hotair--2020-01-07--"I hate this": Soleimani's death is the death of diplomacy with Iran, says Rand Paul

This was my instant reaction on Thursday night too after the news broke — not the “ I hate this ” part but bafflement that Trump would wreck any chance of diplomacy with Iran after he ’ d seemed so eager to renegotiate the Obama nuclear deal .
The irony of his Iran policy is that although he ’ s been much more confrontational with Iran than O was , backing away from the JCPOA and reimplementing punishing sanctions , it was clearly with an eye to bringing them to the bargaining table .
I think Trump imagined that Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years of his North Korea diplomacy played out .
There ’ d be some initial belligerent posturing by both sides to signal toughness and resolve , then suddenly a surprise detente capped by an historic presidential summit .
Ideally a new nuclear deal would be signed ( “ the best , most beautiful nuclear deal ever , much better than Obama ’ s , believe me ” ) and a gesture towards reestablishing permanent diplomatic relations would be made .
In fact , it may actually be that the Iranians stood a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving formal U.S. recognition of the regime with Trump than they did with O .
For Obama , making a deal like that would have drawn scorching criticism from righties that he ’ d sold out the Iranian people by legitimizing the terrorist government that ’ s holding them captive .
It would have been treated as the supreme example of his weakness and inclination towards appeasement .
Whereas if Trump would have done the same thing , no one would have said jack .
And the punchline is , Tehran likely wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concessions on the nuclear deal to satisfy Trump .
The sort of minor tweaks that turned NAFTA into the USMCA and handed the president a political victory probably would have been enough .
But they refused to blink by agreeing to talk until Trump blinked first by lifting the sanctions .
And Trump refused to blink by lifting the sanctions until Iran blinked first by agreeing to talk .
That was the staring contest we were stuck in , until Iranian rockets killed a U.S. contractor before New Year ’ s and Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baghdad .
Then Trump whacked Soleimani and now here we are , with diplomacy seemingly gone for good .
Paul , a former informal Trump envoy to Iran , makes an effective case in the clip below that this was a major miscalculation , mainly because of how far it set back diplomatic relations .
But his argument goes further : If we ’ re worried about Iran attacking the U.S. , he asks , why would we hit them in a way that doesn ’ t fundamentally affect their ability to attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so ?
The reporting circulating today bears out that worry : In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander , the country ’ s supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government ’ s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation .
It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests , he said , openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves , three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iranian leadership .
Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979 , Tehran had almost always cloaked its attacks behind the actions of proxies it had cultivated around the region .
But in the fury generated by the killing of the military commander , Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , a close ally and personal friend of the supreme leader , the ayatollah was willing to cast aside those traditional cautions .
A “ direct and proportional ” attack presumably would involve the assassination of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not blowing up American troops stationed at a base in Iraq , but the latter is more likely than the former .
The more significant detail , though , is Khamenei allegedly insisting that the reprisal come from Iran ’ s own forces rather than a militia somewhere .
Wanting their fingerprints on the attack is their way of signaling how eager they are for revenge .
Not a great mindset for future diplomacy .
More from the AP : Iran ’ s parliament passed a bill this morning designating all U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” presumably making them fair game for retaliation .
Certainly things are going to get worse before they get better .
Two points contra Paul , though .
One : It may be that Soleimani was a figure of such sinister cunning that eliminating him is worth the long-term setback to U.S.-Iran diplomacy .
The historical parallel would be Reinhard Heydrich .
He was killed knowing there ’ d be terrible reprisals for his assassination but his value to the Third Reich was such that it was worth bearing that cost in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Paul assumes in the clip that the Quds Force will go forward from here without missing a beat , but that may not be true .
And even if it is true short-term , Trump ’ s willingness to cut off the head of Iran ’ s military will sober them up about the potential costs of future attacks on U.S. interests .
Iran needs to retaliate for Soleimani ’ s death in order to show it won ’ t be pushed around but whether it will maintain provocations against the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it used to is an open question .
Two : Paul is grim in the interview about the radicalizing effect killing Soleimani might have on Iranian moderates , fearing a “ rally around the flag ” effect as the country grieves its fallen hero , but that ’ s also an open question .
How many Iranian moderates are actually mourning Soleimani , whose forces were also responsible for killing Iranian protesters ?
Of those who are mourning , how many genuinely feel grief and how many are going through the motions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hardliners at the top of the regime ?
In lieu of an exit question , read this piece by Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad scolding western media for being so credulous about the grand displays of mourning in Iran over the last few days .
“ Remember all the articles that predicted how Iranians were going to unite in resistance to President Trump ’ s sanctions ?
” she asks .
“ The same analysts who missed November ’ s protests are now predicting Iranians will rally around the flag.
” So is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how careful Paul is , like Tucker Carlson , not to lay blame for targeting Soleimani on the man who actually gave the order to kill him .
In a separate interview yesterday , he went so far as to say of the Soleimani operation , “ I think that , basically , even though he let John Bolton go , this is John Bolton .
John Bolton is clapping and jumping up and down and rubbing his hands together , because this is what he wanted , to take a dramatic action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders.
” We could end up invading Iran and paleocon Trump cronies will still be on TV yammering about the now-retired Bolton , the deep state , and whoever else they need to in order to shift blame to “ the establishment.
” How clever the neocons are to have duped the great nationalist hope into starting a war !

This was my instant reaction on Thursday night too after the news broke — not the “I hate this” part but bafflement that Trump would wreck any chance of diplomacy with Iran after he’d seemed so eager to renegotiate the Obama nuclear deal. The irony of his Iran policy is that although he’s been much more confrontational with Iran than O was, backing away from the JCPOA and reimplementing punishing sanctions, it was clearly with an eye to bringing them to the bargaining table. I think Trump imagined that Iran diplomacy might track with how the first two years of his North Korea diplomacy played out. There’d be some initial belligerent posturing by both sides to signal toughness and resolve, then suddenly a surprise detente capped by an historic presidential summit. Ideally a new nuclear deal would be signed (“the best, most beautiful nuclear deal ever, much better than Obama’s, believe me”) and a gesture towards reestablishing permanent diplomatic relations would be made.
In fact, it may actually be that the Iranians stood a better chance of striking a grand bargain involving formal U.S. recognition of the regime with Trump than they did with O. For Obama, making a deal like that would have drawn scorching criticism from righties that he’d sold out the Iranian people by legitimizing the terrorist government that’s holding them captive. It would have been treated as the supreme example of his weakness and inclination towards appeasement. Whereas if Trump would have done the same thing, no one would have said jack. And the punchline is, Tehran likely wouldn’t have needed to make many concessions on the nuclear deal to satisfy Trump. The sort of minor tweaks that turned NAFTA into the USMCA and handed the president a political victory probably would have been enough.
But they refused to blink by agreeing to talk until Trump blinked first by lifting the sanctions. And Trump refused to blink by lifting the sanctions until Iran blinked first by agreeing to talk. That was the staring contest we were stuck in, until Iranian rockets killed a U.S. contractor before New Year’s and Iranian militias descended upon the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Then Trump whacked Soleimani and now here we are, with diplomacy seemingly gone for good.
Paul, a former informal Trump envoy to Iran, makes an effective case in the clip below that this was a major miscalculation, mainly because of how far it set back diplomatic relations. But his argument goes further: If we’re worried about Iran attacking the U.S., he asks, why would we hit them in a way that doesn’t fundamentally affect their ability to attack us but does increase their desire to do so? The reporting circulating today bears out that worry:
In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday. It was a startling departure for the Iranian leadership. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Tehran had almost always cloaked its attacks behind the actions of proxies it had cultivated around the region. But in the fury generated by the killing of the military commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a close ally and personal friend of the supreme leader, the ayatollah was willing to cast aside those traditional cautions.
A “direct and proportional” attack presumably would involve the assassination of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or some officer of that caliber, not blowing up American troops stationed at a base in Iraq, but the latter is more likely than the former. The more significant detail, though, is Khamenei allegedly insisting that the reprisal come from Iran’s own forces rather than a militia somewhere. Wanting their fingerprints on the attack is their way of signaling how eager they are for revenge. Not a great mindset for future diplomacy. More from the AP:
According to a report on Tuesday by the semi-official Tasnim news agency, Iran has worked up 13 sets of plans to avenge Soleimani’s death. The report quoted Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, as saying that even the weakest among them would be a “historic nightmare” for the U.S. He declined to elaborate, “If the U.S. troops do not leave our region voluntarily and upright, we will do something to carry their bodies horizontally out,” Shamkhani said.
Iran’s parliament passed a bill this morning designating all U.S. troops and Pentagon employees as “terrorists,” presumably making them fair game for retaliation. Certainly things are going to get worse before they get better.
Two points contra Paul, though. One: It may be that Soleimani was a figure of such sinister cunning that eliminating him is worth the long-term setback to U.S.-Iran diplomacy. The historical parallel would be Reinhard Heydrich. He was killed knowing there’d be terrible reprisals for his assassination but his value to the Third Reich was such that it was worth bearing that cost in order to deprive them of the asset. Paul assumes in the clip that the Quds Force will go forward from here without missing a beat, but that may not be true. And even if it is true short-term, Trump’s willingness to cut off the head of Iran’s military will sober them up about the potential costs of future attacks on U.S. interests. Iran needs to retaliate for Soleimani’s death in order to show it won’t be pushed around but whether it will maintain provocations against the United States indefinitely at the same clip that it used to is an open question.
Two: Paul is grim in the interview about the radicalizing effect killing Soleimani might have on Iranian moderates, fearing a “rally around the flag” effect as the country grieves its fallen hero, but that’s also an open question. How many Iranian moderates are actually mourning Soleimani, whose forces were also responsible for killing Iranian protesters? Of those who are mourning, how many genuinely feel grief and how many are going through the motions in order not to attract unfavorable attention from the hardliners at the top of the regime? In lieu of an exit question, read this piece by Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad scolding western media for being so credulous about the grand displays of mourning in Iran over the last few days. “Remember all the articles that predicted how Iranians were going to unite in resistance to President Trump’s sanctions?” she asks. “The same analysts who missed November’s protests are now predicting Iranians will rally around the flag.” So is Rand.
One last thing. Note how careful Paul is, like Tucker Carlson, not to lay blame for targeting Soleimani on the man who actually gave the order to kill him. In a separate interview yesterday, he went so far as to say of the Soleimani operation, “I think that, basically, even though he let John Bolton go, this is John Bolton. John Bolton is clapping and jumping up and down and rubbing his hands together, because this is what he wanted, to take a dramatic action, to kill one of their main leaders.” We could end up invading Iran and paleocon Trump cronies will still be on TV yammering about the now-retired Bolton, the deep state, and whoever else they need to in order to shift blame to “the establishment.” How clever the neocons are to have duped the great nationalist hope into starting a war!


hotair--2020-01-07--Grassley: Congress about to hand Trump major trade victory before SOTU speech

Will Donald Trump make a triumphant entrance to a joint session of Congress to hail his new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada ?
And will that be before or after he gets acquitted in an impeachment trial ?
Yes , says Chuck Grassley to all of the above .
Speaking just prior to a committee vote on the USMCA , the Finance Committee chair said Trump could have USMCA completed by the end of the week , or the end of the month at the latest : Either date would put the approval before Trump ’ s scheduled State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That will make things a bit awkward for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , who will have to offer Trump full pomp and circumstance for his address to the joint session .
Trump will no doubt use the occasion to remind voters that he came to Washington to make deals , while Democrats seem obsessed with refighting the 2016 election instead .
After Grassley ’ s remarks , the Senate Finance Committee passed the final mark-up by a wide margin : The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday approved President Trump ’ s U.S.-Mexico-Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 25-3 , setting up the deal ’ s eventual passage through Congress .
The full Senate is expected to vote on the deal later this month , giving Trump a long-sought policy victory in an election year .
“ I ’ m proud of the hard work of many individuals that made it possible to achieve a strong agreement and a bill that could garner broad support , ” said Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley , an Iowa Republican .
“ The bill before us today has something in it for everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we can say that.
” That ’ s not the only good news on the trade front , either .
Earlier today the BEA announced that the trade deficit had declined again in November , thanks to lower imports and an increase of exports : The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced today that the goods and services deficit was $ 43.1 billion in November , down $ 3.9 billion from $ 46.9 billion in October , revised .
November exports were $ 208.6 billion , $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November imports were $ 251.7 billion , $ 2.5 billion less than October imports .
The November decrease in the goods and services deficit reflected a decrease in the goods deficit of $ 3.9 billion to $ 63.9 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of less than $ 0.1 billion to $ 20.8 billion .
Year-to-date , the goods and services deficit decreased $ 3.9 billion , or 0.7 percent , from the same period in 2018 .
Exports decreased less than $ 0.1 billion or less than 0.1 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution notes that a similar December result would provide the first year-on-year deficit decline in six years .
That might not be known before the State of the Union speech , but one can expect that Trump will be talking up that possibility while Democrats choose carefully how to react to it .
Trump has other issues , of course , and trade policy isn ’ t dominating the headlines .
Perhaps once all of the impeachment drama concludes , it might .

Will Donald Trump make a triumphant entrance to a joint session of Congress to hail his new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada? And will that be before or after he gets acquitted in an impeachment trial? Yes, says Chuck Grassley to all of the above. Speaking just prior to a committee vote on the USMCA, the Finance Committee chair said Trump could have USMCA completed by the end of the week, or the end of the month at the latest:
“It’s going to be overwhelmingly approved,” Sen. Charles Grassley says about the USMCA trade deal. “It’s very bipartisan.” https://t.co/swOlAos9Jq pic.twitter.com/tFzZ01pVqO — CNBC (@CNBC) January 7, 2020
Either date would put the approval before Trump’s scheduled State of the Union speech on February 4th. That will make things a bit awkward for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will have to offer Trump full pomp and circumstance for his address to the joint session. Trump will no doubt use the occasion to remind voters that he came to Washington to make deals, while Democrats seem obsessed with refighting the 2016 election instead.
After Grassley’s remarks, the Senate Finance Committee passed the final mark-up by a wide margin:
The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday approved President Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade with a bipartisan vote of 25-3, setting up the deal’s eventual passage through Congress. The full Senate is expected to vote on the deal later this month, giving Trump a long-sought policy victory in an election year. “I’m proud of the hard work of many individuals that made it possible to achieve a strong agreement and a bill that could garner broad support,” said Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican. “The bill before us today has something in it for everyone, and it’s not often that we can say that.”
That’s not the only good news on the trade front, either. Earlier today the BEA announced that the trade deficit had declined again in November, thanks to lower imports and an increase of exports:
The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced today that the goods and services deficit was $43.1 billion in November, down $3.9 billion from $46.9 billion in October, revised. November exports were $208.6 billion, $1.4 billion more than October exports. November imports were $251.7 billion, $2.5 billion less than October imports. The November decrease in the goods and services deficit reflected a decrease in the goods deficit of $3.9 billion to $63.9 billion and a decrease in the services surplus of less than $0.1 billion to $20.8 billion. Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit decreased $3.9 billion, or 0.7 percent, from the same period in 2018. Exports decreased less than $0.1 billion or less than 0.1 percent. Imports decreased $3.9 billion or 0.1 percent.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution notes that a similar December result would provide the first year-on-year deficit decline in six years. That might not be known before the State of the Union speech, but one can expect that Trump will be talking up that possibility while Democrats choose carefully how to react to it.
Trump has other issues, of course, and trade policy isn’t dominating the headlines. Perhaps once all of the impeachment drama concludes, it might.


hotair--2020-01-07--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: McConnell's cred, media spread, WV red, Soleimani still dead, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Donald Trump may be unpredictable , but that didn ’ t work out too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll also talk about the media coverage of Soleimani , plus the latest on impeachment and the USMCA .
• What ’ s happening in West Virginia , and in the blue-wall states too ?
Salena Zito joins us to discuss her latest analysis of middle-America ’ s electorate , and what the Steelers will do in the playoffs .
( Spoiler : Watch them . )
• In response to the sudden room-temperature status of its Quds Force commander , Iran announced that it would end its work on the JCPOA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us that they refused verification steps to ensure they were in compliance anyway , so … Plus , we ’ ll get Jeff ’ s thoughts on the rise in anti-Semitic incidents in New York , and the sad links to some former allies that are driving it .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-01-07--Michael Moore tweets apology for death of Soleimani in Farsi

I thought we ’ d seen the nadir of knee-jerk anti-Americanism when Rose McGowan freaked out and begged Iran , “ Please don ’ t kill us.
” But it appears Michael Moore took that as inspiration to up his game .
Today he posted this tweet in Farsi which is directed at Ayatollah Khamenei : Google translate renders this as “ Sir , I deeply regret the violence on our behalf by a man that most Americans have never voted for .
Avoid power .
A sincere man , Michael Moore , an American citizen.
” Maybe the translation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet was poorly written in Persian to begin with : I have to include this response to Ali ’ s tweet just because it made me laugh .
In any case , Moore has been putting out tweets about Soleimani for several days , starting with this : This is a disgusting tweet , which presents ignorance as proof of innocence .
Most Americans can ’ t name a single member of the Supreme Court .
That doesn ’ t mean the Supreme Court is insignificant or has nothing to do with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Quds Force for 20 years and was leading Iranian attempts to kill American soldiers in Iraq through the use of roadside bombs known as EFPs .
Those efforts killed several hundred Americans and wounded many hundreds more .
That ’ s in addition to his more recent work murdering unarmed civilians in Iraq and Iran and even more recently staging the attack on the US Embassy in Iraq .
To present a picture of Soleimani smiling and suggest he ’ s no one Americans should know or care about is repulsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moore also release a podcast which he said was a direct appeal to the Ayatollah : You can listen to it here if you feel inclined .
The sycophantic tone of it would make Grima Wormtongue blush .
But I think Moore probably lost the Ayatollah ’ s attention about 5 minutes in when he gently explained why theocracy is a bad idea and doesn ’ t work .
Clearly none of this is meant for the Ayatollah so much as for Moore ’ s fans .
He does political stunts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is .
There ’ s clearly a big market for this sort of thing so he ’ ll keep selling his wares .
Still , it ’ s amazing that he ’ d rather cozy up to a theocratic dictator and the world ’ s leading state sponsor of terrorism than an American President .
It ’ s a long way to go to own the cons .

I thought we’d seen the nadir of knee-jerk anti-Americanism when Rose McGowan freaked out and begged Iran, “Please don’t kill us.” But it appears Michael Moore took that as inspiration to up his game. Today he posted this tweet in Farsi which is directed at Ayatollah Khamenei:
آقا ،
با ابراز تأسف عمیق از اقدامات خشونت آمیز به نام ما توسط مردی که اکثریت آمریکایی ها هرگز به آن رأی نداده اند ، من می خواهم که شما با خشونت جواب ندهید بلکه در عوض شجاعانه عمل کنید و به ما ، مردم آمریکا اجازه دهید از قدرت خودداری کنید. مردی خالصانه
مایکل مور
شهروند امریکایی — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 7, 2020
Google translate renders this as “Sir, I deeply regret the violence on our behalf by a man that most Americans have never voted for. Avoid power. A sincere man, Michael Moore, an American citizen.” Maybe the translation is off but Yashar Ali suggests the tweet was poorly written in Persian to begin with:
If you want to truly appeal to the Supreme Leader — which is impossible because he is deeply mistrustful of Westerners — I would start by having a native speaker/professional translator handle your translations. This is poorly written. https://t.co/Dl2yMXEmmk — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 7, 2020
I have to include this response to Ali’s tweet just because it made me laugh.
I don't think anyone can actually drag him. — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 7, 2020
In any case, Moore has been putting out tweets about Soleimani for several days, starting with this:
Hello fellow Americans. Do you know this man? Did you know he was your enemy? What? Never heard of him? By the end of today you will be trained to hate him. You will be glad Trump had him assassinated. You will do as you are told. Get ready to send your sons &daughters off 2 war pic.twitter.com/8CprNDMgTf — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 3, 2020
This is a disgusting tweet, which presents ignorance as proof of innocence. Most Americans can’t name a single member of the Supreme Court. That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is insignificant or has nothing to do with their lives. Soleimani has been in charge of the Quds Force for 20 years and was leading Iranian attempts to kill American soldiers in Iraq through the use of roadside bombs known as EFPs. Those efforts killed several hundred Americans and wounded many hundreds more. That’s in addition to his more recent work murdering unarmed civilians in Iraq and Iran and even more recently staging the attack on the US Embassy in Iraq. To present a picture of Soleimani smiling and suggest he’s no one Americans should know or care about is repulsive, but not surprising for Michael Moore.
Moore also release a podcast which he said was a direct appeal to the Ayatollah:
I have just sent the Ayatollah of Iran a personal appeal asking him not to respond to our assassination of his top General with violence of any kind, but rather let me & millions of Americans fix this peacefully. Apple:https://t.co/yQ7JTAHqw8 Spotify:https://t.co/a9vUxmWc50 — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 5, 2020
You can listen to it here if you feel inclined. The sycophantic tone of it would make Grima Wormtongue blush. But I think Moore probably lost the Ayatollah’s attention about 5 minutes in when he gently explained why theocracy is a bad idea and doesn’t work.
Clearly none of this is meant for the Ayatollah so much as for Moore’s fans. He does political stunts for a living and that’s what this is. There’s clearly a big market for this sort of thing so he’ll keep selling his wares. Still, it’s amazing that he’d rather cozy up to a theocratic dictator and the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism than an American President. It’s a long way to go to own the cons.


hotair--2020-01-07--New York bleeds more population than any other state... again

We ’ ve covered any number of stories about New York over the past couple of years that should provide a reason for sensible people to flee the state as fast as their feet can carry them .
Well , according to the data released by the Census Bureau yesterday , I wasn ’ t the only one taking notice .
The Empire State experienced the largest net population loss in America in 2019 , more than offsetting new births ( which are also declining ) and immigration of all types .
Considering the way the state is being run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to this as being the new normal .
( CBS New York ) As the old song goes , “ if you can make it here , you can make it anywhere.
” Unfortunately for New York , more people are choosing to leave the Big Apple and go “ anywhere ” but here .
According to U.S. Census data released Monday , people are leaving New York at a faster rate than nearly any other state in the nation .
For the fourth straight year , the state ’ s population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go elsewhere outpaced the number of births , new residents moving in , and people immigrating to the Empire State .
The CBS article specifically avoids any speculation as to what ’ s driving the exodus , but this phenomenon can probably be attributed to three primary factors .
The first is taxes .
They keep going up with people not being able to notice any marked improvement in services and conditions .
This effect was keenly felt among the most wealthy .
Millionaires ( and billionaires ) have been packing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump being among the most recent .
That factor became a larger concern after the 2017 tax cuts which capped the State and Local Tax ( SALT ) deduction .
This didn ’ t affect lower-income and middle-class workers noticeably , but it did produce a significant loss for those earning one million dollars or more .
This obviously represents a much smaller percentage of the total emigration , but they are also people who pack a lot of punch in terms of what they pour into the economy .
The second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place by the Democrats who control the entire state government and that of New York City .
This produces a variety of very real ills experienced by New Yorkers .
The Governor ’ s moratorium on fracking prevented upstate landowners from leasing their property for natural gas drilling .
They had to sit and watch as their neighbors to the south in Pennsylvania cleaned up on drilling leases .
At the same time , jobs were evaporating , particularly in New York City , after the minimum wage hikes went through .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parade of gun control laws continued to erode the rights of lawful gun owners .
Anything that can be regulated will be regulated .
And finally , there are the woke laws such as the new criminal justice reform bill we ’ ve discussed here previously .
Criminals are coddled and dumped back on the streets while the police are treated with disrespect and scorn by their own governmental leaders .
People feel less safe .
Combined with the other factors I listed , this makes for a toxic combination that has people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will lose yet another congressional seat after the 2020 census , with the possibility of two seats not being out of the question .
Meanwhile , states with lower taxes and more sensible laws and regulations like Florida and Texas are gaining population at a steady clip and will gain seats .
And New York has nobody to blame but the voters who keep electing the same gangs of Democrats who have brought this situation down on their heads .

We’ve covered any number of stories about New York over the past couple of years that should provide a reason for sensible people to flee the state as fast as their feet can carry them. Well, according to the data released by the Census Bureau yesterday, I wasn’t the only one taking notice. The Empire State experienced the largest net population loss in America in 2019, more than offsetting new births (which are also declining) and immigration of all types. Considering the way the state is being run these days, they should probably get used to this as being the new normal. (CBS New York)
As the old song goes, “if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.” Unfortunately for New York, more people are choosing to leave the Big Apple and go “anywhere” but here. According to U.S. Census data released Monday, people are leaving New York at a faster rate than nearly any other state in the nation. For the fourth straight year, the state’s population decreased as the number of residents choosing to go elsewhere outpaced the number of births, new residents moving in, and people immigrating to the Empire State.
The CBS article specifically avoids any speculation as to what’s driving the exodus, but this phenomenon can probably be attributed to three primary factors. The first is taxes. They keep going up with people not being able to notice any marked improvement in services and conditions. This effect was keenly felt among the most wealthy. Millionaires (and billionaires) have been packing their bags and leaving, with someone named Donald Trump being among the most recent.
That factor became a larger concern after the 2017 tax cuts which capped the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. This didn’t affect lower-income and middle-class workers noticeably, but it did produce a significant loss for those earning one million dollars or more. This obviously represents a much smaller percentage of the total emigration, but they are also people who pack a lot of punch in terms of what they pour into the economy.
The second factor is the burdensome regulatory environment put in place by the Democrats who control the entire state government and that of New York City. This produces a variety of very real ills experienced by New Yorkers. The Governor’s moratorium on fracking prevented upstate landowners from leasing their property for natural gas drilling. They had to sit and watch as their neighbors to the south in Pennsylvania cleaned up on drilling leases.
At the same time, jobs were evaporating, particularly in New York City, after the minimum wage hikes went through. On top of that, an endless parade of gun control laws continued to erode the rights of lawful gun owners. Anything that can be regulated will be regulated.
And finally, there are the woke laws such as the new criminal justice reform bill we’ve discussed here previously. Criminals are coddled and dumped back on the streets while the police are treated with disrespect and scorn by their own governmental leaders. People feel less safe. Combined with the other factors I listed, this makes for a toxic combination that has people looking toward the exits.
New York will lose yet another congressional seat after the 2020 census, with the possibility of two seats not being out of the question. Meanwhile, states with lower taxes and more sensible laws and regulations like Florida and Texas are gaining population at a steady clip and will gain seats. And New York has nobody to blame but the voters who keep electing the same gangs of Democrats who have brought this situation down on their heads.


hotair--2020-01-07--Breaking: McConnell readying vote on 1999 Senate trial rules

This didn ’ t take long , did it ?
Almost as soon as Mitch McConnell got past the 51st vote to use the rules from Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial for Donald Trump ’ s , he moved to seal the victory : Senate Republican leaders are preparing to move forward on a set of impeachment trial rules without Democratic support .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the verge of having sufficient backing in his 53-member caucus to pass a blueprint for the trial that leaves the question of seeking witnesses and documents until after opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators .
That framework would mirror the contours of President Bill Clinton ’ s trial and ignore Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ’ s demands for witnesses and new evidence .
No final decision has been made , but in a brief interview , McConnell said he would address the possibility of spurning Democrats on Tuesday afternoon .
The Washington Post confirms that McConnell has readied his caucus for the vote : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues during a closed-door lunch that he has the votes to begin President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening arguments and questions from senators , and with no deal on witnesses .
The vote to start the trial would be held after the House sends over the articles of impeachment .
… Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) of being “ contemptuous of the American people ” Tuesday as tensions flared over the continuing impasse on President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Looks like the John Bolton announcement was a bust for Chuck Schumer .
Yesterday , Schumer insisted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up front would amount to a “ cover up , ” but Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski didn ’ t take the bait .
Instead , they both noted that the 1999 process allowed for the question of witnesses to be taken up later rather than up front .
That pretty much ended Schumer ’ s gambit , but Mitt Romney drove a stake through it anyway today : With that , McConnell likely has at least 53 votes for his rules .
Now that the Senate GOP caucus has lined up fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes should turn toward two of Schumer ’ s caucus — Joe Manchin and Doug Jones .
Jones faces an almost impossible re-election bid in Alabama this year , so whatever he does isn ’ t likely to bring him to the brink of victory .
Jumping on Schumer ’ s rules bandwagon is likely to make it a lot worse , however , especially with Schumer ’ s enthusiasm for the same set of rules in 1999 so prominently on the record .
Manchin has less to lose in West Virginia as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again until 2024 .
However , he ’ s also more temperamentally suited for the argument that the unanimous 1999 rules would be the fairest approach , and he has no great reason to play partisan games with the impeachment either .
McConnell had the better argument both before and after Bolton ’ s statement , and Manchin might take this opportunity to burnish his reputation as a statesman among partisans .
This isn ’ t Manchin ’ s fight anyway .
Update : Salena Zito has some data that might make Manchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak : According to numbers posted by the West Virginia secretary of state ’ s office , the Democratic Party has lost 83,119 voters since the 2016 presidential election , while Republican registrations increased by 13,325 .
This has considerably narrowed the gap in registration in a once heavily Democratic state .
Democrats now have 488,148 voters and the Republicans 411,872 .
No one would argue seriously that West Virginia , where Trump got more than two-thirds of the vote , would ever be in play for the Democrats in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evolution of these voters aren ’ t just limited to within the state ’ s boundaries .
In many ways , especially in their connection to place and their distrust of large government , political , and entertainment institutions , these voters are very similar to voters in rural , suburban , and exurban voters in the swing states of Michigan , Pennsylvania , Ohio , and Wisconsin .

This didn’t take long, did it? Almost as soon as Mitch McConnell got past the 51st vote to use the rules from Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial for Donald Trump’s, he moved to seal the victory:
Senate Republican leaders are preparing to move forward on a set of impeachment trial rules without Democratic support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the verge of having sufficient backing in his 53-member caucus to pass a blueprint for the trial that leaves the question of seeking witnesses and documents until after opening arguments are made, according to multiple senators. That framework would mirror the contours of President Bill Clinton’s trial and ignore Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s demands for witnesses and new evidence. No final decision has been made, but in a brief interview, McConnell said he would address the possibility of spurning Democrats on Tuesday afternoon.
The Washington Post confirms that McConnell has readied his caucus for the vote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues during a closed-door lunch that he has the votes to begin President Trump’s impeachment trial with just opening arguments and questions from senators, and with no deal on witnesses. The vote to start the trial would be held after the House sends over the articles of impeachment. … Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of being “contemptuous of the American people” Tuesday as tensions flared over the continuing impasse on President Trump’s impeachment trial.
Looks like the John Bolton announcement was a bust for Chuck Schumer. Yesterday, Schumer insisted that any failure to invite or subpoena Bolton up front would amount to a “cover up,” but Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski didn’t take the bait. Instead, they both noted that the 1999 process allowed for the question of witnesses to be taken up later rather than up front.
That pretty much ended Schumer’s gambit, but Mitt Romney drove a stake through it anyway today:
Romney also said he‘s “comfortable with the Clinton approach,” which is to hear opening arguments and then decide on witnesses later – the same position as McConnell. He added he does want to hear from John Bolton and potentially others as well. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 7, 2020
With that, McConnell likely has at least 53 votes for his rules. Now that the Senate GOP caucus has lined up fully behind McConnell and the 1999 rules, eyes should turn toward two of Schumer’s caucus — Joe Manchin and Doug Jones. Jones faces an almost impossible re-election bid in Alabama this year, so whatever he does isn’t likely to bring him to the brink of victory. Jumping on Schumer’s rules bandwagon is likely to make it a lot worse, however, especially with Schumer’s enthusiasm for the same set of rules in 1999 so prominently on the record.
Manchin has less to lose in West Virginia as he doesn’t face the voters again until 2024. However, he’s also more temperamentally suited for the argument that the unanimous 1999 rules would be the fairest approach, and he has no great reason to play partisan games with the impeachment either. McConnell had the better argument both before and after Bolton’s statement, and Manchin might take this opportunity to burnish his reputation as a statesman among partisans. This isn’t Manchin’s fight anyway.
Update: Salena Zito has some data that might make Manchin even more “statesmanlike,” so to speak:


hotair--2020-01-07--1619 Project editor responds to criticism from the Atlantic (Update)

Nikole Hannah-Jones , the lead author and editor of the NY Times ’ 1619 Project , has responded to the Atlantic piece published yesterday .
Given the way she and the NY Times have shrugged off criticism from professional historians in the past few weeks , it probably won ’ t surprise you that she is dismissing a fellow journalist ’ s critique out of hand .
Isn ’ t that sort of the nature of ideals ?
They present an idealized view of what a messy reality could or should be .
Hannah-Jones doesn ’ t accuse author Conor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his “ discomfort ” shows he has unresolved issues which he needs to “ contemplate.
” This sounds a lot like the white fragility argument which frames push back from whites as proof that further lessons are needed .
It ’ s a convenient argument which renders all disagreement suspect from the outset ( either proof of latent racism or false consciousness ) .
As I wrote yesterday , the argument Friedersdorf was making was that the 1619 Project portrays American history primarily as story about racial conflict between blacks and whites at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas and broader desire for freedom and self-determination that were proclaimed at the nation ’ s founding .
To make this case , the Project portrayed the Revolutionary War as significantly motivated by a desire to avoid freeing slaves .
That take on the Revolution is one of the major reasons Pulitzer Prize winning historian Gordon Wood has criticized the Project .
From Wood ’ s response to the NY Times : I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and can not accept the view that “ one of the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.
” I don ’ t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves .
No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776 .
If southerners were concerned about losing their slaves , why didn ’ t they make efforts to ally with the slaveholding planters in the British West Indies ?
Perhaps some southern slaveholders were alarmed by news of the Somerset decision , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that .
Besides , that decision was not known in the colonies until the fall of 1772 and by that date the colonists were well along in their drive to independence .
Remember , it all started in 1765 with the Stamp Act .
The same is true of Dunmore ’ s proclamation of 1775 .
It may have tipped the scales for some hesitant Virginia planters , but by then the revolutionary movement was already well along in Virginia .
There is no evidence in 1776 of a rising movement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1619 Project erroneously asserts , nor is there any evidence the British government was eager to do so .
But even if either were the case , ending the Atlantic slave trade would have been welcomed by the Virginia planters , who already had more slaves than they needed .
Indeed , the Virginians in the years following independence took the lead in moving to abolish the despicable international slave trade .
So when Hannah-Jones says the 1619 Project is about “ assessing the legacy of racialized chattel slavery ” I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit in order to sidestep Friedersdorf ’ s point .
I haven ’ t seen Gordon Wood or anyone object to 1619 on the grounds that it reassesses the importance of slavery in American history .
On the contrary it has been praised by most of the critics for doing so ( including Friedersdorf ) .
What Fridersdorf objected to was the idea that 1619 is an equal or better starting point for American history .
As Hannah-Jones wrote in her essay , “ the year 1619 is as important to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote , “ Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written.
” Here ’ s her take on the ideals in the Declaration : In June 1776 , Thomas Jefferson sat at his portable writing desk in a rented room in Philadelphia and penned these words : “ We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fierce assertion of the fundamental and natural rights of humankind to freedom and self-governance has defined our global reputation as a land of liberty .
As Jefferson composed his inspiring words , however , a teenage boy who would enjoy none of those rights and liberties waited nearby to serve at his master ’ s beck and call .
His name was Robert Hemings , and he was the half brother of Jefferson ’ s wife , born to Martha Jefferson ’ s father and a woman he owned .
It was common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children in slavery .
Jefferson had chosen Hemings , from among about 130 enslaved people that worked on the forced-labor camp he called Monticello , to accompany him to Philadelphia and ensure his every comfort as he drafted the text making the case for a new democratic republic based on the individual rights of men .
It has been pointed out elsewhere but it ’ s worth repeating that there ’ s a difference between saying the nation ( Jefferson in particular ) wasn ’ t living up to the ideals and saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former is undeniably true and the latter is not a historical claim but something else .
That ’ s what I took Friedersdorf to be saying .
The founding of America in 1776 was based on ideals that were worthy and important and true , even if America wasn ’ t true to them .
And because of that , 1776 is both the actual and moral starting point of a nation that still had a long , long way to go to realize those ideals .
Downplaying or supplanting that starting point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minimum , the significance of 1776 and the Declaration is something Americans ought to be able to discuss without being told , in essence , to shut up and quietly contemplate their discomfort .
Update : Hannah-Jones retweeted this claim which seems pretty clearly aimed at Friedersdorf and the Atlantic .
Again , not quite calling her opponents racist but if history was an “ aggressively racist enterprise ” and critics are guilty of trying to “ reasssert the traditional status quo ” …you can connect the dots .
Also worth noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to view the Atlantic piece as an attempted “ takedown.
” But the piece was a critique not an attempt to bash indiscriminately .
Update : The ongoing argument over this is interesting .
The historian whose tweet I included above was involved in a discussion over her critique of the project ( she was one of the historians who was interviewed by the World Socialist Website ) .
This morning she ’ s being chided for allowing her criticism to fall into the hands of dreaded conservatives .
And here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed others to overplay your critique in order to serve to discredit the project as a whole ” The problem is “ The Right writ large ” which is seizing , absolutely seizing , on the criticisms .
And here ’ s Hannah-Jones tagging on to this argument : If the problem is that you believe criticism is being overblown ( and Hannah-Jones clearly believes that to be the case ) make that argument .
But this person whose argument she ’ s tagging on to seems to be arguing it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand the right a cudgel to use against the Project .
I think it ’ s already clear that this is precisely why some historians who agree with the critics have remained silent or refused to add their voices to the letter .
And yet , elsewhere Hannah-Jones is claiming vindication from the fact that so few signed the letter .
The question isn ’ t how many but why ?
As this entire post shows , the critics are taking a pounding .
It ’ s no surprise many don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Update : There was apparently another , not very nice response to Friedersdorf from Hannah-Jones which has since been deleted .
If I come across a screenshot I ’ ll post it .

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead author and editor of the NY Times’ 1619 Project, has responded to the Atlantic piece published yesterday. Given the way she and the NY Times have shrugged off criticism from professional historians in the past few weeks, it probably won’t surprise you that she is dismissing a fellow journalist’s critique out of hand.
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1214540697216397315
Isn’t that sort of the nature of ideals? They present an idealized view of what a messy reality could or should be. Hannah-Jones doesn’t accuse author Conor Friedersdorf of racism but she insinuates that his “discomfort” shows he has unresolved issues which he needs to “contemplate.”
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1214541902458032128
This sounds a lot like the white fragility argument which frames push back from whites as proof that further lessons are needed. It’s a convenient argument which renders all disagreement suspect from the outset (either proof of latent racism or false consciousness).
As I wrote yesterday, the argument Friedersdorf was making was that the 1619 Project portrays American history primarily as story about racial conflict between blacks and whites at the expense of focusing on the universal ideas and broader desire for freedom and self-determination that were proclaimed at the nation’s founding. To make this case, the Project portrayed the Revolutionary War as significantly motivated by a desire to avoid freeing slaves. That take on the Revolution is one of the major reasons Pulitzer Prize winning historian Gordon Wood has criticized the Project. From Wood’s response to the NY Times:
I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot accept the view that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves. No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776. If southerners were concerned about losing their slaves, why didn’t they make efforts to ally with the slaveholding planters in the British West Indies? Perhaps some southern slaveholders were alarmed by news of the Somerset decision, but we don’t have any evidence of that. Besides, that decision was not known in the colonies until the fall of 1772 and by that date the colonists were well along in their drive to independence. Remember, it all started in 1765 with the Stamp Act. The same is true of Dunmore’s proclamation of 1775. It may have tipped the scales for some hesitant Virginia planters, but by then the revolutionary movement was already well along in Virginia. There is no evidence in 1776 of a rising movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade, as the 1619 Project erroneously asserts, nor is there any evidence the British government was eager to do so. But even if either were the case, ending the Atlantic slave trade would have been welcomed by the Virginia planters, who already had more slaves than they needed. Indeed, the Virginians in the years following independence took the lead in moving to abolish the despicable international slave trade.
So when Hannah-Jones says the 1619 Project is about “assessing the legacy of racialized chattel slavery” I think she’s downplaying her own ambition a bit in order to sidestep Friedersdorf’s point. I haven’t seen Gordon Wood or anyone object to 1619 on the grounds that it reassesses the importance of slavery in American history. On the contrary it has been praised by most of the critics for doing so (including Friedersdorf). What Fridersdorf objected to was the idea that 1619 is an equal or better starting point for American history.
As Hannah-Jones wrote in her essay, “the year 1619 is as important to the American story as 1776.” She also wrote, “Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written.” Here’s her take on the ideals in the Declaration:
In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson sat at his portable writing desk in a rented room in Philadelphia and penned these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” For the last 243 years, this fierce assertion of the fundamental and natural rights of humankind to freedom and self-governance has defined our global reputation as a land of liberty. As Jefferson composed his inspiring words, however, a teenage boy who would enjoy none of those rights and liberties waited nearby to serve at his master’s beck and call. His name was Robert Hemings, and he was the half brother of Jefferson’s wife, born to Martha Jefferson’s father and a woman he owned. It was common for white enslavers to keep their half-black children in slavery. Jefferson had chosen Hemings, from among about 130 enslaved people that worked on the forced-labor camp he called Monticello, to accompany him to Philadelphia and ensure his every comfort as he drafted the text making the case for a new democratic republic based on the individual rights of men.
It has been pointed out elsewhere but it’s worth repeating that there’s a difference between saying the nation (Jefferson in particular) wasn’t living up to the ideals and saying the ideals themselves were false. The former is undeniably true and the latter is not a historical claim but something else.
That’s what I took Friedersdorf to be saying. The founding of America in 1776 was based on ideals that were worthy and important and true, even if America wasn’t true to them. And because of that, 1776 is both the actual and moral starting point of a nation that still had a long, long way to go to realize those ideals. Downplaying or supplanting that starting point is not a small thing. At a minimum, the significance of 1776 and the Declaration is something Americans ought to be able to discuss without being told, in essence, to shut up and quietly contemplate their discomfort.
Update: Hannah-Jones retweeted this claim which seems pretty clearly aimed at Friedersdorf and the Atlantic. Again, not quite calling her opponents racist but if history was an “aggressively racist enterprise” and critics are guilty of trying to “reasssert the traditional status quo”…you can connect the dots.
Less influential publications that would never have thought of such a project on their own are desperate to bring down/steal shine from #the1619Project – and to reassert the traditional status quo. — Brent Staples (@BrentNYT) January 7, 2020
Also worth noting that many circling the wagons around 1619 seems to view the Atlantic piece as an attempted “takedown.” But the piece was a critique not an attempt to bash indiscriminately.
Conor Friedersdorf offers a critical analysis of the #1619Project debate that reminds us of the incredible breadth of peoples served by America's founding principles without diminishing the brutality of conquest or romanticizing the Founding Fathers: https://t.co/YrTbSgjgGw — Victoria E. Bynum (@vikki_bynum) January 6, 2020
Update: The ongoing argument over this is interesting. The historian whose tweet I included above was involved in a discussion over her critique of the project (she was one of the historians who was interviewed by the World Socialist Website). This morning she’s being chided for allowing her criticism to fall into the hands of dreaded conservatives.
How would you separate the two? I mean, I'm a historian. Are you suggesting that my tweets are not based on my and others' historical research? — Victoria E. Bynum (@vikki_bynum) January 7, 2020
The letter reads as and has been widely reported as you 5 saying the 1619 project was incorrect. While in reality, the issue is that the lens that it uses does not include facts that you would prefer or describe them in a way you would. This is quite a different debate. — logoff15 (@logoff151) January 7, 2020
And here you have walked back some of those critiques. And in other spaces @nhannahjones has agreed that some claims were overbroad. — logoff15 (@logoff151) January 7, 2020
And here’s the problem: “you have allowed others to overplay your critique in order to serve to discredit the project as a whole”
Can you be specific? Who has overplayed my critique? And how? Asking in seriousness. — Victoria E. Bynum (@vikki_bynum) January 7, 2020
The problem is “The Right writ large” which is seizing, absolutely seizing, on the criticisms.
Are you suggesting I should withhold my critique because it will be used and even misused by others? I'm not a part of the right-wing media, but they have as much right to post their opinions as anyone else. — Victoria E. Bynum (@vikki_bynum) January 7, 2020
And here’s Hannah-Jones tagging on to this argument:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1214601765192122368
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1214605832555548678
If the problem is that you believe criticism is being overblown (and Hannah-Jones clearly believes that to be the case) make that argument. But this person whose argument she’s tagging on to seems to be arguing it would be better for critics to remain silent than hand the right a cudgel to use against the Project. I think it’s already clear that this is precisely why some historians who agree with the critics have remained silent or refused to add their voices to the letter.
In my colleague Adam Serwer’s recent article about five scholars who criticized the 1619 Project in a letter, he noted “a recurrent theme” among historians he spoke with who saw the letter but declined to sign it. “While they may have agreed with some of the factual objections in the letter or had other reservations of their own,” he wrote, “several told me they thought the letter was an unnecessary escalation.” Similarly, North told me the World Socialist Web Site’s editors contacted several historians who have factual critiques but fear the backlash from voicing them publicly. Insofar as such historians are refraining from public comment at all, they do a disservice to public discourse.
And yet, elsewhere Hannah-Jones is claiming vindication from the fact that so few signed the letter. The question isn’t how many but why? As this entire post shows, the critics are taking a pounding. It’s no surprise many don’t want to sign up for that.
Update: There was apparently another, not very nice response to Friedersdorf from Hannah-Jones which has since been deleted. If I come across a screenshot I’ll post it.
https://twitter.com/PhilWMagness/status/1214229001499230208


hotair--2020-01-07--NY man accused of burglary spree released with no bail. Guess what happened next

Now that New York State has “ reformed ” its criminal justice laws so that suspects are being immediately released without bail for a wide variety of crimes , these stories seem to be popping up on a daily basis .
In today ’ s edition of the Empire State ’ s version of Groundhog Day , we learn that a Long Island man got himself into a bit of trouble after committing what was described as a “ burglary spree ” at a local shopping mall .
Not being among the brightest of criminals , he was easily tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Year ’ s Eve , and arrested .
But under the new justice reform law , he couldn ’ t be held or made to pay bail for burglary so he was released .
Not even a full day later he was found to have burglarized yet another business establishment .
And the cycle continued .
( CBS New York ) Under New York ’ s new criminal justice reform law , a 22-year-old man accused of a burglary spree at a Long Island shopping center was released without having to post bail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Friday , that same man was back behind bars after police say he committed yet another burglary just hours after being set free .
Nassau County police say Gerard Conway broke into four stores on Dec. 29 .
The 22-year-old allegedly used a flower pot to smash the glass door of a Pizza Hut on Old Country Road .
After stealing the cash register , Nassau police say the burglar then broke into three more businesses at The Source Mall in Westbury .
Yep .
the second arrest resulted in another 3rd-degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a crime that can result in pre-trial detention or bail under the new law , so he was back out on the streets again in short order .
I just know some of you will faint from shock when you learn that , upon his release , Conway headed out and committed his fifth alleged burglary in four days , breaking into a Bagel Boss in Carle Place and stealing the cash registers .
The total amount of damage to five different businesses added up fast , costing far more than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to abscond with .
But under this insane new law , there was nothing the police or the courts could do .
Every time he was captured and charged , he had to be set loose on the community once again .
It ’ s not as if the cops don ’ t have more than enough to keep them busy in New York these days .
They need to be out monitoring the weekly F*** the Police marches in Brooklyn .
That ’ s when they ’ re not busy having people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with buckets of water while they try to arrest someone .
( Perps were released immediately without bail in both cases . )
Do you know what happens when you tell criminals that you ’ re not going to take their crimes seriously or “ abuse them ” with incarceration ?
They commit more crimes .
The fact that the powers that be in New York couldn ’ t figure this out in advance is mind-boggling .
Of course the property crime rates are going to go up .
It was inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens of the city and the business owners who pay the price for it .
The other question New York is facing is what ’ s going to happen with the NYPD .
I mean , how much longer are you going to keep on getting up every day , putting on your badge and hitting the streets if this is how the criminal element is going to be treated ?
At some point , many of them have to be thinking that it ’ s just not worth it anymore .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the state and look for a job in a state where law enforcement is still taken somewhat seriously .
Great job , New York .
You ’ re one step closer to Snake Plissken territory .

Now that New York State has “reformed” its criminal justice laws so that suspects are being immediately released without bail for a wide variety of crimes, these stories seem to be popping up on a daily basis. In today’s edition of the Empire State’s version of Groundhog Day, we learn that a Long Island man got himself into a bit of trouble after committing what was described as a “burglary spree” at a local shopping mall. Not being among the brightest of criminals, he was easily tracked down the next day, on New Year’s Eve, and arrested. But under the new justice reform law, he couldn’t be held or made to pay bail for burglary so he was released.
Not even a full day later he was found to have burglarized yet another business establishment. And the cycle continued. (CBS New York)
Under New York’s new criminal justice reform law, a 22-year-old man accused of a burglary spree at a Long Island shopping center was released without having to post bail on New Year’s Eve. On Friday, that same man was back behind bars after police say he committed yet another burglary just hours after being set free. Nassau County police say Gerard Conway broke into four stores on Dec. 29. The 22-year-old allegedly used a flower pot to smash the glass door of a Pizza Hut on Old Country Road. After stealing the cash register, Nassau police say the burglar then broke into three more businesses at The Source Mall in Westbury.
Yep. the second arrest resulted in another 3rd-degree burglary charge. But that’s not a crime that can result in pre-trial detention or bail under the new law, so he was back out on the streets again in short order.
I just know some of you will faint from shock when you learn that, upon his release, Conway headed out and committed his fifth alleged burglary in four days, breaking into a Bagel Boss in Carle Place and stealing the cash registers. The total amount of damage to five different businesses added up fast, costing far more than the small amount of money the thief managed to abscond with.
But under this insane new law, there was nothing the police or the courts could do. Every time he was captured and charged, he had to be set loose on the community once again. It’s not as if the cops don’t have more than enough to keep them busy in New York these days. They need to be out monitoring the weekly F*** the Police marches in Brooklyn. That’s when they’re not busy having people sucker punch them at intersections or douse them with buckets of water while they try to arrest someone. (Perps were released immediately without bail in both cases.)
Do you know what happens when you tell criminals that you’re not going to take their crimes seriously or “abuse them” with incarceration? They commit more crimes. The fact that the powers that be in New York couldn’t figure this out in advance is mind-boggling. Of course the property crime rates are going to go up. It was inevitable. And it’s the law-abiding citizens of the city and the business owners who pay the price for it.
The other question New York is facing is what’s going to happen with the NYPD. I mean, how much longer are you going to keep on getting up every day, putting on your badge and hitting the streets if this is how the criminal element is going to be treated? At some point, many of them have to be thinking that it’s just not worth it anymore. And then you either change careers or move out of the state and look for a job in a state where law enforcement is still taken somewhat seriously.
Great job, New York. You’re one step closer to Snake Plissken territory.


hotair--2020-01-07--Bernie: Soleimani strike reminds me of Putin assassinating dissidents, or something

Er … Qassem Soleimani was an American dissident ?
This is a peculiar way to double down on a bad argument , even for one of the more peculiar figures on the Left .
After Michael Bloomberg rebuked Bernie Sanders and others for calling the strike on the Iranian commander of the Quds force an “ assassination , ” Sanders defended himself on CNN , calling the strike “ in violation of international law.
” And once you start violating international law by taking out the man planning terrorist attacks American assets , it ’ s only a hop , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re herding Uighirs into concentration camps , Sanders tells a bemused Anderson Cooper .
And turning into … well , you know who : The clip doesn ’ t pick up the set-up for this question , so let ’ s include it in the transcript : COOPER : The — I ’ m wondering — you had made a statement about the killing of Soleimani , who , you know , everybody agrees was a killer , responsible for the deaths of many American forces , as well as many civilians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an assassination .
Michael Bloomberg , fellow presidential candidate , said that was , quote , an outrageous thing to say .
I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to that .
SANDERS : No , I think it was an assassination .
I think it was in violation of international law .
This guy was ( INAUDIBLE ) — was a bad news guy , but he was a ranking official of the Iranian government .
And you know what ?
Once you get into violating international law in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of bad people all over the world running governments .
Kim Jong-un in North Korea , not exactly a nice guy , responsible for the death , perhaps , of hundreds of thousands of people in his own country , to name one of many , you know ?
The president of China now has put a million people in — Muslims , into educational camps .
Some would call them concentration camps .
But once you start this business of a major country saying , hey , we have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re unleashing international anarchy .
… I mean , and all that Trump seems to be doing now is trying to break all kinds of international protocol , denying the foreign minister of Iran to speak before the United Nations , and really basically trying to lead us into another war , which I believe will be a disaster .
COOPER : If Soleimani was a non-state actor , not a general , an official , a high-ranking official in the Iranian government , would it be different in your mind ?
SANDERS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on these things , it might be .
But this guy is , you know , was , as bad as he was , an official of the Iranian government .
And you unleash — then if China does that , you know , if Russia does that , you know , Russia has been implicated under Putin with assassinating dissidents .
So once you ’ re in the business of assassination , you unleash some very , very terrible forces .
And what I ’ m seeing now in this world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions , more and more chaos , more and more instability .
And it is absolutely imperative that the United States Congress stand up , because , by the way , let us never forget that according to the constitution of the United States , on which some of us actually believe in and respect , it is Congress that has the responsibility for making war , not the president of the United States .
And that is why we have got to pass an authorization , legislation that makes it very clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to war without the authorization of the United States Congress , and also , I will work to make sure that he doesn ’ t have the money to do that .
It ’ s reasonable to ask whether the strike was a wise decision , strategically and tactically .
Previous presidents had decided it wasn ’ t wise to take out Soleimani ; this president chose differently .
However , it ’ s absolutely nuts to compare that to Putin assassinating dissidents abroad or to the genocidal projects in North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani wasn ’ t a dissident at all — he was a commander of forces that at the moment were actively engaged in an attack on a US embassy in Baghdad .
Soleimani had ordered or facilitated uncounted attacks on US forces throughout the region over the past few decades .
By any definition of the term , Soleimani waged war against the US , not the other way around , and the US had every legal right to treat him as a combatant .
That ’ s not an assassination — it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack by cutting off command and control of it .
Furthermore , as former Obama cabinet official Jeh Johnson made clear , Soleimani ’ s presence in Baghdad during the attack on the embassy means that the president didn ’ t need to get specific authorization from Congress to take that action .
The president has the authority to defend American territory during an attack , and a US embassy is legally and diplomatically American territory .
If President Bernie Sanders won ’ t defend American territory from attack , perhaps that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind .
HH : I do believe it is TDS , Senator Cornyn , because there is no other rational explanation for how many people could have gone so far off the roads .
Here is your current colleague , Bernie Sanders , with Anderson Cooper yesterday , cut number 13 : BS : I ’ m not a lawyer on these things .
It might be .
But this guy is , you know , was , as bad as he was , an official of the Iranian government .
And you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , you know , if Russia does that , you know , Russia has been implicated under Putin with assassinating dissidents .
HH : Stop right there .
Senator Cornyn , he is comparing our elimination of the leader of the Quds Force in the wake of the killing of Americans , and as you said , the Syrian genocide , with Putin using assassins in the United Kingdom and radioactive poison .
It ’ s absolutely dumbfounding to hear this .
JC : Well , I mean , I think Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States .
If he doesn ’ t believe that the Constitution compels the president , the commander-in-chief to defend the United States and American citizens and American troops abroad against terrorist actions like that led by Soleimani and the Iranian regime , then he ’ s just , he ’ s not qualified to be president of the United States .
Ya think ?
Let ’ s see if Joe Biden figures this out and takes Sanders on over these comments .
If not , then perhaps Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Er … Qassem Soleimani was an American dissident? This is a peculiar way to double down on a bad argument, even for one of the more peculiar figures on the Left. After Michael Bloomberg rebuked Bernie Sanders and others for calling the strike on the Iranian commander of the Quds force an “assassination,” Sanders defended himself on CNN, calling the strike “in violation of international law.” And once you start violating international law by taking out the man planning terrorist attacks American assets, it’s only a hop, skip, and a jump before you’re herding Uighirs into concentration camps, Sanders tells a bemused Anderson Cooper.
And turning into … well, you know who:
The clip doesn’t pick up the set-up for this question, so let’s include it in the transcript:
COOPER: The — I’m wondering — you had made a statement about the killing of Soleimani, who, you know, everybody agrees was a killer, responsible for the deaths of many American forces, as well as many civilians around the world. You called it an assassination. Michael Bloomberg, fellow presidential candidate, said that was, quote, an outrageous thing to say. I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to that. SANDERS: No, I think it was an assassination. I think it was in violation of international law. This guy was (INAUDIBLE) — was a bad news guy, but he was a ranking official of the Iranian government. And you know what? Once you get into violating international law in that sense, you can say there are a lot of bad people all over the world running governments. Kim Jong-un in North Korea, not exactly a nice guy, responsible for the death, perhaps, of hundreds of thousands of people in his own country, to name one of many, you know? The president of China now has put a million people in — Muslims, into educational camps. Some would call them concentration camps. But once you start this business of a major country saying, hey, we have the right to assassinate, then you’re unleashing international anarchy. … I mean, and all that Trump seems to be doing now is trying to break all kinds of international protocol, denying the foreign minister of Iran to speak before the United Nations, and really basically trying to lead us into another war, which I believe will be a disaster. COOPER: If Soleimani was a non-state actor, not a general, an official, a high-ranking official in the Iranian government, would it be different in your mind? SANDERS: I’m not a lawyer on these things, it might be. But this guy is, you know, was, as bad as he was, an official of the Iranian government. And you unleash — then if China does that, you know, if Russia does that, you know, Russia has been implicated under Putin with assassinating dissidents. So once you’re in the business of assassination, you unleash some very, very terrible forces. And what I’m seeing now in this world, as a result of Trump’s actions, more and more chaos, more and more instability. And it is absolutely imperative that the United States Congress stand up, because, by the way, let us never forget that according to the constitution of the United States, on which some of us actually believe in and respect, it is Congress that has the responsibility for making war, not the president of the United States. And that is why we have got to pass an authorization, legislation that makes it very clear that Trump does not have the right to go to war without the authorization of the United States Congress, and also, I will work to make sure that he doesn’t have the money to do that.
It’s reasonable to ask whether the strike was a wise decision, strategically and tactically. Previous presidents had decided it wasn’t wise to take out Soleimani; this president chose differently. However, it’s absolutely nuts to compare that to Putin assassinating dissidents abroad or to the genocidal projects in North Korea and China regarding internal dissidents. Soleimani wasn’t a dissident at all — he was a commander of forces that at the moment were actively engaged in an attack on a US embassy in Baghdad. Soleimani had ordered or facilitated uncounted attacks on US forces throughout the region over the past few decades. By any definition of the term, Soleimani waged war against the US, not the other way around, and the US had every legal right to treat him as a combatant.
That’s not an assassination — it’s a military response to an attack by cutting off command and control of it. Furthermore, as former Obama cabinet official Jeh Johnson made clear, Soleimani’s presence in Baghdad during the attack on the embassy means that the president didn’t need to get specific authorization from Congress to take that action. The president has the authority to defend American territory during an attack, and a US embassy is legally and diplomatically American territory. If President Bernie Sanders won’t defend American territory from attack, perhaps that’s something voters need to keep in mind.
Earlier today on The Hugh Hewitt Show, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called Sanders’ remarks disqualifying:
HH: I do believe it is TDS, Senator Cornyn, because there is no other rational explanation for how many people could have gone so far off the roads. Here is your current colleague, Bernie Sanders, with Anderson Cooper yesterday, cut number 13: BS: I’m not a lawyer on these things. It might be. But this guy is, you know, was, as bad as he was, an official of the Iranian government. And you unleash, then, if China does that, you know, if Russia does that, you know, Russia has been implicated under Putin with assassinating dissidents. HH: Stop right there. Senator Cornyn, he is comparing our elimination of the leader of the Quds Force in the wake of the killing of Americans, and as you said, the Syrian genocide, with Putin using assassins in the United Kingdom and radioactive poison. It’s absolutely dumbfounding to hear this. JC: Well, I mean, I think Bernie just disqualified himself again to be president of the United States. If he doesn’t believe that the Constitution compels the president, the commander-in-chief to defend the United States and American citizens and American troops abroad against terrorist actions like that led by Soleimani and the Iranian regime, then he’s just, he’s not qualified to be president of the United States.
Ya think? Let’s see if Joe Biden figures this out and takes Sanders on over these comments. If not, then perhaps Biden’s not qualified for the job either.


hotair--2020-01-07--Tucker Carlson on Soleimani intelligence: Since when do we trust the deep state?

The aftermath of the Soleimani strike is filled with unhappy subplots but a rare enjoyable one will be watching Fox ’ s 8 p.m. guy tussle with , well , pretty much everyone else on the network over whether aggression towards Iran is a good or bad thing .
Tucker is clear and consistent .
He doesn ’ t trust America ’ s hawkish national security establishment , be it in the context of Saddam ’ s WMDs , the Trump campaign ’ s alleged collusion with Russia , or the supposedly “ imminent ” threat posed by Qassem Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been an outspoken critic of belligerence towards Iran throughout Trump ’ s presidency .
He was the guy , remember , who allegedly helped persuade the president not to hit back at Iran last summer after they downed a U.S. drone .
His criticism of the natsec bureaucracy ranges from forceful to vicious , once describing John Bolton as a sort of insect that ’ s burrowed into the bowels of the body politic .
He routinely asserts on his show that hawks in the intel community care nothing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s full Ron Paul , at least on foreign policy .
But , as I say , it ’ s consistent .
The rest of Fox ’ s anchor team takes a more … nuanced position about the virtues and vices of the intelligence community .
You need to trust them , except when you don ’ t .
How to tell the difference ?
Seems pretty simple : When they ’ re at odds with Trump we shouldn ’ t trust them and when they ’ re in agreement with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a clearer picture of what I described last week as the basic divide within MAGA-era populism .
Some , like Tucker , are principled paleocon skeptics about military action ; the vast majority are “ In Trump We Trust ” Republicans who are willing to see war , and the intelligence bureaucracy , as more or less virtuous as Trump ’ s political needs require .
( Ironically , the person who wrote a book titled “ In Trump We Trust ” is more of a principled paleocon these days . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than an hour after Tucker ’ s comments in the clip below .
He and Lou Dobbs are charter members of the “ In Trump We Trust ” camp .
In a segment he called “ How to Deal With the World ’ s Most Evil Terrorists for Dummies , ” Hannity hyped up the need for military action against Iran by stating its “ aggression must be checked or it will get worse .
And it has gotten worse and worse and worse .
They must know their hostile actions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaining , predictably , among Democrats and the stupid commentators on TV in the media mob , top military experts agree the president ’ s strategy is effective , ” he added , noting he didn ’ t want to see U.S. boots on the ground .
“ Stupid commentators on TV ” ?
Watching Tucker and Hannity take barely veiled shots at each other will be even more fun than watching Tucker and Shep Smith do so last year was .
It ’ s nice to see Hannity return to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which he was from 1996 until , oh , June 2015 or so .
In theory it actually shouldn ’ t be that hard to reconcile his position on targeting Soleimani with Tucker ’ s , as neither one wants wider war with Iran and both surely agree that Soleimani was a sinister character without whom the world is a better place .
Targeting him was , in fact , true to the Jacksonian spirit of Trumpism , which calls for avoiding foreign adventures whenever possible but also teaching your enemy a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem in this case , writes Ross Douthat in a column today , is that the U.S. is sufficiently entangled in the Middle East that it can ’ t simply get out having now delivered a heavy blow to Iran .
It ’ s ripe for reprisal , and then counter-reprisal , and then counter-counter-reprisal , and suddenly we ’ re in Tucker ’ s nightmare scenario of de facto war , albeit absent a massive ground invasion .
I ’ d add that even if we were less tangled up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s fixation on “ strength ” would force him into a cycle of reprisals anyway .
He ’ s not gaming out strikes on Iranian cultural sites because he ’ s worried about Iran damaging America ’ s strategic position in Iraq , he ’ s gaming them out because he ’ s afraid of looking weak if Iran blows up a New York City subway car to settle the score and the White House does nothing .
He ’ s going to insist on having the last word , which is Jacksonian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides are shooting at each other regularly .
As for Tucker , this is his third monologue since the news about Soleimani ’ s death broke and as far as I know he has yet to harshly criticize the president himself for ordering the strike .
He ’ ll chatter all day about the deep state and Bolton , who left government months ago , and he ’ s happy to tell you just how much blame a marginal Senate backbencher like Ben Sasse bears for cheerleading the strike .
But he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his friend Donald even though according to the Times it was Trump who chose the option of targeting Soleimani from a menu provided by the Pentagon that included much less aggressive action .
Why Carlson is so intent on whitewashing the commander-in-chief ’ s singular role in this is known only to him .
Maybe he thinks the Fox faithful will tolerate anti-war rhetoric but not anti-Trump rhetoric .
Maybe he ’ s afraid of losing influence with Trump , knowing how poorly the president reacts to personal criticism .
Or maybe this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldview operates , preferring to blame a faceless cabal of establishment bureaucrats for all bad developments abroad because that ’ s more politically convenient than blaming nationalism ’ s champion , the president .
We ’ ll see what he says if/when Iran hits the U.S. and then the U.S. hits back and suddenly a sustained conflict is in the offing .
He can ’ t give Trump a free pass forever .
I think .

The aftermath of the Soleimani strike is filled with unhappy subplots but a rare enjoyable one will be watching Fox’s 8 p.m. guy tussle with, well, pretty much everyone else on the network over whether aggression towards Iran is a good or bad thing.
Tucker is clear and consistent. He doesn’t trust America’s hawkish national security establishment, be it in the context of Saddam’s WMDs, the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia, or the supposedly “imminent” threat posed by Qassem Soleimani. Especially the latter, as he’s been an outspoken critic of belligerence towards Iran throughout Trump’s presidency. He was the guy, remember, who allegedly helped persuade the president not to hit back at Iran last summer after they downed a U.S. drone. His criticism of the natsec bureaucracy ranges from forceful to vicious, once describing John Bolton as a sort of insect that’s burrowed into the bowels of the body politic. He routinely asserts on his show that hawks in the intel community care nothing for the welfare of Americans or their children. It’s full Ron Paul, at least on foreign policy. But, as I say, it’s consistent.
The rest of Fox’s anchor team takes a more … nuanced position about the virtues and vices of the intelligence community.
https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1214147058594189314
You need to trust them, except when you don’t. How to tell the difference? Seems pretty simple: When they’re at odds with Trump we shouldn’t trust them and when they’re in agreement with Trump we should. Rarely will we see a clearer picture of what I described last week as the basic divide within MAGA-era populism. Some, like Tucker, are principled paleocon skeptics about military action; the vast majority are “In Trump We Trust” Republicans who are willing to see war, and the intelligence bureaucracy, as more or less virtuous as Trump’s political needs require. (Ironically, the person who wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust” is more of a principled paleocon these days.)
Here’s Hannity last night speaking less than an hour after Tucker’s comments in the clip below. He and Lou Dobbs are charter members of the “In Trump We Trust” camp.
In a segment he called “How to Deal With the World’s Most Evil Terrorists for Dummies,” Hannity hyped up the need for military action against Iran by stating its “aggression must be checked or it will get worse. And it has gotten worse and worse and worse. They must know their hostile actions have consequences.” “Despite the whining and the complaining, predictably, among Democrats and the stupid commentators on TV in the media mob, top military experts agree the president’s strategy is effective,” he added, noting he didn’t want to see U.S. boots on the ground.
“Stupid commentators on TV”? Watching Tucker and Hannity take barely veiled shots at each other will be even more fun than watching Tucker and Shep Smith do so last year was.
It’s nice to see Hannity return to his roots as an ardent hawk, though, which he was from 1996 until, oh, June 2015 or so. In theory it actually shouldn’t be that hard to reconcile his position on targeting Soleimani with Tucker’s, as neither one wants wider war with Iran and both surely agree that Soleimani was a sinister character without whom the world is a better place. Targeting him was, in fact, true to the Jacksonian spirit of Trumpism, which calls for avoiding foreign adventures whenever possible but also teaching your enemy a harsh lesson whenever he crosses the line. The problem in this case, writes Ross Douthat in a column today, is that the U.S. is sufficiently entangled in the Middle East that it can’t simply get out having now delivered a heavy blow to Iran. It’s ripe for reprisal, and then counter-reprisal, and then counter-counter-reprisal, and suddenly we’re in Tucker’s nightmare scenario of de facto war, albeit absent a massive ground invasion. I’d add that even if we were less tangled up in Iraq and Syria, Trump’s fixation on “strength” would force him into a cycle of reprisals anyway. He’s not gaming out strikes on Iranian cultural sites because he’s worried about Iran damaging America’s strategic position in Iraq, he’s gaming them out because he’s afraid of looking weak if Iran blows up a New York City subway car to settle the score and the White House does nothing. He’s going to insist on having the last word, which is Jacksonian right up until the moment when both sides are shooting at each other regularly.
As for Tucker, this is his third monologue since the news about Soleimani’s death broke and as far as I know he has yet to harshly criticize the president himself for ordering the strike. He’ll chatter all day about the deep state and Bolton, who left government months ago, and he’s happy to tell you just how much blame a marginal Senate backbencher like Ben Sasse bears for cheerleading the strike. But he’s been conspicuously shy about calling out his friend Donald even though according to the Times it was Trump who chose the option of targeting Soleimani from a menu provided by the Pentagon that included much less aggressive action. Why Carlson is so intent on whitewashing the commander-in-chief’s singular role in this is known only to him. Maybe he thinks the Fox faithful will tolerate anti-war rhetoric but not anti-Trump rhetoric. Maybe he’s afraid of losing influence with Trump, knowing how poorly the president reacts to personal criticism. Or maybe this is just how Carlson’s paleocon worldview operates, preferring to blame a faceless cabal of establishment bureaucrats for all bad developments abroad because that’s more politically convenient than blaming nationalism’s champion, the president. We’ll see what he says if/when Iran hits the U.S. and then the U.S. hits back and suddenly a sustained conflict is in the offing. He can’t give Trump a free pass forever. I think.