alternet--2020-12-29--The lessons of two failed wars

The lessons of two failed wars

In choosing a title for his final , posthumously published book , the prominent public intellectual Tony Judt turned to a poem by Oliver Goldsmith , The Deserted Village , published in 1770 .
Judt found his book 's title in the first words of this couplet : A poignant sentiment but let me acknowledge that I 'm not a big Goldsmith fan .
My own preferences in verse run more toward Merle Haggard , whose country music hits include the following lyric from his 1982 song `` Are the Good Times Really Over ?
`` : I wonder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insights of an eighteenth-century Anglo-Irish novelist-poet and a twentieth-century American singer-songwriter , each reflecting on a common theme of decadence and each served up with a dollop of nostalgia , just might intersect ?
Allow me to try the reader 's patience with a bit more of Goldsmith : Let me concede from the outset that these laments emerge directly from the heart of the patriarchy .
In our present moment , some will discount the complaints of Messrs. Goldsmith and Haggard as not to be taken seriously .
As the second decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close , bellyaching white guys tend not to command a lot of sympathy .
Still , with this abysmal year finally ending , the melancholy notes sounded by Goldsmith and Haggard strike me as apt .
The Age of Biden -- or given our preference for faux intimacy , the Age of Joe and Kamala -- beckons .
Yet I 'm anything but certain that 2021 will inaugurate a happier time .
That said , for those who believe history has its own rhymes and rhythms , the election of Biden and Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts .
After all , for more than a century now , presidential elections occurring in even numbered years ending in zero have resulted in big changes .
Do n't take my word for it .
Check the record .
Thanks to the assassin who prematurely terminated William McKinley 's presidency , the election of 1900 inaugurated the reformist Progressive Era .
Two decades later , Americans yearning for a return to `` normalcy '' voted for Warren G. Harding .
Instead of normalcy , they got the splashy upheaval of the Twenties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the balloting in 1940 handed Franklin Roosevelt an unprecedented third term , hopes entertained by some Americans of staying out of World War II were doomed .
Global war vaulted the United States to a position of global primacy -- and soon gave rise to new challenges .
John F. Kennedy 's election in 1960 empowered a generation `` born in this century , tempered by war , disciplined by a hard and bitter peace '' to address those challenges .
Unanticipated complications ensued , as they did again in 1980 and 2000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the latter election of George W. Bush setting the stage for the Global War on Terror and , by extension , Donald Trump .
The challenges awaiting Biden and Harris arguably outweigh those that confronted any of those past administrations , Roosevelt 's excepted .
In a recent New York Times column , the man who lost that disputed 2000 election , Al Gore , inventoried the most pressing problems that Biden 's team will confront .
In addition to the coronavirus pandemic , they include : '' 40 years of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomes and wealth , with high levels of poverty ; horrific structural racism ; toxic partisanship ; the impending collapse of nuclear arms control agreements ; an epistemological crisis undermining the authority of knowledge ; recklessly unprincipled behavior by social media companies ; and , most dangerous of all , the climate crisis . ''
That makes for quite a daunting catalog .
Yet note this one striking omission : Gore makes no mention of America 's seemingly never-ending penchant for war and military adventurism .
Before the Vietnam War Came Along Surely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no small way to `` the bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe '' besetting our nation today .
And were Merle Haggard to update `` Are the Good Times Really Over ? ''
he would doubtless include the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq alongside Vietnam as prominent among the factors that have sent this country caroming downward .
In the evening of my life , as I reflect on the events of our time that ended up mattering most , the wars in Vietnam and Iraq top my list .
Together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my professional life has revolved , whether as a soldier , teacher , or writer .
It would be fair to say that I 'm haunted by those two conflicts .
I could write pages and pages on how Vietnam and Iraq differ from each other , beginning with the fact that they are separated in time by nearly a half-century .
Locale , the contours of the battlefields , the character of combat , the casualties inflicted and sustained , the sheer quantity of ordnance expended -- when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq differ greatly .
Yet while those differences are worth noting , it 's the unappreciated similarities between them that are truly instructive .
First , Vietnam and Iraq were both avoidable : For the United States , they were wars of choice .
No one pushed us .
We dove in headfirst .
Second , both turned out to be superfluous , undertaken in response to threats -- monolithic Communism and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- that were figments of fevered imaginations .
In both cases , cynicism and moral cowardice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward war .
Dissenting voices were ignored .
Third , both conflicts proved to be costly distractions .
Each devoured on a prodigious scale resources that might have been used so much more productively elsewhere .
Each diverted attention from matters of far more immediate importance to Americans .
Each , in other words , triggered a massive hemorrhage of blood , treasure , and influence to no purpose whatsoever .
Fourth , in each instance , political leaders in Washington and senior commanders in the field collaborated in committing grievous blunders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their share of mistakes and misjudgments .
But those two featured a level of incompetence unmatched since Custer 's Last Stand .
Fifth , thanks to that incompetence , both devolved into self-inflicted quagmires .
In Washington , in Saigon , and in Baghdad 's `` Green Zone , '' baffled authorities watched as the control of events slipped from their grasp .
Meanwhile , in the field , U.S. troops flailed about for years in futile pursuit of a satisfactory outcome .
Sixth , on the home front , both conflicts left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rancor , and bitterness .
Members of the Baby Boom generation ( to which I belong ) have chosen to enshrine Vietnam-era protest as high-minded and admirable .
Many Americans then held and still hold a different opinion .
As for the Iraq War , it contributed mightily to yawning political cleavages that appear unlikely to heal anytime soon .
And finally , with both political and military elites alike preferring simply to move on , neither war has received a proper accounting .
Their place in the larger narrative of American history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important similarity of all .
Both Vietnam and Iraq remain bizarrely undigested , their true meaning yet to be discerned and acknowledged .
Too recent to forget , too confounding to ignore , they remain anomalous .
The American wars in Vietnam and Iraq are contradictions that await resolution .
For that very reason , when politicians ( including Joe Biden ) talk about war , they talk about others , their all-time favorite being the one fought against Nazi Germany between December 1941 and May 1945 .
There -- and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the establishment find the lessons that they have enshrined as permanently relevant .
The first American war against Germany in 1917-1918 does n't carry much weight at all .
Just a couple of years ago , its centennial came and went virtually unnoticed .
Likewise , the war against Japan that occurred in tandem with the second war against Germany seldom gets much attention either .
We `` remember Pearl Harbor '' and that 's about it .
The war against the Nazis , however , is a gift that never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bounty of lessons : never appease ; never hesitate to call evil by its name ; never back down ; and never flinch from the challenges of leadership , which necessarily implies a willingness to use force .
And in moments of distress , channel your inner Winston Churchill circa 1940 : `` Never surrender ! ''
The problem with clinging to such ostensibly canonical lessons today is that we are no longer the nation that defeated Nazi Germany .
The United States was establishing itself as the dominant industrial power on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the capacity to mobilize the American people pursuant to what was described at the time as a `` Great Crusade . ''
A taken-for-granted tradition of white supremacy underwrote a cultural unity that lent more than a modicum of substance to the claims of e pluribus unum .
None of this remains faintly relevant today .
When it comes to present-day policy , the relevant fact is that we are the nation that failed in both Vietnam and Iraq .
Along the way , we lost our status as the planet 's dominant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its authority to mobilize the American people for war .
More recently , cleavages stemming from class , race , religion , gender , and ethnicity , split the country into antagonistic factions .
Al Gore was merely premature when , as vice president , he famously mistranslated the nation 's motto as `` out of one , many . ''
Now , if you prioritize Vietnam and Iraq over the war against Nazi Germany , you 'll come face-to-face with a very different set of lessons .
Here are four that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , situating the United States within a larger entity called the West -- a notion dating from the time when America and Great Britain ( with plentiful help from the Soviet Union ) rallied to defeat Hitler -- no longer works .
The West does n't exist .
These days when the United States opts for war , it must expect to fight alone or with only nominal allied assistance .
This was true in Vietnam and again in Iraq .
No grand coalition will form .
Second , however gussied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retains the slightest legitimacy .
Peoples once classified as inferior , usually on the basis of skin color , no longer tolerate outsiders telling them how to govern themselves .
Few Americans are willing to acknowledge the imperial motives that have long shaped this country 's global policies .
The Vietnamese and Iraqis opposing the U.S. military presence in their midst entertained few doubts on that score ; hence , the fierceness with which they defended their right to self-determination .
Third , if the United States remains intent on exporting its version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to devise far less coercive ways of doing so .
Rather than using armed force to alter the political landscape in faraway places , elites should acknowledge the limited utility of military power .
Calling on the troops to defend , deter , and contain works far better than charging them to invade , occupy , and transform .
Fourth , dumb wars deplete .
Vietnam and Iraq both inflicted untold damage on the American economy .
With the U.S. government currently running an annual deficit of some $ 3 trillion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more money on ill-advised military campaigns .
A less known quote attributed to Churchill commends itself in our present situation : `` Jaw , jaw , jaw is better than war , war , war . ''
As it enters the third decade of the twenty-first century , the United States is badly in need of more jaw , jaw and less war , war -- more fix , fix , and less fight , fight .
Over to You , Joe I am not enamored of presidents .
I 'm even less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- the belief , firmly held by American elites , that the fate of the planet turns on what the president of the United States says or does ( or does n't do ) .
For that reason , I have learned not to expect much of whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office .
In practice , the Most Powerful Man in the World usually turns out to be not all that powerful .
Rather than directing History with a capital H , he ( not yet she ) , like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just along for the ride .
In their own ways , Goldsmith and Haggard implicitly endorsed such a fatalistic perspective .
In political circles , a different view tends to prevail .
Today , virtually all Democrats and many in the media ascribe to Donald Trump full blame for the mess in which this country finds itself .
Yet Americans would do well to temper their expectations of what supplanting Trumpism with Bidenism is likely to produce .
On January 20 , 2021 , the `` torch '' to which John F. Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again be passed .
Let 's hope that , in grasping it , Biden and Harris will heed one of the principal lessons of the Kennedy era : no more Vietnams .
To which I would simply add : no more Iraqs ( or Afghanistans , or Yemens , or ... well , you know the list ) .
Only then might it become possible to undertake the daunting task of repairing our country .
Good luck , Joe .
You , too , Kamala .
In the coming days , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
Andrew Bacevich , a TomDispatch regular , is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft .
His most recent book is The Age of Illusions : How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory .
His new book After the Apocalypse : America 's Role in a World Transformed will be published in 2021 .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the newest Dispatch Books , John Feffer 's new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Centuy : War and Terror Since World War II .

In choosing a title for his final, posthumously published book, the prominent public intellectual Tony Judt turned to a poem by Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Village, published in 1770. Judt found his book's titlein the first words of this couplet:
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay
A poignant sentiment but let me acknowledge that I'm not a big Goldsmith fan. My own preferences in verse run more toward Merle Haggard, whose country music hits include the following lyric from his 1982 song "Are the Good Times Really Over?":
Is the best of the free life behind us now
And are the good times really over for good?
I wonder, though: Is it possible that the insights of an eighteenth-century Anglo-Irish novelist-poet and a twentieth-century American singer-songwriter, each reflecting on a common theme of decadence and each served up with a dollop of nostalgia, just might intersect?
Allow me to try the reader's patience with a bit more ofGoldsmith:
O luxury! thou curst by Heaven's decree,
How ill exchanged are things like these for thee!
How do thy potions, with insidious joy,
Diffuse their pleasures only to destroy!
Kingdoms, by thee, to sickly greatness grown,
Boast of a florid vigour not their own;
At every draught more large and large they grow
A bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe.
Down, down they sink, and spread a ruin round.
Powerful stuff, but here's Haggard making a similar point without frills:
I wish a buck was still silver
It was back when the country was strong
Back before Elvis
Before the Vietnam War came along...
Are we rolling down hill
Like a snowball headed for Hell?
With no kind of chance
For the Flag or the Liberty Bell
Let me concede from the outset that these laments emerge directly from the heart of the patriarchy. In our present moment, some will discount the complaints of Messrs. Goldsmith and Haggard as not to be taken seriously. As the second decade of the twenty-first century draws to a close, bellyaching white guys tend not to command a lot of sympathy.
Still, with this abysmal year finally ending, the melancholy notes sounded by Goldsmith and Haggard strike me as apt. The Age of Biden -- or given our preference for faux intimacy, the Age of Joe and Kamala -- beckons. Yet I'm anything but certain that 2021 will inaugurate a happier time.
That said, for those who believe history has its own rhymes and rhythms, the election of Biden and Harris just might herald a turning point of sorts. After all, for more than a century now, presidential elections occurring in even numbered years ending in zero have resulted in big changes.
Don't take my word for it. Check the record.
Thanks to the assassin who prematurely terminated William McKinley's presidency, the election of 1900 inaugurated the reformist Progressive Era. Two decades later, Americans yearning for a return to "normalcy" voted for Warren G. Harding. Instead of normalcy, they got the splashy upheaval of the Twenties and the ensuing Great Depression.
Once the balloting in 1940 handed Franklin Roosevelt an unprecedented third term, hopes entertained by some Americans of staying out of World War II were doomed. Global war vaulted the United States to a position of global primacy -- and soon gave rise to new challenges. John F. Kennedy's election in 1960 empowered a generation "born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace" to address those challenges. Unanticipated complications ensued, as they did again in 1980 and 2000, the former initiating the Reagan Revolution, the latter election of George W. Bush setting the stage for the Global War on Terror and, by extension, Donald Trump.
The challenges awaiting Biden and Harris arguably outweigh those that confronted any of those past administrations, Roosevelt's excepted. In a recent New York Times column, the man who lost that disputed 2000 election, Al Gore, inventoried the most pressing problems that Biden's team will confront. In addition to the coronavirus pandemic, they include:
"40 years of economic stagnation for middle-income families; hyper-inequality of incomes and wealth, with high levels of poverty; horrific structural racism; toxic partisanship; the impending collapse of nuclear arms control agreements; an epistemological crisis undermining the authority of knowledge; recklessly unprincipled behavior by social media companies; and, most dangerous of all, the climate crisis."
That makes for quite a daunting catalog. Yet note this one striking omission: Gore makes no mention of America's seemingly never-ending penchant for war and military adventurism.
Before the Vietnam War Came Along
Surely, though, war has contributed in no small way to "the bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe" besetting our nation today. And were Merle Haggard to update "Are the Good Times Really Over?" he would doubtlessinclude the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq alongside Vietnam as prominent among the factors that have sent this country caroming downward.
In the evening of my life, as I reflect on the events of our time that ended up mattering most, the wars in Vietnam and Iraq top my list. Together, they define the poles around which much of my professional life has revolved, whether as a soldier, teacher, or writer. It would be fair to say that I'm haunted by those two conflicts.
I could write pages and pages on how Vietnam and Iraqdiffer from each other, beginning with the fact that they are separated in timeby nearly a half-century. Locale, the contours of the battlefields, the character of combat, the casualties inflicted and sustained, the sheer quantity of ordnance expended -- when it comes to such measures and others, Vietnam and Iraq differ greatly. Yet while those differences are worth noting, it's the unappreciated similarities between them that are truly instructive.
Seven such similarities stand out:
First, Vietnam and Iraq were both avoidable: For the United States, they were wars of choice. No one pushed us. We dove in headfirst.
Second, both turned out to be superfluous, undertaken in response to threats -- monolithic Communism and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- that were figments of fevered imaginations. In both cases, cynicism and moral cowardice played a role in paving the way toward war. Dissenting voices were ignored.
Third, both conflicts proved to be costly distractions. Each devoured on a prodigious scale resources that might have been used so much more productively elsewhere. Each diverted attention from matters of far more immediate importance to Americans. Each, in other words, triggered a massive hemorrhage of blood, treasure, and influence to no purpose whatsoever.
Fourth, in each instance, political leaders in Washington and senior commanders in the field collaborated in committing grievous blunders. War is complicated. All wars see their share of mistakes and misjudgments. But those two featured a level of incompetence unmatched since Custer's Last Stand.
Fifth, thanks to that incompetence, both devolved into self-inflicted quagmires. In Washington, in Saigon, and in Baghdad's "Green Zone," baffled authorities watched as the control of events slipped from their grasp. Meanwhile, in the field, U.S. troops flailed about for years in futile pursuit of a satisfactory outcome.
Sixth, on the home front, both conflicts left behind a poisonous legacy of unrest, rancor, and bitterness. Members of the Baby Boom generation (to which I belong) have chosen to enshrine Vietnam-era protest as high-minded and admirable. Many Americans then held and still hold a different opinion. As for the Iraq War, it contributed mightily to yawning political cleavages that appear unlikely to heal anytime soon.
And finally, with both political and military elites alike preferring simply to move on, neither war has received a proper accounting. Their place in the larger narrative of American history is still unsettled. This may be the most important similarity of all. Both Vietnam and Iraq remain bizarrely undigested, their true meaning yet to be discerned and acknowledged. Too recent to forget, too confounding to ignore, they remain anomalous.
The American wars in Vietnam and Iraq are contradictions that await resolution.
Jaw, Jaw, Not War, War
For that very reason, when politicians (including Joe Biden) talk about war, they talk about others, their all-time favorite being the one fought against Nazi Germany between December 1941 and May 1945. There -- and not in Vietnam or Iraq -- do members of the establishment find the lessons that they have enshrined as permanently relevant.
The first American war against Germany in 1917-1918 doesn't carry much weight at all. Just a couple of years ago, its centennial came and went virtually unnoticed. Likewise, the war against Japan that occurred in tandem with the second war against Germany seldom gets much attention either. We "remember Pearl Harbor" and that's about it.
The war against the Nazis, however, is a gift that never stops giving. It yields a great bounty of lessons: never appease; never hesitate to call evil by its name; never back down; and never flinch from the challenges of leadership, which necessarily implies a willingness to use force. And in moments of distress, channel your inner Winston Churchill circa 1940: "Never surrender!"
The problem with clinging to such ostensibly canonical lessons today is that we are no longer the nation that defeated Nazi Germany. The United States was establishing itself as the dominant industrial power on the planet then, while Washington still had the capacity to mobilize the American people pursuant to what was described at the time as a "Great Crusade." A taken-for-granted tradition of white supremacy underwrote a cultural unity that lent more than a modicum of substance to the claims of e pluribus unum. None of this remains faintly relevant today.
When it comes to present-day policy, the relevant fact is that we are the nation that failed in both Vietnam and Iraq. Along the way, we lost our status as the planet's dominant industrial power. Meanwhile, Washington forfeited its authority to mobilize the American people for war. More recently, cleavages stemming from class, race, religion, gender, and ethnicity, split the country into antagonistic factions. Al Gore was merely premature when, as vice president, he famously mistranslated the nation's motto as "out of one, many."
Now, if you prioritize Vietnam and Iraq over the war against Nazi Germany, you'll come face-to-face with a very different set of lessons. Here are four that the Biden administration might do well to contemplate.
First, situating the United States within a larger entity called the West -- a notion dating from the time when America and Great Britain (with plentiful help from the Soviet Union) rallied to defeat Hitler -- no longer works. The West doesn't exist. These days when the United States opts for war, it must expect to fight alone or with only nominal allied assistance. This was true in Vietnam and again in Iraq. No grand coalition will form.
Second, however gussied up or camouflaged, imperialism no longer retains the slightest legitimacy. Peoples once classified as inferior, usually on the basis of skin color, no longer tolerate outsiders telling them how to govern themselves. Few Americans are willing to acknowledge the imperial motives that have long shaped this country's global policies. The Vietnamese and Iraqis opposing the U.S. military presence in their midst entertained few doubts on that score; hence, the fierceness with which they defended their right to self-determination.
Third, if the United States remains intent on exporting its version of freedom and democracy, it will have to devise far less coercive ways of doing so. Rather than using armed force to alter the political landscape in faraway places, elites should acknowledge the limited utility of military power. Calling on the troops to defend, deter, and contain works far better than charging them to invade, occupy, and transform.
Fourth, dumb wars deplete. Vietnam and Iraq both inflicted untold damage on the American economy. With the U.S. government currently running an annual deficit of some $3 trillion, we can't afford to squander any more money on ill-advised military campaigns. A less known quote attributed to Churchill commends itself in our present situation: "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
As it enters the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States is badly in need of more jaw, jaw and less war, war -- more fix, fix, and less fight, fight.
Over to You, Joe
I am not enamored of presidents. I'm even less of a fan of "presidentialism" -- the belief, firmly held by American elites, that the fate of the planet turns on what the president of the United States says or does (or doesn't do). For that reason, I have learned not to expect much of whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office.
In practice, the Most Powerful Man in the World usually turns out to be not all that powerful. Rather than directing History with a capital H, he (not yet she), like the rest of us, is pretty much just along for the ride. In their own ways, Goldsmith and Haggard implicitly endorsed such a fatalistic perspective.
In political circles, a different view tends to prevail. Today, virtually all Democrats and many in the media ascribe to Donald Trump full blame for the mess in which this country finds itself. Yet Americans would do well to temper their expectations of what supplanting Trumpism with Bidenism is likely to produce.
On January 20, 2021, the "torch" to which John F. Kennedy memorably referred in his inaugural address will once again be passed. Let's hope that, in grasping it, Biden and Harris will heed one of the principal lessons of the Kennedy era: no more Vietnams. To which I would simply add: no more Iraqs (or Afghanistans, or Yemens, or... well, you know the list). Only then might it become possible to undertake the daunting task of repairing our country.
Good luck, Joe. You, too, Kamala. In the coming days, you're both going to need a truckful of it.
Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory. His new book After the Apocalypse: America's Role in a World Transformed will be published in 2021.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Centuy: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2020 Andrew Bacevich


alternet--2020-12-29--Nancy Pelosi's gambit pays off better than she could have hoped

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scored a big win on Monday night when the CASH Act , which would increase direct payments to individuals included in the recent coronavirus relief package from $ 600 to $ 2,000 , passed the chamber by a 275-134 vote .
Though Pelosi and the Democrats hold a solid majority in the House of Representatives , this bill required a two-thirds majority to be approved by the chamber because it was moved under a process known as suspension .
It was n't clear the act had enough votes to pass , though she made clear she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it failed .
`` We will pass this bill today either under suspension or under a rule where it just requires a majority vote , '' she said .
`` I do think the American people would love to see that unity on their behalf . ''
But the speaker was able to spur 44 Republican members to break ranks and support the measure on Monday evening .
So while she showed that the Democratic Party largely stands behind calls for Americans to get more support — not less — during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus .
And even by exposing the cracks in Republicans , she stilled showed most of the party is against the plan to give help to American families — even a plan supported by President Donald Trump .
That 's not necessarily a massive coup for her , but it starts 2021 off on favorably footing , even as her caucus is set to shrink substantially .
Her party is almost entirely united behind a popular issue , and her opponents are fractured .
As soon as Trump announced he might block the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pelosi jumped at the opportunity he had presented .
Since it was n't clear the bill could pass the two-thirds threshold , the plan is working out even better than she might have hoped .
But will the bill actually become law ?
Will Americans get $ 600 checks instead of $ 2,000 ?
That 's far less clear .
To become law , the Senate must now take up the bill .
Under normal circumstances , it would be safe to assume that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would n't even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He hates bringing up tough bills that split his caucus , and he hates capitulating to Nancy Pelosi .
But by backing the measure , Trump has put McConnell in a tight spot .
Control of the Senate for the next two years hangs in the balance as voting continues in Georgia Senate runoffs scheduled for Jan. 5 .
If Democrats win both seats for the state , the Democratic Party would control the chamber , thanks to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris ' power to cast tie-breaking votes .
Democratic candidates Jon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue over the direct payment issue in the fight for the two Senate seats .
Loeffler and Perdue had touted the passage of $ 600 payments that have since been slammed by the president as insufficient , while Ossoff and Warnock have vehemently supported the higher payments .
If McConnell just wants to block the bill to increase the payments , he can .
But he risks putting Loeffler and Perdue on the defensive a week before the day of the runoffs , since their seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It 's also not clear if Perdue and Loeffler really are enthusiastic about the more generous level of direct spending on families , but it seems unlikely they would want to oppose the popular measure right before Georgia voters cast their ballots .
But if McConnell brings it to the floor , will it pass ?
Senate Democrats are expected to support it .
And some Republicans , such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida , have voiced support for the measure .
Along with Perdue and Loeffler , and a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's possible there 'd be enough votes for it to pass .
But it would infuriate some members of the GOP caucus , such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , who vehemently oppose the idea on principle .
McConnell and the Senate GOP may try to find some poison pill to attach to the bill to prevent Democrats from supporting the measure , such as the creation of a voter fraud investigation or repeal of Section 230 to appeal to Trump 's personal grievances .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are n't focused on enacting support for American families ; they are just playing games instead .
Despite all this , it 's not certain the fight falls out in Democrats ' favor .
While all the dynamics and popular opinion seem to support the Democratic Party 's position and thus bolster than chances of Warnock and Ossoff in Georgia , voter behavior can be unpredictable .
It 's not clear that the people casting their ballots will interpret the series of events in the way they 're perceived by people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been successfully convinced by Trump that the $ 2,000 payments were his idea , and they 'll show support for him by voting to send his allies , Perdue and Loeffler , back to the Senate .
Those uncertainties , aside , however , it 's clear that events are playing out just as Pelosi had hoped , while McConnell has been roiled .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scored a big win on Monday night when the CASH Act, which would increase direct payments to individuals included in the recent coronavirus relief package from $600 to $2,000, passed the chamber by a 275-134 vote.
Though Pelosi and the Democrats hold a solid majority in the House of Representatives, this bill required a two-thirds majority to be approved by the chamber because it was moved under a process known as suspension. It wasn't clear the act had enough votes to pass, though she made clear she would keep fighting to pass it even if it failed.
"We will pass this bill today either under suspension or under a rule where it just requires a majority vote," she said. "I do think the American people would love to see that unity on their behalf."
But the speaker was able to spur 44 Republican members to break ranks and support the measure on Monday evening.
So while she showed that the Democratic Party largely stands behind calls for Americans to get more support — not less — during the pandemic, she also split the Republican caucus. And even by exposing the cracks in Republicans, she stilled showed most of the party is against the plan to give help to American families — even a plan supported by President Donald Trump.
That's not necessarily a massive coup for her, but it starts 2021 off on favorably footing, even as her caucus is set to shrink substantially. Her party is almost entirely united behind a popular issue, and her opponents are fractured. As soon as Trump announced he might block the bill and demanded the $2,000 payments, Pelosi jumped at the opportunity he had presented. Since it wasn't clear the bill could pass the two-thirds threshold, the plan is working out even better than she might have hoped.
But will the bill actually become law? Will Americans get $600 checks instead of $2,000?
That's far less clear. To become law, the Senate must now take up the bill. Under normal circumstances, it would be safe to assume that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't even consider bringing the legislation to a vote. He hates bringing up tough bills that split his caucus, and he hates capitulating to Nancy Pelosi.
But by backing the measure, Trump has put McConnell in a tight spot. Control of the Senate for the next two years hangs in the balance as voting continues in Georgia Senate runoffs scheduled for Jan. 5. If Democrats win both seats for the state, the Democratic Party would control the chamber, thanks to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris' power to cast tie-breaking votes.
Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have been hammering Republican Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue over the direct payment issue in the fight for the two Senate seats. Loeffler and Perdue had touted the passage of $600 payments that have since been slammed by the president as insufficient, while Ossoff and Warnock have vehemently supported the higher payments.
If McConnell just wants to block the bill to increase the payments, he can. But he risks putting Loeffler and Perdue on the defensive a week before the day of the runoffs, since their seats will determine whether McConnell remains majority leader. It's also not clear if Perdue and Loeffler really are enthusiastic about the more generous level of direct spending on families, but it seems unlikely they would want to oppose the popular measure right before Georgia voters cast their ballots.
But if McConnell brings it to the floor, will it pass? Senate Democrats are expected to support it. And some Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, have voiced support for the measure. Along with Perdue and Loeffler, and a handful of other sympathetic GOP senators, it's possible there'd be enough votes for it to pass. But it would infuriate some members of the GOP caucus, such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who vehemently oppose the idea on principle.
McConnell and the Senate GOP may try to find some poison pill to attach to the bill to prevent Democrats from supporting the measure, such as the creation of a voter fraud investigation or repeal of Section 230 to appeal to Trump's personal grievances. But these shenanigans may just emphasize that the Republicans aren't focused on enacting support for American families; they are just playing games instead.
Despite all this, it's not certain the fight falls out in Democrats' favor. While all the dynamics and popular opinion seem to support the Democratic Party's position and thus bolster than chances of Warnock and Ossoff in Georgia, voter behavior can be unpredictable. It's not clear that the people casting their ballots will interpret the series of events in the way they're perceived by people in Washington, D.C. Perhaps voters will have been successfully convinced by Trump that the $2,000 payments were his idea, and they'll show support for him by voting to send his allies, Perdue and Loeffler, back to the Senate.
Those uncertainties, aside, however, it's clear that events are playing out just as Pelosi had hoped, while McConnell has been roiled.


alternet--2020-12-28--Biden warns the Trump administration is endangering national security in the transition period

President-elect Joe Biden made it clear Monday that his incoming administration will be operating from a disadvantage on day one if the Trump administration did n't start cooperating immediately .
`` From some agencies , our team received exemplary cooperation … from others , most notable , the Department of Defense , we encountered obstruction from the political leadership of that department , '' Biden said in remarks delivered after a briefing with his national security and foreign policy advisers .
`` Right now , as our nation is in a period of transition , we need to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between administrations , '' Biden said .
`` My team needs a clear picture of our force posture around the world and our operations to deter our enemies . ''
He then added , `` We need full visibility into the budget planning underway at the Defense Department and other agencies in order to avoid any window of confusion or catch up that our adversaries may try to exploit . ''
Biden then called out the current administration for their `` irresponsibility '' in protecting the nation .
`` Right now , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we need from the outgoing administration in key national security areas , '' he said .
`` It 's nothing short , in my view , of irresponsibility .
Rebuilding the full set of our instruments of foreign policy and national security is a key challenge that the Vice President-elect Harris and I will face upon taking office , starting with our diplomacy . ''

President-elect Joe Biden made it clear Monday that his incoming administration will be operating from a disadvantage on day one if the Trump administration didn't start cooperating immediately.
"From some agencies, our team received exemplary cooperation … from others, most notable, the Department of Defense, we encountered obstruction from the political leadership of that department," Biden said in remarks delivered after a briefing with his national security and foreign policy advisers.
"Right now, as our nation is in a period of transition, we need to make sure that nothing is lost in the hand-off between administrations," Biden said. "My team needs a clear picture of our force posture around the world and our operations to deter our enemies."
He then added, "We need full visibility into the budget planning underway at the Defense Department and other agencies in order to avoid any window of confusion or catch up that our adversaries may try to exploit."
Biden then called out the current administration for their "irresponsibility" in protecting the nation.
"Right now, we just aren't getting all the information that we need from the outgoing administration in key national security areas," he said. "It's nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility. Rebuilding the full set of our instruments of foreign policy and national security is a key challenge that the Vice President-elect Harris and I will face upon taking office, starting with our diplomacy."
Watch the video below.


alternet--2020-12-28--Laid-off worker says the new coronavirus relief bill is 'almost insulting'

After threatening to veto the coronavirus relief package that Congress recently passed , President Donald Trump relented and signed the bill over the weekend .
Matthew Cox , an Indianapolis-based worker who has been slammed financially by the COVID-19 pandemic , discussed the bill during a CNN appearance on Monday — and told host Brooke Baldwin that it does n't do nearly enough to help someone in his position .
Trump implied he might veto the bill and said its direct payments of $ 600 per person were insufficient ; the president wanted $ 2,000 .
And while Democratic leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they agreed to $ 600 because congressional Republicans refused to increase the amount .
In addition to that $ 600 direct payment , the bill includes $ 300 per week in jobless benefits , as well as additional funds to businesses and specific government programs .
Baldwin noted that Cox has been `` unemployed since August '' apart from some food delivery work and `` lost his job and his savings after the pandemic hit . ''
Cox had been living in South Florida , where he was making $ 90,000 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry .
But after losing his job , he moved to Indianapolis because the cost of living is lower and his wife 's family lives there .
Cox told Baldwin , `` It 's been hard .
It 's been real hard .
After things happened , I had to come home .
I went through my entire 401 ( k ) .
I went through everything I had . ''
When Baldwin asked Cox to weigh in on the coronavirus relief bill that Trump has signed , he told the CNN host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , honestly , it 's a kick in the pants….. We looked at $ 600 again — that 's really not going to help anybody .
It 's kind of almost insulting… .
For those of us who are making less money or no money , it does n't really do a whole lot for us . ''
Cox , who has two children , added that he had been doing some deliveries for the food delivery service DoorDash — and his wife has been receiving disability funds .
Cox said he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to the 90K he was making before the pandemic .
`` I 've had to borrow money from my family , '' Cox told Baldwin .
`` I 've had to sell some stuff… .
I 'm at the point now where it 's kind of living day to day .
I have a lot of interviews , but when you 're applying for one job and there 's 100 people applying , it makes things very difficult . ''

After threatening to veto the coronavirus relief package that Congress recently passed, President Donald Trump relented and signed the bill over the weekend. Matthew Cox, an Indianapolis-based worker who has been slammed financially by the COVID-19 pandemic, discussed the bill during a CNN appearance on Monday — and told host Brooke Baldwin that it doesn't do nearly enough to help someone in his position.
Trump implied he might veto the bill and said its direct payments of $600 per person were insufficient; the president wanted $2,000. And while Democratic leaders in Congress would have preferred $2,000, they agreed to $600 because congressional Republicans refused to increase the amount. In addition to that $600 direct payment, the bill includes $300 per week in jobless benefits, as well as additional funds to businesses and specific government programs.
Baldwin noted that Cox has been "unemployed since August" apart from some food delivery work and "lost his job and his savings after the pandemic hit." Cox had been living in South Florida, where he was making $90,000 per year as a manager in the service industry. But after losing his job, he moved to Indianapolis because the cost of living is lower and his wife's family lives there.
Cox told Baldwin, "It's been hard. It's been real hard. After things happened, I had to come home. I went through my entire 401(k). I went through everything I had."
When Baldwin asked Cox to weigh in on the coronavirus relief bill that Trump has signed, he told the CNN host, "With what's going on, honestly, it's a kick in the pants….. We looked at $600 again — that's really not going to help anybody. It's kind of almost insulting…. For those of us who are making less money or no money, it doesn't really do a whole lot for us."
Cox, who has two children, added that he had been doing some deliveries for the food delivery service DoorDash — and his wife has been receiving disability funds. Cox said he has been making about $300 per week compared to the 90K he was making before the pandemic.
"I've had to borrow money from my family," Cox told Baldwin. "I've had to sell some stuff…. I'm at the point now where it's kind of living day to day. I have a lot of interviews, but when you're applying for one job and there's 100 people applying, it makes things very difficult."


alternet--2020-12-28--The 'moderate' rot at the top of the Democratic Party

Sometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president 's basic mindset and worldview .
That 's how it seems with Joe Biden 's choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department .
For OMB director , Biden selected corporate centrist Neera Tanden , whose Center for American Progress thrives on the largesse of wealthy donors representing powerful corporate interests .
Tanden has been a notably scornful foe of the Democratic Party 's progressive wing ; former Sanders speechwriter David Sirota calls her `` the single biggest , most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversee the budget of the U.S. government ?
For Secretary of State , Biden chose his longtime top foreign-policy adviser , whose frequent support for U.S. warfare included pushing for the disastrous 2011 military intervention in Libya .
Antony Blinken is a revolving-door pro who has combined his record of war boosterism with entrepreneurial zeal to personally profit from influence-peddling for weapons sales to the Pentagon .
Who better to oversee diplomacy for the U.S. government ?
`` With few exceptions , Biden 's current policy positions are destructively corporate , deferential to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for meeting human needs , and zealously militaristic .
`` Standard news coverage tells us that Tanden and Blinken are `` moderates . ''
But what 's so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice ?
What 's so moderate about serving the military-industrial complex while advocating for massive `` defense '' spending and what amounts to endless war ?
Unless they fail to get Senate confirmation , Tanden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways .
As OMB director , Tanden would head what the Washington Post describes as `` the nerve center of the federal government , executing the annual spending plan , setting fiscal and personnel policy for agencies , and overseeing the regulatory process across the executive branch . ''
Blinken is ready to be the administration 's most influential figure on foreign policy , bolstered by his longstanding close ties with Biden .
As staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired the panel 's mid-2002 crucial sham hearings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grease the skids for the catastrophic invasion .
Overall , purported `` moderates '' Tanden and Blinken have benefited from favorable mass-media coverage since their nominations were announced several weeks ago .
Most of the well-documented critical accounts have appeared in progressive outlets such as Common Dreams , Democracy Now , The Daily Poster , In These Times and The American Prospect .
But some unappealing aspects of their records have been reported by the mainstream press .
`` In her nine years helming Washington 's leading liberal think tank , Neera Tanden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fortunes on Wall Street , in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America , '' the Washington Post reported in early December .
`` At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers , Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $ 45 million to $ 50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress . ''
The Post added : `` As OMB director , Tanden would have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a range of U.S. companies , dictating how much they pay in taxes , the barriers they face and whether they benefit from new stimulus programs . ''
Blinken 's eagerness to cash in on the warfare state -- when not a formal part of the government 's war-making apparatus -- is well-documented and chilling .
In a healthier political culture , Blinken 's shameless insistence on profiteering from military weapons sales , as spelled out in a Nov. 28 New York Times news story , would have sunk his nomination for Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent years her Center for American Progress received between $ 1.5 million and $ 3 million from the United Arab Emirates , which is allied with Saudi Arabia in waging a long and murderous war on Yemen .
CAP refused to back a Senate resolution calling for the U.S. government to end its military support for that war .
On a range of foreign-policy issues , Tanden has shown dedication to militarism again and again and again .
By many accounts , progressive organizing was a key factor in preventing the widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Secretary of Defense .
( RootsAction.org , where I 'm national director , was part of that organizing effort . )
Last week , the withdrawal of torture defender Mike Morell from consideration for CIA director was a victory for activism led by CodePink , Progressive Democrats of America , Witness Against Torture and other groups .
During the first weeks of 2021 , such organizing could be effective in helping to derail other nominations .
High on the deserving list are Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom `` Mr. Monsanto '' Vilsack , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Director of National Intelligence nominee Avril Haines -- whose record as former deputy director of the CIA included working to prevent accountability for agency personnel who engaged in torture , as well as crafting legal rationales for drone strikes that often killed civilians .
Such deplorable nominees do n't tell the whole story of Biden 's incoming team , which includes some decent economic and environmental appointees .
`` There 's no question that progressive focus on personnel has led to far better outcomes than when Obama put a corporate- and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The American Prospect 's executive editor , David Dayen , correctly pointed out last week .
At the same time , none of Biden 's high-level nominees were supporters of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign or are fully in sync with the progressive wing of the party .
The brighter spots among Joe Biden 's nominations reflect the political wattage that progressives have generated in recent years on a wide array of intertwined matters , from climate to healthcare to economic justice to structural racism .
Yet , with few exceptions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate , deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth , woefully inadequate for meeting human needs , and zealously militaristic .
It 's hardly incidental that the list of key White House staff is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate-aligned operatives and PR specialists .
Wishful thinking aside , on vital issue after vital issue , it 's foreseeable that Biden -- and the people in line for the most powerful roles in his administration -- will not do the right thing unless movements can organize effectively enough to make them do it .
Norman Solomon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His books include `` War Made Easy : How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death '' ( 2006 ) and `` Made Love , Got War : Close Encounters with America 's Warfare State '' ( 2007 ) .

Sometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president's basic mindset and worldview. That's how it seems with Joe Biden's choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department.
For OMB director, Biden selected corporate centrist Neera Tanden, whose Center for American Progress thrives on the largesse of wealthy donors representing powerful corporate interests. Tanden has been a notably scornful foe of the Democratic Party's progressive wing; former Sanders speechwriter David Sirota calls her "the single biggest, most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic in the United States." Who better to oversee the budget of the U.S. government?
For Secretary of State, Biden chose his longtime top foreign-policy adviser, whose frequent support for U.S. warfare included pushing for the disastrous 2011 military intervention in Libya. Antony Blinken is a revolving-door pro who has combined his record of war boosterism with entrepreneurial zeal to personally profit from influence-peddling for weapons sales to the Pentagon. Who better to oversee diplomacy for the U.S. government?
"With few exceptions, Biden's current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic."Standard news coverage tells us that Tanden and Blinken are "moderates." But what's so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice? What's so moderate about serving the military-industrial complex while advocating for massive "defense" spending and what amounts to endless war?
Unless they fail to get Senate confirmation, Tanden and Blinken will shape future history in major ways.
As OMB director, Tanden would head what the Washington Postdescribes as "the nerve center of the federal government, executing the annual spending plan, setting fiscal and personnel policy for agencies, and overseeing the regulatory process across the executive branch."
Blinken is ready to be the administration's most influential figure on foreign policy, bolstered by his longstanding close ties with Biden. As staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired the panel's mid-2002 crucial sham hearings on scenarios for invading Iraq, Blinken helped grease the skids for the catastrophic invasion.
Overall, purported "moderates" Tanden and Blinken have benefited from favorable mass-media coverage since their nominations were announced several weeks ago. Most of the well-documented critical accounts have appeared in progressive outlets such as Common Dreams, Democracy Now, The Daily Poster, In These Timesand The American Prospect. But some unappealing aspects of their records have been reported by the mainstream press.
"In her nine years helming Washington's leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America," the Washington Postreported in early December. "At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers, Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $45 million to $50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress."
The Post added: "As OMB director, Tanden would have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors. These regulatory decisions will have profound implications for a range of U.S. companies, dictating how much they pay in taxes, the barriers they face and whether they benefit from new stimulus programs."
Blinken's eagerness to cash in on the warfare state -- when not a formal part of the government's war-making apparatus -- is well-documented and chilling. In a healthier political culture, Blinken's shameless insistence on profiteering from military weapons sales, as spelled out in a Nov. 28 New York Timesnews story, would have sunk his nomination for Secretary of State.
As for Tanden, in recent years her Center for American Progress received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the United Arab Emirates, which is allied with Saudi Arabia in waging a long and murderous war on Yemen. CAP refused to back a Senate resolution calling for the U.S. government to end its military support for that war. On a range of foreign-policy issues, Tanden has shown dedication to militarism again and again and again.
By many accounts, progressive organizing was a key factor in preventing the widely expected nomination of hawkish Michèle Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense. (RootsAction.org, where I'm national director, was part of that organizing effort.) Last week, the withdrawal of torture defender Mike Morell from consideration for CIA director was a victory for activism led by CodePink, Progressive Democrats of America, Witness Against Torture and other groups.
During the first weeks of 2021, such organizing could be effective in helping to derail other nominations. High on the deserving list are Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom "Mr. Monsanto" Vilsack, a loyal ally of corporate Big Ag, and Director of National Intelligence nominee Avril Haines -- whose record as former deputy director of the CIA included working to prevent accountability for agency personnel who engaged in torture, as well as crafting legal rationales for drone strikes that often killed civilians.
Such deplorable nominees don't tell the whole story of Biden's incoming team, which includes some decent economic and environmental appointees. "There's no question that progressive focus on personnel has led to far better outcomes than when Obama put a corporate- and bank-friendly Cabinet together with little resistance," The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, correctly pointed out last week. At the same time, none of Biden's high-level nominees were supporters of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign or are fully in sync with the progressive wing of the party.
The brighter spots among Joe Biden's nominations reflect the political wattage that progressives have generated in recent years on a wide array of intertwined matters, from climate to healthcare to economic justice to structural racism. Yet, with few exceptions, Biden's current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic. It's hardly incidental that the list of key White House staff is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate-aligned operatives and PR specialists.
Wishful thinking aside, on vital issue after vital issue, it's foreseeable that Biden -- and the people in line for the most powerful roles in his administration -- will not do the right thing unless movements can organize effectively enough to make them do it.
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" (2006) and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State" (2007).


alternet--2020-12-28--Republican congressmen go to war with each other over Trump's bogus fraud claims

Far-right Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama has joined President Donald Trump in refusing to acknowledge Joe Biden as president-elect and pushing debunked claims of voter fraud .
But another Republican , Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois , is slamming Brooks ' voter fraud claims as nonsense , sparking a feud between the two GOP congressmen .
Kinzinger , according to Newsweek 's Jason Lemon , `` has suggested that those backing the president 's conspiracy theories are doing so to raise money and garner more attention on social media '' — and Kinzinger has dismissed the voter fraud claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooks appeared on Fox News ' `` Fox and Friends '' on Monday morning , he accused the Illinois Republican of being soft on voter fraud .
`` If he would do his homework , '' Brooks told the `` Fox and Friends '' hosts , `` he would understand the evidence is overwhelming .
He can either surrender to the people who support voter fraud , election theft — or he can fight for his country on this particular issue . ''
In truth , the wild claims Trump and his allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the election was stolen have been repeatedly debunked .
Brooks , on `` Fox and Friends , '' claimed that `` dozens '' of House Republicans might join him in objecting to the Electoral College results when Congress meets for a joint session on January 6 .
`` There are dozens in the House of Representatives who have reached that conclusion , as I have .
We 're going to sponsor and co-sponsor objections to the Electoral College vote returns of Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Georgia , Arizona , Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collectively want to go , '' the Alabama lawmaker said .
Lemon , however , notes , `` In order for the objections to be considered , a Republican senator must also sign on to a written objection .
Although the effort is widely expected to fail , several GOP senators have suggested they may be open to supporting objections . ''
Kinzinger , in contrast to Brooks , acknowledges Biden as the United States ' legitimate president-elect and has said that there is no proof of the type of widespread voter fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's `` State of the Union '' on Sunday , Kinzinger stressed , `` I grew up as a Republican because I believe in smaller government and strong national defense , and that 's being destroyed by conspiracies right now and anger .
I really do worry about the future of my party . ''
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who has acknowledged Biden as president-elect and Sen. Kamala Harris as vice president-elect , has been trying to discourage Senate Republicans from joining House Republicans in objecting to the Electoral College results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is siding with McConnell , saying that objections are likely to go down like a `` shot dog . ''
And Trump , in response , is attacking Thune as a RINO or Republican in Name Only : The vote count for this year 's presidential election showed Biden with 306 electoral votes , and he defeated Trump by more than 7 million in the popular vote .

Far-right Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama has joined President Donald Trump in refusing to acknowledge Joe Biden as president-elect and pushing debunked claims of voter fraud. But another Republican, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, is slamming Brooks' voter fraud claims as nonsense, sparking a feud between the two GOP congressmen.
Kinzinger, according to Newsweek's Jason Lemon, "has suggested that those backing the president's conspiracy theories are doing so to raise money and garner more attention on social media" — and Kinzinger has dismissed the voter fraud claims as a "scam."
When Brooks appeared on Fox News' "Fox and Friends" on Monday morning, he accused the Illinois Republican of being soft on voter fraud.
"If he would do his homework," Brooks told the "Fox and Friends" hosts, "he would understand the evidence is overwhelming. He can either surrender to the people who support voter fraud, election theft — or he can fight for his country on this particular issue."
In truth, the wild claims Trump and his allies have pushed to back up the assertion that the election was stolen have been repeatedly debunked.
Brooks, on "Fox and Friends," claimed that "dozens" of House Republicans might join him in objecting to the Electoral College results when Congress meets for a joint session on January 6.
"There are dozens in the House of Representatives who have reached that conclusion, as I have. We're going to sponsor and co-sponsor objections to the Electoral College vote returns of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and maybe more depending on where we collectively want to go," the Alabama lawmaker said.
Lemon, however, notes, "In order for the objections to be considered, a Republican senator must also sign on to a written objection. Although the effort is widely expected to fail, several GOP senators have suggested they may be open to supporting objections."
Kinzinger, in contrast to Brooks, acknowledges Biden as the United States' legitimate president-elect and has said that there is no proof of the type of widespread voter fraud that Brooks alleges. Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, Kinzinger stressed, "I grew up as a Republican because I believe in smaller government and strong national defense, and that's being destroyed by conspiracies right now and anger. I really do worry about the future of my party."
Slamming Kinzinger on Twitter, Brooks tweeted:
Kinzinger tweeted in response:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has acknowledged Biden as president-elect and Sen. Kamala Harris as vice president-elect, has been trying to discourage Senate Republicans from joining House Republicans in objecting to the Electoral College results. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota is siding with McConnell, saying that objections are likely to go down like a "shot dog." And Trump, in response, is attacking Thune as a RINO or Republican in Name Only:
The vote count for this year's presidential election showed Biden with 306 electoral votes, and he defeated Trump by more than 7 million in the popular vote.


alternet--2020-12-28--This Walter Reed doctor was ousted after criticizing Trump: 'I regret nothing'

An emergency room physician at Walter Reed Medical Center said he has no regrets after being ousted from his position following his public criticism of President Donald Trump 's bizarre joyride while hospitalized with the coronavirus .
Dr. James Phillips , who worked at Walter Reed during Trump 's hospitalization at the medical center in October , slammed the president for driving in a car with Secret Service agents to greet supporters while he was sick .
`` Every single person ... in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential 'drive-by ' just now has to be quarantined for 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They may die .
For political theater , '' Phillips tweeted in October before removing the post .
`` Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater .
This is insanity . ''
`` That Presidential SUV is not only bulletproof , but hermetically sealed against chemical attack , '' he added in another tweet .
`` The risk of COVID19 transmission inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures .
The irresponsibility is astounding .
My thoughts are with the Secret Service forced to play .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview with NBC News , arguing that the president sent a message to `` people who are sick that it 's okay to go out . ''
`` The reality is that this was a dangerous move , '' he said .
`` There is no medical benefit for this to have taken place .
It violates CDC guidelines that come from the president 's own administration . ''
Phillips , the chief of disaster medicine at George Washington University Hospital , was removed from Walter Reed 's schedule beginning in January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
On Sunday , Phillips seemed to suggest his ouster was politically motivated .
`` Today , I worked my final shift at Walter Reed ER , '' he tweeted .
`` I will miss the patients and my military and civilian coworkers - they have been overwhelmingly supportive .
I 'm honored to have worked there and I look forward to new opportunities .
I stand by my words , and I regret nothing . ''
Officials at Walter Reed told CBS News that the hospital did not make the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it `` provides requirements for contract positions '' and `` schedules are determined by the contractor . ''
Phillips ' contractor , GW Medical Faculty Associates , did not say whether it removed him from the Walter Reed schedule .
`` While we can not comment on the scheduling assignments of our providers , we can confirm that he continues to be employed at the GW Medical Faculty Associates , '' Lisa Anderson , a spokesperson for GW School of Medicine , told the outlet , adding that Phillips remains on staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phillips ' colleagues told CBS they were `` surprised '' that Walter Reed would remove a disaster medicine expert amid rising coronavirus infections .
Phillips ' removal came about a month after Trump lost the election to President-elect Joe Biden .
Trump defended his joyride , arguing that he wore a mask during the drive and the Secret Service agents were `` very heavily protected . ''
But the stunt drew heavy criticism from Secret Service agents .
`` He 's not even pretending to care now , '' one agent told The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where are the adults ? ''
another wondered .
Phillips was far from the only doctor to criticize the episode , though he appears to be the only Walter Reed doctor to do so publicly .
`` By taking a joy ride outside Walter Reed the president is placing his Secret Service detail at grave risk , '' Jonathan Reiner , Phillips ' colleague at GW Hospital , said at the time .
`` This is the height of irresponsibility . ''
Trump bragged after his hospitalization that his infection had made him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's been a very interesting journey , I learned a lot about COVID , '' he said in a video in October .
`` I get it , and I understand it . ''
Despite his own experience being hospitalized with the virus , Trump continued to disregard medical guidelines on masks and public gatherings and left the pandemic response up to individual states .
More than 330,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the United States .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicization '' of masks and social distancing have hampered the pandemic response but Trump 's decision to leave key decisions to individual states resulted in the US becoming the `` hardest-hit country in the world . ''
`` The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in doing things the way they want to do it , as opposed to in response to federal mandates , which are , relatively , rarely given , '' Fauci said in a radio interview over the weekend .
`` What we 've had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things differently in a nonconsistent way .
There have been a lot of factors that have led to the fact that , unfortunately for us , the United States has been the hardest-hit country in the world , but I believe that disparity among how states do things has been a major weakness in our response . ''

An emergency room physician at Walter Reed Medical Center said he has no regrets after being ousted from his position following his public criticism of President Donald Trump's bizarre joyride while hospitalized with the coronavirus.
Dr. James Phillips, who worked at Walter Reed during Trump's hospitalization at the medical center in October, slammed the president for driving in a car with Secret Service agents to greet supporters while he was sick.
"Every single person...in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential 'drive-by' just now has to be quarantined for 14 days. They might get sick. They may die. For political theater," Phillips tweeted in October before removing the post. "Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater. This is insanity."
"That Presidential SUV is not only bulletproof, but hermetically sealed against chemical attack," he added in another tweet. "The risk of COVID19 transmission inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures. The irresponsibility is astounding. My thoughts are with the Secret Service forced to play."
He later upped his criticism in an interview with NBC News, arguing that the president sent a message to "people who are sick that it's okay to go out."
"The reality is that this was a dangerous move," he said. "There is no medical benefit for this to have taken place. It violates CDC guidelines that come from the president's own administration."
Phillips, the chief of disaster medicine at George Washington University Hospital, was removed from Walter Reed's schedule beginning in January earlier this month, according to CBS News.
On Sunday, Phillips seemed to suggest his ouster was politically motivated.
"Today, I worked my final shift at Walter Reed ER," he tweeted. "I will miss the patients and my military and civilian coworkers - they have been overwhelmingly supportive. I'm honored to have worked there and I look forward to new opportunities. I stand by my words, and I regret nothing."
Officials at Walter Reed told CBS News that the hospital did not make the decision to remove Phillips from the schedule and said it "provides requirements for contract positions" and "schedules are determined by the contractor."
Phillips' contractor, GW Medical Faculty Associates, did not say whether it removed him from the Walter Reed schedule.
"While we cannot comment on the scheduling assignments of our providers, we can confirm that he continues to be employed at the GW Medical Faculty Associates," Lisa Anderson, a spokesperson for GW School of Medicine, told the outlet, adding that Phillips remains on staff at the university's DC hospital.
Phillips' colleagues told CBS they were "surprised" that Walter Reed would remove a disaster medicine expert amid rising coronavirus infections.
Phillips' removal came about a month after Trump lost the election to President-elect Joe Biden.
Trump defended his joyride, arguing that he wore a mask during the drive and the Secret Service agents were "very heavily protected."
But the stunt drew heavy criticism from Secret Service agents.
"He's not even pretending to care now," one agent told The Washington Post at the time.
"Where are the adults?" another wondered.
Phillips was far from the only doctor to criticize the episode, though he appears to be the only Walter Reed doctor to do so publicly.
"By taking a joy ride outside Walter Reed the president is placing his Secret Service detail at grave risk," Jonathan Reiner, Phillips' colleague at GW Hospital, said at the time. "This is the height of irresponsibility."
Trump bragged after his hospitalization that his infection had made him an expert on the disease.
"It's been a very interesting journey, I learned a lot about COVID," he said in a video in October. "I get it, and I understand it."
Despite his own experience being hospitalized with the virus, Trump continued to disregard medical guidelines on masks and public gatherings and left the pandemic response up to individual states. More than 330,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the United States. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the "politicization" of masks and social distancing have hampered the pandemic response but Trump's decision to leave key decisions to individual states resulted in the US becoming the "hardest-hit country in the world."
"The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in doing things the way they want to do it, as opposed to in response to federal mandates, which are, relatively, rarely given," Fauci said in a radio interview over the weekend. "What we've had was a considerable disparity with states doing things differently in a nonconsistent way. There have been a lot of factors that have led to the fact that, unfortunately for us, the United States has been the hardest-hit country in the world, but I believe that disparity among how states do things has been a major weakness in our response."


alternet--2020-12-28--Georgia Republicans in key Senate runoffs are suspiciously silent about Trump's demand for $2,000 ch

Georgia Republicans in key Senate runoffs are suspiciously silent about Trump's demand for $2,000 checks

Republican Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler late Sunday issued a joint statement praising President Donald Trump for signing into law a $ 900 billion coronavirus relief measure , declaring that additional economic help is now `` on its way . ''
Notably absent from the Georgia Republicans ' statement , however , was any mention of the outgoing president 's demand for $ 2,000 direct payments to struggling Americans—a call that Perdue and Loeffler 's Senate runoff opponents , Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock , have embraced and echoed .
Perdue and Loeffler said in their statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight alongside the president in his relentless pursuit to keep America great , '' remarks that came just after Trump signed the bipartisan relief bill Sunday night following nearly a week of needless and harmful delay .
As Common Dreams reported earlier Monday , the president 's belated signing of the bill will likely cost millions of Americans a full week of unemployment benefits .
That possibility also went unmentioned by Perdue and Loeffler , who used their statement to applaud Trump 's `` leadership '' and claim that Democrats are `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasteful , irresponsible spending . ''
The Working Families Party ( WFP ) tweeted in response to the Republican senators ' statement that `` Trump 's 'leadership ' just cost hundreds of thousands of families in Georgia a week of unemployment benefits that they wo n't get back . ''
`` Loeffler and Perdue still wo n't support direct $ 2,000 checks to Georgia working families , '' WFP added .
Trump 's last-minute attack on the $ 900 billion coronavirus relief bill , which he called a `` disgrace , '' put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given that the senators celebrated the agreement on the campaign trail and touted their yes votes in advertisements released just before the president trashed the deal .
Neither Perdue nor Loeffler has publicly voiced support for stand-alone legislation that would boost the direct payments in the new relief law from $ 600 to $ 2,000 .
With the Democratic legislation set to receive a vote in the House on Monday , Perdue has been silent about the proposed payments while Loeffler has said that she would `` look at '' supporting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending toward that . ''
Ossoff , who is taking on Perdue on January 5 , noted on Twitter that the Georgia incumbent `` did n't even want the first round of stimulus checks , '' referring to the $ 1,200 payments provided under the CARES Act .
Warnock , vying to unseat Loeffler , declared Sunday that Senate Republicans are `` the only reason Georgians wo n't receive a $ 2,000 relief check . ''
`` Trump agreed .
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate agreed .
But Loeffler and [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After blocking relief for nine months , '' Warnock tweeted .
`` When we win , we 'll get families the help they need . ''

Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler late Sunday issued a joint statement praising President Donald Trump for signing into law a $900 billion coronavirus relief measure, declaring that additional economic help is now "on its way."
Notably absent from the Georgia Republicans' statement, however, was any mention of the outgoing president's demand for $2,000 direct payments to struggling Americans—a call that Perdue and Loeffler's Senate runoff opponents, Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, have embraced and echoed.
Perdue and Loeffler said in their statement that they "look forward to continuing to fight alongside the president in his relentless pursuit to keep America great," remarks that came just after Trump signed the bipartisan relief bill Sunday night following nearly a week of needless and harmful delay.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Monday, the president's belated signing of the bill will likely cost millions of Americans a full week of unemployment benefits. That possibility also went unmentioned by Perdue and Loeffler, who used their statement to applaud Trump's "leadership" and claim that Democrats are "hellbent on a socialist agenda that prioritizes wasteful, irresponsible spending."
The Working Families Party (WFP) tweeted in response to the Republican senators' statement that "Trump's 'leadership' just cost hundreds of thousands of families in Georgia a week of unemployment benefits that they won't get back."
"Loeffler and Perdue still won't support direct $2,000 checks to Georgia working families," WFP added.
Trump's last-minute attack on the $900 billion coronavirus relief bill, which he called a "disgrace," put the Georgia Republicans in a difficult spot, given that the senators celebrated the agreement on the campaign trail and touted their yes votes in advertisements released just before the president trashed the deal.
Neither Perdue nor Loeffler has publicly voiced support for stand-alone legislation that would boost the direct payments in the new relief law from $600 to $2,000. With the Democratic legislation set to receive a vote in the House on Monday, Perdue has been silent about the proposed payments while Loeffler has said that she would "look at" supporting the larger checks if Congress "repurposes wasteful spending toward that."
Ossoff, who is taking on Perdue on January 5, noted on Twitter that the Georgia incumbent "didn't even want the first round of stimulus checks," referring to the $1,200 payments provided under the CARES Act.
Warnock, vying to unseat Loeffler, declared Sunday that Senate Republicans are "the only reason Georgians won't receive a $2,000 relief check."
"Trump agreed. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate agreed. But Loeffler and [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell refused. After blocking relief for nine months," Warnock tweeted. "When we win, we'll get families the help they need."


alternet--2020-12-28--Trump's ham-fisted and harmful extortion effort blows up in his face

Donald Trump is clearly unhappy with having to sign the stimulus bill meant to relieve the massive economic pain from his bungled response to the coronavirus pandemic .
Why else would he sign it abruptly , as he did late Sunday , to no fanfare ?
After all , this is a man who demands adulation at his every waking moment .
Yet when it came to signing a bill that will send checks to millions of Americans , Trump was curiously camera-shy .
Trump eschewing a camera is like a dog rejecting his favorite treat — clearly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how the stimulus standoff ended .
The reason is not particularly mysterious .
Signing the bill , for Trump , was yet another massive failure in his long list of massive failures .
For six days , Trump has been threatening to tank this bill , possibly with a pocket veto .
He was holding the economy hostage — and more specifically , holding hostage the chances of Republicans winning a Georgia Senate runoff or two — clearly hoping that doing so would be sufficient leverage to force Republican leadership on Capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and illegally granting him a second term .
But as often happens when Trump tries to live up to his own declarations of being a master negotiator , he face-planted— this time in a spectacularly humiliating style .
So humiliating , that he approached signing the stimulus bill with the same attitude of a kid presenting himself for after school detention .
So what happened here ?
It 's a little complicated , but ultimately , it 's likely yet another one of Trump 's failed schemes to steal the 2020 election from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden .
To recap : The $ 900 billion coronavirus legislation Trump signed was a compromise bill , passed through the Republican-controlled Senate only after many major concessions from the Democratic-controlled House , which passed its own much healthier $ 3 trillion package in May .
Democrats wanted to cut checks to Americans for $ 1,200 a piece , along with more robust unemployment benefits and other major projects to reduce economic devastation from the pandemic .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , who clearly did n't want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only begrudgingly allowed a much smaller compromise — which includes $ 600 checks to Americans who made under $ 75,000 in 2019 — because he is worried that Georgia 's GOP Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will lose their runoff elections to Democratic challengers on January 5 .
But after the Senate bill passed , Trump suddenly declared he was n't satisfied and declared he wanted a bill with $ 2,000 checks instead of the $ 600 his administration initially agreed to .
He later upped the supposed ante by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand dollars on for people with kids .
The whole thing was , despite the high hopes of some of the dimmer lights of social media punditry , never a sincere offer from Trump .
As Helaine Olen of the Washington Post noted on Thursday , Trump `` maintained a low profile in the months-long stimulus negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress . ''
If Trump wanted more money for Americans , he had months to push for it , but aside from a random tweet in the fall , as Olen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bother '' to push for more money in any `` meaningful way . ''
' No , as I argued last week , what Trump was up to was likely an extortion scheme , which is the only trick up his sleeve — and one he 's not even particularly good at pulling .
Trump believes , incorrectly , that McConnell and other Senate Republicans know how to steal the election , but are holding out on him .
He hoped that by threatening McConnell 's meager bill and therefore threatening the re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold onto his Senate majority Trump could shake the secrets to election theft out of McConnell .
But , being bad at this , Trump did n't consider certain flaws in the plan , starting with the fact that McConnell simply has no way to steal the election for him and extortion will not change that fact .
Nor did Trump consider that he would have to endure the humiliation of Democrats dunking on him non-stop .
Politico reports that Trump only signed the compromise bill `` after days of being lobbied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham , R.-S.C. , and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. What they said to him is not clear , especially since Trump , whose only interest is in himself , is unlikely to be interested in arguments about signing this bill for the good of the Republican party .
No , Trump likely only moved because it became evident that his extortion scheme had blown up spectacularly in his face , alienating the very people he ( falsely ) believes will be able to stop Biden 's election certification on January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise .
Trump 's reputation as a skillful negotiator was always nonsense , the product of his only real talent , which is media manipulation .
As Michael Kruse in Politico detailed in 2018 , an examination of the evidence shows that Trump spent decades failing at even the easiest negotiations , blowing up a series of business deals and repeatedly incurring major bankruptcies .
It 's true that Trump did have some early successes in the late 70s and early 80s , but odds are that 's because his lawyer/fixer Roy Cohn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After Cohn 's death , Trump 's almost comical inability to negotiate became evident to anyone looking at the actual books and not listening to Trump 's endless bragging .
So that 's where Trump stands now : He did n't get anything he wanted , and , by making a pointless stink about all this , he 's aggravated allies and invited his opponents to exploit him in embarrassing ways .
He gave Democrats leverage to negotiate for a bigger bill , though it 's still unlikely to pass Republicans , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
Ultimately , he exposed to Georgia voters what Mitch McConnell was trying to hide : Republicans are blocking their opportunity to get bigger checks .
The situation would be comical , except for the very real human cost to all of this .
By delaying the compromise bill with his little stunt , Trump allowed unemployment benefits to lapse and likely slowed the rollout of a vaccine .
Losing even a couple of days like this can have a ripple effect through an already badly battered economy .
But , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just as he never really intended for anyone to get the $ 2,000 checks .
He 's not just playing games with people 's lives .
He 's bad at playing them .

Donald Trump is clearly unhappy with having to sign the stimulus bill meant to relieve the massive economic pain from his bungled response to the coronavirus pandemic. Why else would he sign it abruptly, as he did late Sunday, to no fanfare? After all, this is a man who demands adulation at his every waking moment. Yet when it came to signing a bill that will send checks to millions of Americans, Trump was curiously camera-shy. Trump eschewing a camera is like a dog rejecting his favorite treat — clearly, the manbaby president isn't feeling so hot about how the stimulus standoff ended.
The reason is not particularly mysterious. Signing the bill, for Trump, was yet another massive failure in his long list of massive failures.
For six days, Trump has been threatening to tank this bill, possibly with a pocket veto. He was holding the economy hostage — and more specifically, holding hostage the chances of Republicans winning a Georgia Senate runoff or two — clearly hoping that doing so would be sufficient leverage to force Republican leadership on Capitol Hill into voiding his presidential election loss and illegally granting him a second term. But as often happens when Trump tries to live up to his own declarations of being a master negotiator, he face-planted— this time in a spectacularly humiliating style. So humiliating, that he approached signing the stimulus bill with the same attitude of a kid presenting himself for after school detention.
So what happened here? It's a little complicated, but ultimately, it's likely yet another one of Trump's failed schemes to steal the 2020 election from the real winner, former Vice President Joe Biden.
To recap: The $900 billion coronavirus legislation Trump signed was a compromise bill, passed through the Republican-controlled Senate only after many major concessions from the Democratic-controlled House, which passed its own much healthier $3 trillion package in May. Democrats wanted to cut checks to Americans for $1,200 a piece, along with more robust unemployment benefits and other major projects to reduce economic devastation from the pandemic. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who clearly didn't want to pass a second stimulus bill at all, only begrudgingly allowed a much smaller compromise — which includes $600 checks to Americans who made under $75,000 in 2019 — because he is worried that Georgia's GOP Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will lose their runoff elections to Democratic challengers on January 5.
But after the Senate bill passed, Trump suddenly declared he wasn't satisfied and declared he wanted a bill with $2,000 checks instead of the $600 his administration initially agreed to. He later upped the supposed ante by declaring he wanted to toss another two thousand dollars on for people with kids.
The whole thing was, despite the high hopes of some of the dimmer lights of social media punditry, never a sincere offer from Trump. As Helaine Olen of the Washington Post noted on Thursday, Trump "maintained a low profile in the months-long stimulus negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress." If Trump wanted more money for Americans, he had months to push for it, but aside from a random tweet in the fall, as Olen points out, "he didn't bother" to push for more money in any "meaningful way."'
No, as I argued last week, what Trump was up to was likely an extortion scheme, which is the only trick up his sleeve — and one he's not even particularly good at pulling. Trump believes, incorrectly, that McConnell and other Senate Republicans know how to steal the election, but are holding out on him. He hoped that by threatening McConnell's meager bill and therefore threatening the re-election of the two Georgia senators McConnell needs to hold onto his Senate majority Trump could shake the secrets to election theft out of McConnell. But, being bad at this, Trump didn't consider certain flaws in the plan, starting with the fact that McConnell simply has no way to steal the election for him and extortion will not change that fact. Nor did Trump consider that he would have to endure the humiliation of Democrats dunking on him non-stop.
Politico reports that Trump only signed the compromise bill "after days of being lobbied by allies," including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. What they said to him is not clear, especially since Trump, whose only interest is in himself, is unlikely to be interested in arguments about signing this bill for the good of the Republican party.
No, Trump likely only moved because it became evident that his extortion scheme had blown up spectacularly in his face, alienating the very people he (falsely) believes will be able to stop Biden's election certification on January 6.
But this should be no surprise. Trump's reputation as a skillful negotiator was always nonsense, the product of his only real talent, which is media manipulation. As Michael Kruse in Politico detailed in 2018, an examination of the evidence shows that Trump spent decades failing at even the easiest negotiations, blowing up a series of business deals and repeatedly incurring major bankruptcies. It's true that Trump did have some early successes in the late 70s and early 80s, but odds are that's because his lawyer/fixer Roy Cohn did the hard work for him. After Cohn's death, Trump's almost comical inability to negotiate became evident to anyone looking at the actual books and not listening to Trump's endless bragging.
So that's where Trump stands now: He didn't get anything he wanted, and, by making a pointless stink about all this, he's aggravated allies and invited his opponents to exploit him in embarrassing ways. He gave Democrats leverage to negotiate for a bigger bill, though it's still unlikely to pass Republicans, who didn't even really want the compromise bill. Ultimately, he exposed to Georgia voters what Mitch McConnell was trying to hide: Republicans are blocking their opportunity to get bigger checks.
The situation would be comical, except for the very real human cost to all of this.
By delaying the compromise bill with his little stunt, Trump allowed unemployment benefits to lapse and likely slowed the rollout of a vaccine. Losing even a couple of days like this can have a ripple effect through an already badly battered economy. But, of course, Trump never cared about that, just as he never really intended for anyone to get the $2,000 checks. He's not just playing games with people's lives. He's bad at playing them.