dispatched several more conservative and accomplished rivals to win the Republican presidential nomination only to lose in a general election to a popular and significantly more politically skilled incumbent president during an economic recovery in which General Motors was alive and Osama bin Laden was dead .
If only we could all fail so spectacularly .
In one confusing passage Scully claims that Stevens “ managed to lose decisively even as President Obama received 3.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 against John McCain.
” What does Scully think happened to those 3.5 million votes ?
Does he believe that they evaporated or were banished to an alternate universe with sorcery ?
Because what most political professionals would see is that Mitt Romney earned more votes than any Republican previously to run for president save George W. Bush in 2004 , that he improved on John McCain ’ s 2008 total , and that he ate into Obama ’ s 2008 haul .
That declining vote total is actually the evidence that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not enough to win .
And that ’ s where the penny drops .
In an extended section , Scully relates a behind-the-scenes story it seems that he has been stewing over for a while .
It is worth taking a close look at it , not only because of what it says about the axes Scully intends to grind but also because of what it reveals about his own integrity .
The story involves Mitt Romney ’ s address to the Republican National Convention in Tampa .
Scully cagily refers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disastrous authorship of the big speech in Tampa , a process of convention-week meetings and group editing sessions I was content to be clear of.
” But the claim that he was not involved is grossly and self-servingly misleading .
Here ’ s what Scully leaves out : As was reported at the time , in the days leading up to the convention Stevens brought Scully in to help draft a new version of the Romney speech .
Only one paragraph of Scully ’ s draft was ultimately used , as Stevens and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soon , Scully was on the outs with the campaign , as multiple Romney 2012 veterans confirmed to me .
Which might explain why , in a piece that is ostensibly a review of Stevens ’ s new book , Scully obsesses over Stevens ’ s “ disastrous authorship ” of this one speech .
Scully seems certain that in an alternate timeline in which he had been the chief campaign strategist and Romney ’ s convention speech had been delivered to his liking , and the campaign had sounded more like Trumpian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical trends , the political environment , a gaffe-prone candidate , and a once-in-a-generation political talent sitting in the Oval Office as the incumbent .
And then—here comes the Butterfly Effect—the Trump presidency would have been forestalled .
This book would never have been written .
And Scully , resentful and disgruntled , wouldn ’ t have had to write perhaps the most devastating review you ’ ll ever read .
Scully accuses Stevens of indulging in “ bitter accusation.
” He dismisses Stevens ’ s “ journey of introspection ” as one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charity ” towards .
.
.
well , it ’ s unclear towards whom exactly .
But it seems as if Scully was hoping for moral absolution for people like himself , who went along with Trumpism because of judges , and also , hey they ’ ve got mortgages to pay , too .
Scully then pivots from book-review to tweet-review , charging that Stevens is hypocritical for criticizing Donald Trump ’ s tweets because Stevens uses “ pompous insults ” and “ strained attempts at wit ” on the microblogging site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ outsider to the platform , ” so perhaps he is unfamiliar with the president ’ s Twitter feed , which is bereft of attempts at wit .
Scully cites no examples of Stevens sharing the types of things that actually appear on Trump ’ s feed : “ white power ” videos or “ white genocide ” accounts .
Or telling black American women to go back to Africa .
Or sharing racist or absurdly false conspiracy theories .
Or compulsive lying .
Or inciting violence against minorities .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes the hardest line against Stevens .
Scully gives the dime-store Republican defense on the party ’ s history with race .
It ’ s nothing you haven ’ t read 30 times before in YAF handouts : Civil rights was not in fact the reason for the Republican collapse among black voters—it was merely that black voters preferred LBJ ’ s activist government .
( Sure thing . )
The GOP ’ s Southern strategy isn ’ t worth mentioning .
( No surprise there . )
Ronald Reagan “ never used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( False . )
Donald Trump deserves praise for being “ indifferen [ t ] ” to criticism of his race-baiting rhetoric .
( Seriously , he argues this . )
Scully proclaims , “ I have never come across anyone who suggested or would tolerate a racially motivated line or tactic ” in his decades of campaigns .
I assume he wrote this with a straight face , but for all I know this is just an example of the high literary style that would have swept Mitt Romney into 1600 Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mucked with his copy .
Because at this point it should be noted that after working for George W. Bush and Mitt Romney , Matthew Scully accepted a job writing for Donald Trump .
He did this after Trump proposed banning people from travel on the basis of their religion .
After Trump accused Scully ’ s previous client of being compromised by his Mexican wife .
After Trump claimed an American judge was unable to do his job fairly because he was of Mexican descent .
After Trump refused to condemn David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has never come across a racially motivated line , he is the most aloof speechwriter of all time , or maybe—just maybe—his review of It Was All a Lie isn ’ t on the level .
Scully springboards from his claim of innocence to the most devastating charge in the review .
He takes issue with the fact that Stevens has the temerity to ignore this : Ah yes , if Donald Trump is known for anything it is his honorable intentions .
Especially when it comes to the issue of race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and on and on , as Scully ’ s interminable review does ) .
And if there were very fine people on both sides of this debate who were being honest in reflecting about their past campaign work , I probably would .
But alas that is not the case .

Yesterday National Review published an article that editor Rich Lowry described as “perhaps the most devastating book review you’ll ever read.”
It turned out that “perhaps” was doing yeoman’s work there.
The book being reviewed was It Was All a Lie, a forthcoming (in August) re-examination of a life spent working in Republican politics and the malign influence of racism on the party, written by Stuart Stevens. Here are some disclosures for you, dear reader: Stevens is someone I know and admire. He has written for The Bulwark. The reviewer is Matthew Scully, who is a former colleague of mine (and Stevens’s) and has been a speechwriter par excellence for Republican presidential contenders from George W. Bush to Donald J. Trump.
This story has all of the conflicts!
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…
Scully also has conflicts.
For starters, he’s a guy known in the business for his history of shivving former colleagues. So it’s not entirely surprising that his latest target isn’t just a random book he happened to pick up on Amazon. He knows Stevens well: In 2012, Stevens hired him to write speeches for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, of which Stevens was the top strategist.
Scully mentions their association fleetingly, with a glancing reference to being “a colleague” of Stevens’s on the Bush 2000 and Romney 2012 campaigns. After that he settles into his longform review—it clocks in at nearly 5,000 words—with a string of passive-aggressive remarks about his erstwhile client’s political résumé.
He concludes that Stevens’s influence as chief strategist of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign was “ruinous.”
In Scully’s telling, Stevens ruined the presidential aspirations of a severely awkward Massachusetts governor who dispatched several more conservative and accomplished rivals to win the Republican presidential nomination only to lose in a general election to a popular and significantly more politically skilled incumbent president during an economic recovery in which General Motors was alive and Osama bin Laden was dead.
If only we could all fail so spectacularly.
In one confusing passage Scully claims that Stevens “managed to lose decisively even as President Obama received 3.5 million fewer votes than he had in 2008 against John McCain.”
What does Scully think happened to those 3.5 million votes? Does he believe that they evaporated or were banished to an alternate universe with sorcery? Because what most political professionals would see is that Mitt Romney earned more votes than any Republican previously to run for president save George W. Bush in 2004, that he improved on John McCain’s 2008 total, and that he ate into Obama’s 2008 haul.
That declining vote total is actually the evidence that the Romney campaign was doing something right, if not enough to win.
And that’s where the penny drops.
In an extended section, Scully relates a behind-the-scenes story it seems that he has been stewing over for a while. It is worth taking a close look at it, not only because of what it says about the axes Scully intends to grind but also because of what it reveals about his own integrity.
The story involves Mitt Romney’s address to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Scully cagily refers to “some intrigue involving Stevens’s disastrous authorship of the big speech in Tampa, a process of convention-week meetings and group editing sessions I was content to be clear of.”
But the claim that he was not involved is grossly and self-servingly misleading.
Here’s what Scully leaves out: As was reported at the time, in the days leading up to the convention Stevens brought Scully in to help draft a new version of the Romney speech. Only one paragraph of Scully’s draft was ultimately used, as Stevens and the candidate himself rewrote the speech. Soon, Scully was on the outs with the campaign, as multiple Romney 2012 veterans confirmed to me.
Which might explain why, in a piece that is ostensibly a review of Stevens’s new book, Scully obsesses over Stevens’s “disastrous authorship” of this one speech.
Scully seems certain that in an alternate timeline in which he had been the chief campaign strategist and Romney’s convention speech had been delivered to his liking, and the campaign had sounded more like Trumpian populism, then Republicans would have overcome historical trends, the political environment, a gaffe-prone candidate, and a once-in-a-generation political talent sitting in the Oval Office as the incumbent. And then—here comes the Butterfly Effect—the Trump presidency would have been forestalled.
This book would never have been written.
And Scully, resentful and disgruntled, wouldn’t have had to write perhaps the most devastating review you’ll ever read.
A boy can dream.
Scully accuses Stevens of indulging in “bitter accusation.” He dismisses Stevens’s “journey of introspection” as one that “has yet to teach him charity” towards . . . well, it’s unclear towards whom exactly. But it seems as if Scully was hoping for moral absolution for people like himself, who went along with Trumpism because of judges, and also, hey they’ve got mortgages to pay, too.
Scully then pivots from book-review to tweet-review, charging that Stevens is hypocritical for criticizing Donald Trump’s tweets because Stevens uses “pompous insults” and “strained attempts at wit” on the microblogging site. Scully admits that he is an “outsider to the platform,” so perhaps he is unfamiliar with the president’s Twitter feed, which is bereft of attempts at wit. Scully cites no examples of Stevens sharing the types of things that actually appear on Trump’s feed: “white power” videos or “white genocide” accounts. Or telling black American women to go back to Africa. Or sharing racist or absurdly false conspiracy theories. Or compulsive lying. Or inciting violence against minorities.
It’s on the issue of race that Scully takes the hardest line against Stevens.
Scully gives the dime-store Republican defense on the party’s history with race. It’s nothing you haven’t read 30 times before in YAF handouts: Civil rights was not in fact the reason for the Republican collapse among black voters—it was merely that black voters preferred LBJ’s activist government. (Sure thing.) The GOP’s Southern strategy isn’t worth mentioning. (No surprise there.) Ronald Reagan “never used” the phrase “welfare queens.” (False.) Donald Trump deserves praise for being “indifferen[t]” to criticism of his race-baiting rhetoric. (Seriously, he argues this.)
Scully proclaims, “I have never come across anyone who suggested or would tolerate a racially motivated line or tactic” in his decades of campaigns.
I assume he wrote this with a straight face, but for all I know this is just an example of the high literary style that would have swept Mitt Romney into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if the barbarians hadn’t mucked with his copy.
Because at this point it should be noted that after working for George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, Matthew Scully accepted a job writing for Donald Trump. He did this after Trump proposed banning people from travel on the basis of their religion. After Trump accused Scully’s previous client of being compromised by his Mexican wife. After Trump claimed an American judge was unable to do his job fairly because he was of Mexican descent. After Trump refused to condemn David Duke.
So if Matt Scully thinks he has never come across a racially motivated line, he is the most aloof speechwriter of all time, or maybe—just maybe—his review of It Was All a Lie isn’t on the level.
Scully springboards from his claim of innocence to the most devastating charge in the review. He takes issue with the fact that Stevens has the temerity to ignore this:
Trump as president has reached out to African-American voters often, for reasons as politically sensible as they are honorable.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Ah yes, if Donald Trump is known for anything it is his honorable intentions. Especially when it comes to the issue of race.
Devastating, indeed.
I could go on (and on and on and on, as Scully’s interminable review does).
And if there were very fine people on both sides of this debate who were being honest in reflecting about their past campaign work, I probably would.
But alas that is not the case.


thebulwark--2020-06-30--So Much for Trump’s ‘Love’ of the Military

Christopher Slutman , 43 , had always wanted to be a firefighter .
He was that kind of kid , the kind who wants to save people .
The son of a firefighter , he grew up in Prince George ’ s County , Maryland and eventually made his way to the New York fire department , because , as his father , Fletcher Slutman , Jr. , explained , “ it ’ s the best.
” Christopher was the best of the best .
In 2014 , he was honored for bravery after rescuing an unconscious woman from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reserves staff sergeant who had served in Iraq .
Last year , he was assigned to duty in Afghanistan .
On April 8 , 2019 , just two weeks before he was scheduled to return home , he and two other Marines were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near Bagram Air Base .
The Taliban were thought to be responsible—and it is speculated that this may be one of the attacks Russia was sponsoring .
One of Slutman ’ s colleagues remembered him as the “ definition of an American patriot.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and three daughters , who were 10 , 8 , and 4 , on the day he died .
Also murdered that day were Cpl .
Robert A. Hendriks , 25 , of Locust Valley , New York , and Sgt .
Benjamin Hines , 31 , of York , Pennsylvania .
Hines was an “ all around a great guy with an upbeat attitude who loved the Corps through and through , ” recalled Sam Belli , a member of his squad .
“ He never treated you like a subordinate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Robert Hendriks and his brother joined the Marines together .
Robert was “ the perfect son , ” his father Erik told Stars and Stripes , “ he never caused me one problem .
I am the proudest dad on Earth.
” The question that can not be avoided is this : Did President Trump—through laziness , dereliction , or some still-inexplicable prostration to Vladimir Putin—make these Marines ’ deaths , or those of other Americans , more likely ?
The New York Times , the Associated Press , the Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street Journal are all reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies had become aware that Russia was offering cash bounties to the Taliban to kill Americans and other coalition forces as early as March 2019 .
The intelligence was included in the president ’ s daily brief in the spring of this year—though some say placing information in a report is a perfect way to hide it from the president—and it was also the subject of a National Security Council meeting .
“ Given that there was an NSC meeting , I suspect that [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence , former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden told the Washington Post .
The president ’ s spokespeople are playing word games .
“ The National Security Council and the intelligence community constantly evaluate intelligence reports , and they brief the president as necessary , ” said press secretary Kayleigh McEnany .
Pressed on whether the information was included in the president ’ s daily brief , she sidestepped .
The president “ has not personally been briefed on the matter and that ’ s all I have for you today.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the information was not spoon-fed verbally .
Besides , she added , the reports of Russian cash for American corpses were “ unconfirmed ” and there was “ no consensus ” in the intelligence community .
But that is always the case with intelligence .
There are always dissenting views , and there is almost never “ consensus.
” CIA Director Gina Haspel , by contrast , did not deny the intelligence .
“ When developing intelligence assessments , initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ She then added that when information is obtained that may affect the welfare of U.S. combat forces , it is “ shared throughout the national security community—and with U.S. allies—as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of coalition forces overseas.
” In fact , the Washington Post has reported that the intelligence was shared with the British , who have the third-largest deployment of forces in Afghanistan .
So the British were informed , but the president was kept in the dark ?
And if he was kept in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his leadership ?
President Trump , who maintains the highest vigilance about any harsh word from Joe Scarborough or Don Lemon , says he was unaware .
“ Nobody briefed or told me , @ VP Pence , or Chief of Staff @ MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians , as reported through an ‘ anonymous source ’ by the Fake News @ nytimes , ” he tweeted .
He wasn ’ t finished .
“ Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment .
“ There have not been many attacks on us.
” That must be a great comfort to the Hendriks , Hines , and Slutman families .
Trump is not slow to anger , as we know .
Yet when it comes to Vladimir Putin putting bounties on the heads of America ’ s warriors , he is strangely unperturbed .
Knowing that Putin was reveling in American deaths , he invited him to attend the G-7 meeting in September .
It ’ s hardly news that Trump lacks empathy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our great military ” one of his calling cards .
Where is even a hint of rage at Putin for putting targets on their backs ?
All of his ire is directed at the New York Times , with none to spare for the Kremlin ghoul .
Far from imposing a price , Trump rewarded him .
Trump ’ s vaunted “ love ” of the military is not for the real military , the one represented by Hendricks , Hines , and Slutman .
It ’ s for a twisted , gangster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office promising that as commander-in-chief he would order the U.S. military to commit war crimes .
While president , he pardoned war criminals .
Showing no concern for the possible health consequences , he insisted that West Point bring its graduates back to campus so that he could address them in person ( and brave the treacherous ramp ) .
His “ love ” of the military is worse than phony .
He has no appreciation of what sacrifice means .
He has no understanding that serving means putting someone else ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military are a bunch of thugs—recall that the thing that drew him to General Jim Mattis was the nickname “ Mad Dog , ” which Trump falsely later claimed to have bestowed on Mattis .
Robert Hendriks , Benjamin Hines , and Christopher Slutman were patriots .
Slutman was always contributing to his community .
He was an Eagle Scout .
Robby Hendriks , his mother said , had a lot of friends .
“ He was a normal , all-around boy.
” She always knew he would join the service .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ morale in his unit .
A fellow Marine recalled , “ He was very attentive to his Marines and always put everyone else ’ s needs first.
” It ’ s not credible to imagine that Trump was ignorant of Russia ’ s role in this .
But in any case , it ’ s now known to the world .
Where , oh where , is Trump ’ s concern for them ?

Christopher Slutman, 43, had always wanted to be a firefighter. He was that kind of kid, the kind who wants to save people. The son of a firefighter, he grew up in Prince George’s County, Maryland and eventually made his way to the New York fire department, because, as his father, Fletcher Slutman, Jr., explained, “it’s the best.” Christopher was the best of the best. In 2014, he was honored for bravery after rescuing an unconscious woman from a fire. He was also a Marine Reserves staff sergeant who had served in Iraq. Last year, he was assigned to duty in Afghanistan.
On April 8, 2019, just two weeks before he was scheduled to return home, he and two other Marines were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near Bagram Air Base. The Taliban were thought to be responsible—and it is speculated that this may be one of the attacks Russia was sponsoring.
One of Slutman’s colleagues remembered him as the “definition of an American patriot.” He is survived by his wife Shannon and three daughters, who were 10, 8, and 4, on the day he died.
Also murdered that day were Cpl. Robert A. Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York, and Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania. Hines was an “all around a great guy with an upbeat attitude who loved the Corps through and through,” recalled Sam Belli, a member of his squad. “He never treated you like a subordinate. You were always an equal and friend.” Robert Hendriks and his brother joined the Marines together. Robert was “the perfect son,” his father Erik told Stars and Stripes, “he never caused me one problem. I am the proudest dad on Earth.”
The question that cannot be avoided is this: Did President Trump—through laziness, dereliction, or some still-inexplicable prostration to Vladimir Putin—make these Marines’ deaths, or those of other Americans, more likely?
The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal are all reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies had become aware that Russia was offering cash bounties to the Taliban to kill Americans and other coalition forces as early as March 2019. The intelligence was included in the president’s daily brief in the spring of this year—though some say placing information in a report is a perfect way to hide it from the president—and it was also the subject of a National Security Council meeting. “Given that there was an NSC meeting, I suspect that [Trump] did know” about the intelligence, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden told the Washington Post.
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…
The president’s spokespeople are playing word games. “The National Security Council and the intelligence community constantly evaluate intelligence reports, and they brief the president as necessary,” said press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Pressed on whether the information was included in the president’s daily brief, she sidestepped. The president “has not personally been briefed on the matter and that’s all I have for you today.” Well, that could mean merely that the information was not spoon-fed verbally. Besides, she added, the reports of Russian cash for American corpses were “unconfirmed” and there was “no consensus” in the intelligence community. But that is always the case with intelligence. There are always dissenting views, and there is almost never “consensus.”
CIA Director Gina Haspel, by contrast, did not deny the intelligence. “When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation,” she said. Okay, that’s boilerplate. She then added that when information is obtained that may affect the welfare of U.S. combat forces, it is “shared throughout the national security community—and with U.S. allies—as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of coalition forces overseas.”
In fact, the Washington Post has reported that the intelligence was shared with the British, who have the third-largest deployment of forces in Afghanistan. So the British were informed, but the president was kept in the dark? And if he was kept in the dark, what does that say about his leadership?
President Trump, who maintains the highest vigilance about any harsh word from Joe Scarborough or Don Lemon, says he was unaware. “Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News @nytimes,” he tweeted. He wasn’t finished. “Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us.”
Pause on that for a moment. “There have not been many attacks on us.” That must be a great comfort to the Hendriks, Hines, and Slutman families.
Trump is not slow to anger, as we know. Yet when it comes to Vladimir Putin putting bounties on the heads of America’s warriors, he is strangely unperturbed. Knowing that Putin was reveling in American deaths, he invited him to attend the G-7 meeting in September.
It’s hardly news that Trump lacks empathy, but he has made concern for “our great military” one of his calling cards. Where is even a hint of rage at Putin for putting targets on their backs? All of his ire is directed at the New York Times, with none to spare for the Kremlin ghoul. Far from imposing a price, Trump rewarded him.
Trump’s vaunted “love” of the military is not for the real military, the one represented by Hendricks, Hines, and Slutman. It’s for a twisted, gangster image of militarism. He ran for office promising that as commander-in-chief he would order the U.S. military to commit war crimes. While president, he pardoned war criminals. Showing no concern for the possible health consequences, he insisted that West Point bring its graduates back to campus so that he could address them in person (and brave the treacherous ramp). His “love” of the military is worse than phony. He has no appreciation of what sacrifice means. He has no understanding that serving means putting someone else’s welfare before your own. He thinks the military are a bunch of thugs—recall that the thing that drew him to General Jim Mattis was the nickname “Mad Dog,” which Trump falsely later claimed to have bestowed on Mattis.
Robert Hendriks, Benjamin Hines, and Christopher Slutman were patriots. Slutman was always contributing to his community. He was an Eagle Scout. Robby Hendriks, his mother said, had a lot of friends. “He was a normal, all-around boy.” She always knew he would join the service. Ben Hines had a gift for lifting morale in his unit. A fellow Marine recalled, “He was very attentive to his Marines and always put everyone else’s needs first.”
It’s not credible to imagine that Trump was ignorant of Russia’s role in this. But in any case, it’s now known to the world. Where, oh where, is Trump’s concern for them?


Trump’s Farewell Address

It is August 21 , 2020 , three days before President Donald Trump is scheduled to accept his nomination at the Republican National Convention in Jacksonville , Florida , before a closely packed crowd of delegates that will within weeks test 90 percent coronavirus-positive .
He is ignoring his latest Presidential Daily Brief on Russian-paid attacks on U.S. soldiers and remaining focused on his future as the host of a talk show on Trump TV .
It ’ s approximately 2:30 a.m. in the living quarters of the White House—the twelfth hour of what the press corps describes as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—and Trump is parked in the TV lounge in silk pajamas , clasping his one-two-three third Double Quarter Pounder of the day in his left hand with his Twitter-ready phone in the other .
On high volume , the drone of Lou Dobbs praising Trump reverberates from somewhere down the corridor : “ Breaking news : A Fox & Friends investigation of President Trump ’ s re-elect number finds that the likeliest explanation for the 22 percent registered in the latest Quinnipiac University poll is that 75 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into heaven by Jesus Christ during the conduct of the survey.
” Suddenly , the doors to the TV lounge swing wide and a blast of air conditioning floods in along with the sounds of two voices : one kitten-like , mixed with the scratch of a chalkboard ; the other deeper but flat and robotic .
A pair of figures emerges from the shadows , holding a gold-wrapped present .
Startled , Trump puts down his half-gobbled burger in anticipation of the shiny object .
“ Hello Daddy , ” they say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yesterday , we commissioned the finest , most hugest study possible with McKinsey & Company with the cash on hand that the campaign had left after Parscale fleeced us and fled the country for his own private island off the coast of Panama that he bought from the Jeffrey Epstein estate .
Using the most complex algorithm McKinsey could borrow from the Russian Internet Research Agency , the study determined conclusively that if you accept the nomination and run for re-election , you will lose by margins so big and so embarrassing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , investments , and net worth will be incalculable .
But there ’ s a silver lining , Daddy .
The algorithm found that , under certain circumstances , if you choose not to run , it ’ s actually possible to enhance our family ’ s financial position—of course so we can continue to be in a position to support the charitable causes we all believe in [ wink ] —like the Trump Presidential Library and Museum at Mar-a-Lago .
The algorithm also shows unequivocally that if we do take this course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 78.97 percent chance of defeating Don Jr. to become the Republican nominee in 2024 .
So we are submitting to you these prepared remarks to deliver to the American people should you decide to pursue this path forward .
Pretty please !
We love you , Daddy !
Hours later , the camera light flashes green in front of the Resolute Desk .
Hello to one-quarter of the American people , my loyal base , and to half the residents of The Villages in Florida , those in golf carts .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have done more than any president in the history of the United States to protect our values and heritage .
My criminal justice reform bill did more for black Americans than Abraham Lincoln ever did with that Emancipation Proclamation .
My tax bill skyrocketed the economy by even more bigly margins than FDR ’ s New Deal thing .
I have done more for the Indians and their casinos than the great President Andrew Jackson .
This was all B.C.—before corona , of course .
In my first term , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I promised , and torn apart the libs , the snowflakes , the climate-change wimps , the feminazis , antifa , and the looters even more than I thought possible .
However , in the many years my doctor says I definitely have left in my life—at a very fine weight , with numbers that I assume would look beautiful if I could see them before stepping off the scale—there are two guiding imperatives that many people are calling on me to achieve .
It has become clear to me that my unfinished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deep state and the fake news media who have tried to undermine your president at every turn .
They are the only thing preventing us from finally making America fully Great Again and putting America First .
And I believe I can win this fight best from the airwaves rather than the Oval Office .
I mean , what ’ s more real than reality TV ?
Therefore , I will pass the baton off to Mike and his running mate Nikki Haley , who ’ s always said nice things about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accepting the Republican nomination for president and vice president in Jacksonville in just a few days .
I will continue full-time my campaign to destroy the corrupt , America-hating , treasonous deep state and fake media .
And I can guarantee you this : If , by some small chance , Sleepy Joe Biden becomes president , the failing New York Times and that terrible Maggie Haberman will come back BEGGING for me to run again in 2024 .
( If you ’ re listening , don ’ t call me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss you . )
So , with a deep and abiding pride , and knowledge of the simple fact which everybody knows as the truth—that I , Donald J. Trump , in just four years , have become the greatest president in American history , maybe the history of the world—as of today I am hereby moving on to the only piece of business I have left : the destruction of the fake news media and the deep state .
God bless America , and watch for me on Trump TV , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The screen turns blank .
Trump darts to a nearby side table to unwrap a new Double Quarter Pounder .
“ You were the only thing that ever mattered , anyways.
” Heard in the White House , carrying into Lafayette Square , is a screeching sound , a howl of pain .
It is Stephen Miller , tears welling in his eyes .
He has written his final speech for Trump .
He pulls on a hoodie—or is it a hood ?
—and slips off into the night , incognito .

It is August 21, 2020, three days before President Donald Trump is scheduled to accept his nomination at the Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, Florida, before a closely packed crowd of delegates that will within weeks test 90 percent coronavirus-positive.
He is ignoring his latest Presidential Daily Brief on Russian-paid attacks on U.S. soldiers and remaining focused on his future as the host of a talk show on Trump TV.
It’s approximately 2:30 a.m. in the living quarters of the White House—the twelfth hour of what the press corps describes as the day’s “executive time” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—and Trump is parked in the TV lounge in silk pajamas, clasping his one-two-three third Double Quarter Pounder of the day in his left hand with his Twitter-ready phone in the other. On high volume, the drone of Lou Dobbs praising Trump reverberates from somewhere down the corridor:
“Breaking news: A Fox & Friends investigation of President Trump’s re-elect number finds that the likeliest explanation for the 22 percent registered in the latest Quinnipiac University poll is that 75 percent of the president’s base supporters were raptured into heaven by Jesus Christ during the conduct of the survey.”
Suddenly, the doors to the TV lounge swing wide and a blast of air conditioning floods in along with the sounds of two voices: one kitten-like, mixed with the scratch of a chalkboard; the other deeper but flat and robotic. A pair of figures emerges from the shadows, holding a gold-wrapped present. Startled, Trump puts down his half-gobbled burger in anticipation of the shiny object.
It’s Jared and Ivanka.
“Hello Daddy,” they say in unison—
We come bearing news. Yesterday, we commissioned the finest, most hugest study possible with McKinsey & Company with the cash on hand that the campaign had left after Parscale fleeced us and fled the country for his own private island off the coast of Panama that he bought from the Jeffrey Epstein estate. Using the most complex algorithm McKinsey could borrow from the Russian Internet Research Agency, the study determined conclusively that if you accept the nomination and run for re-election, you will lose by margins so big and so embarrassing that the negative financial impact on your brands, investments, and net worth will be incalculable.
Daddy, we’ll all go bankrupt.
But there’s a silver lining, Daddy. The algorithm found that, under certain circumstances, if you choose not to run, it’s actually possible to enhance our family’s financial position—of course so we can continue to be in a position to support the charitable causes we all believe in [wink]—like the Trump Presidential Library and Museum at Mar-a-Lago. The algorithm also shows unequivocally that if we do take this course of action, Ivanka will maintain a 78.97 percent chance of defeating Don Jr. to become the Republican nominee in 2024. So we are submitting to you these prepared remarks to deliver to the American people should you decide to pursue this path forward. Pretty please! We love you, Daddy!
Hours later, the camera light flashes green in front of the Resolute Desk.
Hello to one-quarter of the American people, my loyal base, and to half the residents of The Villages in Florida, those in golf carts. During the past four years as your president, I have done more than any president in the history of the United States to protect our values and heritage. My criminal justice reform bill did more for black Americans than Abraham Lincoln ever did with that Emancipation Proclamation. My tax bill skyrocketed the economy by even more bigly margins than FDR’s New Deal thing. I have done more for the Indians and their casinos than the great President Andrew Jackson. This was all B.C.—before corona, of course.
In my first term, I have accomplished every policy and cultural agenda item I promised, and torn apart the libs, the snowflakes, the climate-change wimps, the feminazis, antifa, and the looters even more than I thought possible.
However, in the many years my doctor says I definitely have left in my life—at a very fine weight, with numbers that I assume would look beautiful if I could see them before stepping off the scale—there are two guiding imperatives that many people are calling on me to achieve. It has become clear to me that my unfinished crusade is to go forth and destroy the deep state and the fake news media who have tried to undermine your president at every turn. They are the only thing preventing us from finally making America fully Great Again and putting America First. And I believe I can win this fight best from the airwaves rather than the Oval Office. I mean, what’s more real than reality TV?
Therefore, I will pass the baton off to Mike and his running mate Nikki Haley, who’s always said nice things about me no matter what. They will be accepting the Republican nomination for president and vice president in Jacksonville in just a few days.
I will continue full-time my campaign to destroy the corrupt, America-hating, treasonous deep state and fake media. And I can guarantee you this: If, by some small chance, Sleepy Joe Biden becomes president, the failing New York Times and that terrible Maggie Haberman will come back BEGGING for me to run again in 2024. (If you’re listening, don’t call me, Maggie, I definitely won’t miss you.)
So, with a deep and abiding pride, and knowledge of the simple fact which everybody knows as the truth—that I, Donald J. Trump, in just four years, have become the greatest president in American history, maybe the history of the world—as of today I am hereby moving on to the only piece of business I have left: the destruction of the fake news media and the deep state. God bless America, and watch for me on Trump TV, at a very low, low subscription rate.
The screen turns blank. Trump darts to a nearby side table to unwrap a new Double Quarter Pounder. “You were the only thing that ever mattered, anyways.”
Heard in the White House, carrying into Lafayette Square, is a screeching sound, a howl of pain. It is Stephen Miller, tears welling in his eyes. He has written his final speech for Trump. He pulls on a hoodie—or is it a hood?—and slips off into the night, incognito.


The Half Loaf

On Monday , in a 5-4 ruling , Chief Justice Roberts sided with the progressive wing of the Supreme Court in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo .
The case struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana law that would have required doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius of a clinic in which they intended to perform an abortion .
Four years ago , on a 5-3 vote , the Court struck down a similar Texas law , with now-retired Justice Kennedy in the “ swing ” position .
The decision was the latest blow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a few weeks ago , believed that they had the votes to enact their policy preferences at the SCOTUS level—only to find that conservative legal theory is less politically reliable than they had hoped .
But the big take-away from June Medical is that there were people on both sides of the political spectrum who expected that Brett Kavanaugh ’ s installation on the High Court was the death knell for the constitutional right to abortion .
And both sides were wrong .
In his concurring opinion , the Chief Justice took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to retain Roe ’ s recognition of the abortion right itself—and , more specifically , the test for abortion restrictions established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey—was not present in June Medical .
And he reminded the world that he dissented in the Texas case , believing it was “ wrongly decided ” —albeit on technical legal grounds .
These contradictory signals will no doubt be seized upon by both anti- and pro-abortion activists .
That ’ s because both groups have an institutional stake in propagating the idea that the status quo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
And that the next case could be the one that alters the abortion landscape for forever .
Of course , just because activists have a self-interested reason to suggest this doesn ’ t mean they ’ re wrong .
But to understand why both sides may well be wrong here , it ’ s worth examining how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh , in particular , justified their votes in June Medical .
Roberts focused his opinion almost exclusively on stare decisis principles—the idea that courts should “ stand by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to precedent.
” Adherence to precedent , Roberts explained , “ is necessary to avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts ” —which is precisely the type of limitation on judicial power that conservative “ originalists ” self-righteously tout .
It ’ s also “ grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today ’ s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them.
” Were this Court to again face the question decided by Roe in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference in abortion as a matter of substantive due process—Roberts could well apply the same logic to justify leaving Roe and the numerous cases that applied it alone .
It would be strange for Roberts to make a show of the beauty of stare decisis in this case only to ignore it in the next .
More to the point , no Supreme Court is eager to rule in favor of abortion opponents unless and until public opinion has turned wildly in their favor .
Roberts acknowledges this with his caveat that precedent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and legal developments ” call for it .
Which suggests that so long as he remains the swing vote , Roberts will preside over the reversal of Roe only if it means ratifying a sea-change in public opinion .
As for the anticipated white knight for the anti-abortion minority , Justice Kavanaugh did deliver on a dissent .
But he did so on the rationale that doctors were not the proper plaintiffs to bring the case .
He also wrote separately to explain that he wanted to see a fuller factual record on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hard time getting admitting privileges in Louisiana .
Kavanaugh did not say that he would have taken this case as an opportunity to overturn Roe itself .
To the extent Kavanaugh took issue with the constitutional test for abortion restrictions , he rejected the use of a balancing test for abortion rights—that is , one that weighs the interests of the woman against the interests of the state .
All told , therefore , June Medical Services reaffirms the basic test in Casey : That so long as a state has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion that ’ s reasonably related to its goal , the law is constitutional unless it has the “ effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.
” The key word here , of course , is “ substantial ” ( or in other parlance , “ undue ” ) .
This standard is not clear-cut , which means that legislators may continue to curtail abortion through legislative impositions of abortion restrictions on the theory that the burden imposed on women is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Which is a perfect recipe to leave both pro-choicers and pro-lifers upset .
Abortion rights advocates will see courts allow certain restrictions to abortion that they find intolerable .
And pro-lifers will see that even though a conservative-leaning Court on balance upholds more restrictions than a progressive-leaning Court would , the fundamental framework of Roe will not be overturned .
Both sides will get a little of what they want and neither will be happy .

On Monday, in a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the progressive wing of the Supreme Court in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo. The case struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana law that would have required doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius of a clinic in which they intended to perform an abortion. Four years ago, on a 5-3 vote, the Court struck down a similar Texas law, with now-retired Justice Kennedy in the “swing” position.
The decision was the latest blow to social conservatives who, as recently as a few weeks ago, believed that they had the votes to enact their policy preferences at the SCOTUS level—only to find that conservative legal theory is less politically reliable than they had hoped.
But the big take-away from June Medical is that there were people on both sides of the political spectrum who expected that Brett Kavanaugh’s installation on the High Court was the death knell for the constitutional right to abortion. And both sides were wrong.
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 his concurring opinion, the Chief Justice took pains to make clear that the question whether to retain Roe’s recognition of the abortion right itself—and, more specifically, the test for abortion restrictions established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey—was not present in June Medical. And he reminded the world that he dissented in the Texas case, believing it was “wrongly decided”—albeit on technical legal grounds.
These contradictory signals will no doubt be seized upon by both anti- and pro-abortion activists. That’s because both groups have an institutional stake in propagating the idea that the status quo ante on abortion is just about to change. And that the next case could be the one that alters the abortion landscape for forever.
Of course, just because activists have a self-interested reason to suggest this doesn’t mean they’re wrong. But to understand why both sides may well be wrong here, it’s worth examining how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, justified their votes in June Medical.
Roberts focused his opinion almost exclusively on stare decisis principles—the idea that courts should “stand by things decided” and give “fidelity to precedent.” Adherence to precedent, Roberts explained, “is necessary to avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts”—which is precisely the type of limitation on judicial power that conservative “originalists” self-righteously tout. It’s also “grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them.”
Were this Court to again face the question decided by Roe in 1973—whether the Constitution protects women from government interference in abortion as a matter of substantive due process—Roberts could well apply the same logic to justify leaving Roe and the numerous cases that applied it alone. It would be strange for Roberts to make a show of the beauty of stare decisis in this case only to ignore it in the next.
More to the point, no Supreme Court is eager to rule in favor of abortion opponents unless and until public opinion has turned wildly in their favor. Roberts acknowledges this with his caveat that precedent may be disturbed if “subsequent factual and legal developments” call for it. Which suggests that so long as he remains the swing vote, Roberts will preside over the reversal of Roe only if it means ratifying a sea-change in public opinion.
As for the anticipated white knight for the anti-abortion minority, Justice Kavanaugh did deliver on a dissent. But he did so on the rationale that doctors were not the proper plaintiffs to bring the case. He also wrote separately to explain that he wanted to see a fuller factual record on whether doctors who perform abortions would have a hard time getting admitting privileges in Louisiana. Kavanaugh did not say that he would have taken this case as an opportunity to overturn Roe itself.
To the extent Kavanaugh took issue with the constitutional test for abortion restrictions, he rejected the use of a balancing test for abortion rights—that is, one that weighs the interests of the woman against the interests of the state. All told, therefore, June Medical Services reaffirms the basic test in Casey: That so long as a state has a legitimate purpose to impose a restriction on abortion that’s reasonably related to its goal, the law is constitutional unless it has the “effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
The key word here, of course, is “substantial” (or in other parlance, “undue”). This standard is not clear-cut, which means that legislators may continue to curtail abortion through legislative impositions of abortion restrictions on the theory that the burden imposed on women is not “substantial” or “undue.”
Which is a perfect recipe to leave both pro-choicers and pro-lifers upset. Abortion rights advocates will see courts allow certain restrictions to abortion that they find intolerable. And pro-lifers will see that even though a conservative-leaning Court on balance upholds more restrictions than a progressive-leaning Court would, the fundamental framework of Roe will not be overturned.
Both sides will get a little of what they want and neither will be happy.