motherjones--2020-02-07--The GOP Is Sending Out Political Mailers That Look Like Official Census Documents

Here ’ s something sleazy : In 2019 , the state of Montana had to twice warn voters about mailers from the Republican National Committee disguised to look like official 2020 Census documents .
They were actually requests for money and voter information to help re-elect President Donald Trump .
In response to our recent request for your political mail , a Michigan resident sent us a document that looks almost identical to the one the GOP came under fire for last year .
( We ’ ve lightly redacted the document . )
Our reader isn ’ t alone—a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing “ confusion ” recently , too .
We ’ ve contacted Michigan ’ s census officials and are awaiting comment .
While the RNC did not respond to our request for comment , it told Montana—and the local news station—that it wasn ’ t attempting to mimic the Census Bureau .
It said it clearly marked that these were from the Republican party .
Yet its use of capitalization suggests otherwise : In 2010 , the last time there was a census , the RNC did the same thing .
That year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to stop it : the Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings Act .
But the regulations are weak , and the mail our reader got in Michigan likely isn ’ t illegal .
To be fair , both parties use tricks to get voter information and money : a 2018 report from the Baltimore Sun found the Democrat party was sending a fundraising ask packaged as a research survey .
Bad , certainly .
But to tie it to the actual Census is a bigger step .
To confuse people about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun , could harm the count , officials worry .
“ We want to immediately squash any confusion , ” Emilie Ritter Saunders , a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Commerce , told the Washington Post in 2019 .
She was concerned about a mistaken count—which could affect federal funding .
“ Estimates show that Montana is also on the cusp of receiving another congressional representative , ” she said .
As Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman has reported , at length , the Trump administration has attempted to subvert the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white majority .
These mailers only add further confusion to the process .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Here’s something sleazy: In 2019, the state of Montana had to twice warn voters about mailers from the Republican National Committee disguised to look like official 2020 Census documents. They were actually requests for money and voter information to help re-elect President Donald Trump.
But the GOP hasn’t stopped.
In response to our recent request for your political mail, a Michigan resident sent us a document that looks almost identical to the one the GOP came under fire for last year. (We’ve lightly redacted the document.) Our reader isn’t alone—a Michigan TV station wrote about the practice causing “confusion” recently, too. We’ve contacted Michigan’s census officials and are awaiting comment.
While the RNC did not respond to our request for comment, it told Montana—and the local news station—that it wasn’t attempting to mimic the Census Bureau. It said it clearly marked that these were from the Republican party.
Yet its use of capitalization suggests otherwise:
In 2010, the last time there was a census, the RNC did the same thing. That year, Congress even passed a law to try to stop it: the Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings Act. But the regulations are weak, and the mail our reader got in Michigan likely isn’t illegal. To be fair, both parties use tricks to get voter information and money: a 2018 report from the Baltimore Sun found the Democratic party was sending a fundraising ask packaged as a research survey. Bad, certainly. But to tie it to the actual Census is a bigger step.
To confuse people about the official Census process, which has already begun, could harm the count, officials worry. “We want to immediately squash any confusion,” Emilie Ritter Saunders, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Commerce, told the Washington Post in 2019. She was concerned about a mistaken count—which could affect federal funding. “Estimates show that Montana is also on the cusp of receiving another congressional representative,” she said.
As Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman has reported, at length, the Trump administration has attempted to subvert the process of the 2020 census to entrench a white majority. These mailers only add further confusion to the process.
Send more 2020 political mailers to scoop@motherjones.com.


motherjones--2020-02-07--White House Ousts Alexander Vindman, Who Testified in Donald Trump’s Impeachment

On Friday , just days after the Senate acquitted President Donald Trump in a swift impeachment trial , White House officials escorted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the premises after he was fired from his position on the National Security Council , an act of apparent retaliation for testifying against Trump during the House ’ s impeachment investigation , Vindman ’ s attorney suggested in a statement .
It ’ s unclear where he will be reassigned .
“ There is no question in the mind of any American why this man ’ s job is over , why this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it at the White House , ” Vindman ’ s attorney , David Pressman , said in a statement .
Vindman “ was asked to leave for telling the truth.
” Vindman , who worked as an expert on Ukraine on the National Security Council , listened in on the president ’ s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , during which Trump warned of withholding military aid unless Ukrainian officials investigated Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden , and his son Hunter , for corruption .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t believe ” what he was hearing on the president ’ s call with Ukraine and that it “ was likely to have significant implications for US national security.
” The House later voted to impeach the president on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , but the Senate voted to acquit the president , with Sen. Mitt Romney as the lone Republican to break party ranks and vote to remove Trump from office .
On Thursday , during a rambling , venting speech , Trump brought up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who works as a lawyer for the National Security Council .
And then earlier during the day Friday before Vindman had been dismissed , Trump told reporters he was “ not happy ” with Vindman , adding : “ You think I ’ m supposed to be happy with him ?
I ’ m not.
” The New York Times reported that Yevgeny was also fired .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that the ousting of “ patriots & whistleblowers like LTC Vindman ” was an “ extension of President Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Friday, just days after the Senate acquitted President Donald Trump in a swift impeachment trial, White House officials escorted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the premises after he was fired from his position on the National Security Council, an act of apparent retaliation for testifying against Trump during the House’s impeachment investigation, Vindman’s attorney suggested in a statement. It’s unclear where he will be reassigned.
“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House,” Vindman’s attorney, David Pressman, said in a statement. Vindman “was asked to leave for telling the truth.”
LTC Vindman escorted from WH, per his lawyer David Pressman: “He followed orders, he obeyed his oath, and he served his country… And for that, the most powerful man in the world – buoyed by the silent, the pliable, and the complicit – has decided to exact revenge.” pic.twitter.com/u0CAB13iln — Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) February 7, 2020
Vindman, who worked as an expert on Ukraine on the National Security Council, listened in on the president’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump warned of withholding military aid unless Ukrainian officials investigated Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden, and his son Hunter, for corruption. Vindman testified in November that he “couldn’t believe” what he was hearing on the president’s call with Ukraine and that it “was likely to have significant implications for US national security.” The House later voted to impeach the president on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but the Senate voted to acquit the president, with Sen. Mitt Romney as the lone Republican to break party ranks and vote to remove Trump from office.
On Thursday, during a rambling, venting speech, Trump brought up Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny, who works as a lawyer for the National Security Council. And then earlier during the day Friday before Vindman had been dismissed, Trump told reporters he was “not happy” with Vindman, adding: “You think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.” The New York Times reported that Yevgeny was also fired.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that the ousting of “patriots & whistleblowers like LTC Vindman” was an “extension of President Trump’s cover-up” in the Ukraine scandal.


motherjones--2020-02-07--New Hampshire Voters to Pundits: We Don’t Need Your Stinkin’ Lanes

For over a year , many pundits and political observers who puzzle over the 2020 Democratic contest have been obsessed with the Lane Theory .
It ’ s a simple notion : There are different lanes in the race—one for moderates , one for progressives , maybe one for a new face , and so on .
This has dominated much of the analysis .
Think of the Road Warrior movies : Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are in a death race in the lefty lane ; Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg , and Michael Bloomberg are in their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Amy Klobuchar trying to jump the median and get into that mix .
That all seems to make sense .
Except for this : voters don ’ t live in lanes .
Meet Michele Vilamarim , a 56-year-old homemaker who lives in Nashua , New Hampshire .
On Thursday afternoon , she was at a packed American Legion hall in Merrimack , where Buttigieg was holding a town hall focused on veterans issues .
The place was full of Buttigieg supporters .
But many attendees , like Vilamarim , were voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote on Tuesday .
And what was most interesting to an outsider ( that is , me ) was that the undecideds were undecided in a way that did not fit into lanes .
One local physicians said she was torn between Buttigieg , Klobuchar , Warren , and Tom Steyer .
Seriously .
She could go in any direction .
How was she going to make a choice ?
She shrugged : “ I have no idea.
” A school teacher said she could vote for Biden , Warren , Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Back to Vilamarim .
She said she was torn between Biden , Warren , and Buttigieg .
Here ’ s a photo of her : It ’ s a pic of her meeting Biden a few days earlier .
She spoke to Biden about her mother , whose health insurance carrier recently stopped paying for medicine she needs .
The monthly cost of the drugs is $ 300—and that ’ s $ 300 her mother , who lives off Social Security , doesn ’ t have .
As she explained her mother ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and started sobbing .
“ He looked me in the eye , ” she recalled , “ and said , ‘ We ’ re going to help your mother , ’ and asked for my information and gave it to an aide.
” That impressed her greatly .
As for Warren , Vilamarim was disappointed that at a campaign event the Massachusetts senator walked past her without engaging with her : “ It was kind of impersonal.
” As for Buttigieg , before he took the stage , she remarked , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Everyone has great plans .
I really want to hear how he will help people as a whole .
I care about moral integrity.
” Vilamarim was in no lane .
And as Holly Shulman , a longtime Democratic Party official in New Hampshire told me , this is not unusual .
“ Voters here don ’ t respond that much to debates and big speeches .
If people canvass and make it through the snow to their door , that counts .
Small interactions—which may seem imperceptible to those looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s all about these interactions.
” And it is hard to calculate the accumulation of all these interactions .
That may be particularly so this time around .
The Iowa results and the subsequent polls show that the Democratic Party is highly fractured , with many of its voters caring more about dethroning Donald Trump than they do about a specific candidate .
Sanders may be leading an overthrow-the-system revolution , and Buttigieg may be leading a let ’ s-come-together crusade—each claiming he can bring new voters to the polls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And neither of them assembled a dominant plurality .
Will New Hampshire voters turn the party in a decisive direction ?
And if so , will it have an ideological or thematic component ?
That is , will they flood a lane ?
No one voter can symbolize what ’ s happening in the Granite State .
And there is certainly a set of voters who are torn between Sanders and Warren and another group struggling over Biden and Buttigieg .
But this first-in-the-nation primary more resembles the parking lot in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game then a super highway with bright white lines .
Rather than this : As for Vilamarim , after the Buttigieg event , as she was tromping through the ice and snow , she said she was now leaning toward Biden—mainly because he seemed to care about her and her mother .
That is , because he got into Vilamarim ’ s very own lane .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For over a year, many pundits and political observers who puzzle over the 2020 Democratic contest have been obsessed with the Lane Theory. It’s a simple notion: There are different lanes in the race—one for moderates, one for progressives, maybe one for a new face, and so on. This has dominated much of the analysis. Think of the Road Warrior movies: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are in a death race in the lefty lane; Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg are in their own demolition derby in the centrist lane, with Amy Klobuchar trying to jump the median and get into that mix. That all seems to make sense. Except for this: voters don’t live in lanes.
“Voters here don’t respond that much to debates and big speeches… Small interactions—which may seem imperceptible to those looking at the big picture—can do the trick.”
Meet Michele Vilamarim, a 56-year-old homemaker who lives in Nashua, New Hampshire. On Thursday afternoon, she was at a packed American Legion hall in Merrimack, where Buttigieg was holding a town hall focused on veterans issues. The place was full of Buttigieg supporters. But many attendees, like Vilamarim, were voters who did not know how they are going to vote on Tuesday. And what was most interesting to an outsider (that is, me) was that the undecideds were undecided in a way that did not fit into lanes. One local physicians said she was torn between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren, and Tom Steyer. Seriously. She could go in any direction. How was she going to make a choice? She shrugged: “I have no idea.” A school teacher said she could vote for Biden, Warren, Klobuchar, or Andrew Yang. Really?
Back to Vilamarim. She said she was torn between Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg. Here’s a photo of her:
It’s a pic of her meeting Biden a few days earlier. She spoke to Biden about her mother, whose health insurance carrier recently stopped paying for medicine she needs. The monthly cost of the drugs is $300—and that’s $300 her mother, who lives off Social Security, doesn’t have. As she explained her mother’s plight to Biden, Vilamarim broke down and started sobbing. “He looked me in the eye,” she recalled, “and said, ‘We’re going to help your mother,’ and asked for my information and gave it to an aide.”
That impressed her greatly. As for Warren, Vilamarim was disappointed that at a campaign event the Massachusetts senator walked past her without engaging with her: “It was kind of impersonal.” As for Buttigieg, before he took the stage, she remarked, “I’m going to listen hard. Everyone has great plans. I really want to hear how he will help people as a whole. I care about moral integrity.”
Vilamarim was in no lane. And as Holly Shulman, a longtime Democratic Party official in New Hampshire told me, this is not unusual. “Voters here don’t respond that much to debates and big speeches. If people canvass and make it through the snow to their door, that counts. Small interactions—which may seem imperceptible to those looking at the big picture—can do the trick. It’s all about these interactions.” And it is hard to calculate the accumulation of all these interactions.
That may be particularly so this time around. The Iowa results and the subsequent polls show that the Democratic Party is highly fractured, with many of its voters caring more about dethroning Donald Trump than they do about a specific candidate. Sanders may be leading an overthrow-the-system revolution, and Buttigieg may be leading a let’s-come-together crusade—each claiming he can bring new voters to the polls for the Democrats—yet turnout was down in Iowa. And neither of them assembled a dominant plurality. Will New Hampshire voters turn the party in a decisive direction? And if so, will it have an ideological or thematic component? That is, will they flood a lane?
No one voter can symbolize what’s happening in the Granite State. And there is certainly a set of voters who are torn between Sanders and Warren and another group struggling over Biden and Buttigieg. But this first-in-the-nation primary more resembles the parking lot in a stadium at the end of the big game then a super highway with bright white lines.
Think this:
Rather than this:
As for Vilamarim, after the Buttigieg event, as she was tromping through the ice and snow, she said she was now leaning toward Biden—mainly because he seemed to care about her and her mother. That is, because he got into Vilamarim’s very own lane.


motherjones--2020-02-09--Klobuchar Is Riding a Post-Debate Surge—to the Tune of $2.5 Million

Amy Klobuchar , riding a wave of momentum from the Friday Democratic presidential debate , has raised $ 2.5 million in the two days since .
The senator from Minnesota broke the news of her fundraising haul in front of a large crowd in New Hampshire on Sunday , two days ahead of the primary election here .
The crowd at the Manchester get-out-the-vote rally was big—with at least five hundred supporters filling a large room to capacity at Southern New Hampshire University—and the crowd excitable , but the biggest cheers weren ’ t for promises of a new liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about electability , moderation , and bipartisanship .
In fact , the biggest cheer of the afternoon was for praise of Mitt Romney and his vote for impeachment .
The crowd ’ s enthusiasm for the former GOP presidential nominee seemed to surprise even Klobuchar .
“ The world is upside down and that tells it all , ” she laughed .
Her message of moderation was a hit , though .
“ I don ’ t always see things in extremes , ” she said , in another crowd-pleasing set piece .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extremes , you have a home with me.
” Klobuchar didn ’ t disparage any other candidates by name , but she was blunt in her assessment that some of her rivals were promising too much , like free college tuition for all .
Klobuchar explained her platform of supporting free tuition for one- and two-year college programs and reducing , but not eliminating , the cost of four-year college as a matter of prudence and necessity .
“ Sorry , we ’ re not going to have a shortage of sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd .
“ We ’ re going to have a shortage of plumbers.
” Klobuchar ’ s Friday night debate performance arguably gave her the juice to make jabs like that .
The $ 2.5 million she raised in the past two days is a huge number for her : Over the course of her entire campaign , she has raised $ 28.8 million , and in the last three months , she raised just $ 11.4 million .
It was a boost that she told the crowd empowered her to stay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She continually referred to her debate performance in Manchester , and for some audience members , the prospect of Klobuchar debating Trump seemed to be one of the bigger reasons for their support .
“ I think she ’ d destroy Trump in a debate , ” said Vin Sylvia , who had travelled from Massachusetts to see Klobuchar .
Heather Webster said she had been considering Biden , but he had disappointed her at the debate .
“ I was leaning towards him until Friday , ” she said , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just don ’ t feel good about his debate style .
But there ’ s something about her confidence .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Amy Klobuchar, riding a wave of momentum from the Friday Democratic presidential debate, has raised $2.5 million in the two days since. The senator from Minnesota broke the news of her fundraising haul in front of a large crowd in New Hampshire on Sunday, two days ahead of the primary election here.
The crowd at the Manchester get-out-the-vote rally was big—with at least five hundred supporters filling a large room to capacity at Southern New Hampshire University—and the crowd excitable, but the biggest cheers weren’t for promises of a new liberal agenda. The crowd wanted to hear about electability, moderation, and bipartisanship. In fact, the biggest cheer of the afternoon was for praise of Mitt Romney and his vote for impeachment. The crowd’s enthusiasm for the former GOP presidential nominee seemed to surprise even Klobuchar.
“The world is upside down and that tells it all,” she laughed.
Her message of moderation was a hit, though. “I don’t always see things in extremes,” she said, in another crowd-pleasing set piece. “If you’re tired of the extremes, you have a home with me.”
Klobuchar didn’t disparage any other candidates by name, but she was blunt in her assessment that some of her rivals were promising too much, like free college tuition for all. Klobuchar explained her platform of supporting free tuition for one- and two-year college programs and reducing, but not eliminating, the cost of four-year college as a matter of prudence and necessity.
“Sorry, we’re not going to have a shortage of sports marketing degrees,” she told the crowd. “We’re going to have a shortage of plumbers.”
Klobuchar’s Friday night debate performance arguably gave her the juice to make jabs like that. The $2.5 million she raised in the past two days is a huge number for her: Over the course of her entire campaign, she has raised $28.8 million, and in the last three months, she raised just $11.4 million. It was a boost that she told the crowd empowered her to stay in the fight into South Carolina and Nevada.
She continually referred to her debate performance in Manchester, and for some audience members, the prospect of Klobuchar debating Trump seemed to be one of the bigger reasons for their support.
“I think she’d destroy Trump in a debate,” said Vin Sylvia, who had travelled from Massachusetts to see Klobuchar.
Heather Webster said she had been considering Biden, but he had disappointed her at the debate.
“I was leaning towards him until Friday,” she said, before Klobuchar took the stage. “I just don’t feel good about his debate style. But there’s something about her confidence.”


motherjones--2020-02-09--Trump Is About to Go After Safety-Net Programs, Just Like He Promised Not to Do

President Donald Trump ’ s wavering stance on whether to protect Medicare and Medicaid , two of the biggest safety-net programs in the country , appears to have reached its inevitable conclusion : He ’ s hoping to gut them , severely .
The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that the White House is expected to propose a $ 4.8 trillion budget that aims to slash these popular programs while increasing spending on NASA , defense , and veterans : While this reported budget is sure to fail—Democrats control the House , after all—it ’ s still striking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stated pledges and his actual priorities .
If Trump does unveil his budget tomorrow as expected , it will have been less than a week since his State of the Union address where he vowed to protect Medicare and Social Security .
That itself was a galling shift from what he had said just two weeks before , when he publicly threatened to go after those very programs .
“ At some point , they will be , ” Trump had said in Davos , Switzerland , where he was asked whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be toward the end of the year .
The growth is going to be incredible .
And at the right time , we will take a look at that.
” As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of his State of the Union performance , Trump ’ s promises don ’ t appear to be more than a “ manifesto of mistruths.
“

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump’s wavering stance on whether to protect Medicare and Medicaid, two of the biggest safety-net programs in the country, appears to have reached its inevitable conclusion: He’s hoping to gut them, severely.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that the White House is expected to propose a $4.8 trillion budget that aims to slash these popular programs while increasing spending on NASA, defense, and veterans:
The White House proposes to cut spending by $4.4 trillion over a decade. Of that, it targets $2 trillion in savings from mandatory spending programs, including $130 billion from changes to Medicare prescription-drug pricing, $292 billion from safety-net cuts—such as work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps—and $70 billion from tightening eligibility access to federal disability benefits.
While this reported budget is sure to fail—Democrats control the House, after all—it’s still striking to witness the vast gulf between Trump’s stated pledges and his actual priorities. If Trump does unveil his budget tomorrow as expected, it will have been less than a week since his State of the Union address where he vowed to protect Medicare and Social Security. That itself was a galling shift from what he had said just two weeks before, when he publicly threatened to go after those very programs.
“At some point, they will be,” Trump had said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was asked whether entitlements should be cut. “It’ll be toward the end of the year. The growth is going to be incredible. And at the right time, we will take a look at that.”
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of his State of the Union performance, Trump’s promises don’t appear to be more than a “manifesto of mistruths.“


motherjones--2020-02-09--Trump Can’t Stop Complaining That a Red-State Democrat Voted to Convict Him

His vindictive victory tour showing no signs of winding down , President Donald Trump has spent a good portion of @ @ @ @ @ Twitter at Sen. Joe Manchin , a conservative Democrat from deep-red West Virginia , over @ @ @ @ @ president from office last week .
The attacks included labeling Manchin “ Munchkin , ” @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ weak and pathetic.
” While the anger at Manchin doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ s one of several senators Trump has steadily targeted in the wake of his acquittal—it @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s quickly vanishing loyalty for those individuals he newly perceives as enemies .
@ @ @ @ @ with the president , Trump ’ s weekend bashing demonstrates all that amounts to nothing @ @ @ @ @ cross him .
Even if you ’ re a Democrat .

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-02-09--SNL Mocks Trump’s Very Bad, Orange Tan Line

President Donald Trump ’ s attempt to dismiss a viral photo appearing to expose his very bad , very orange @ @ @ @ @ have only fueled the ridicule .
Hours after he whined about it on Twitter , @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s “ Weekend Update ” with a zinger all but certain to infuriate @ @ @ @ @ “ President Trump was acquitted in a Senate trial this week and Democrats are calling @ @ @ @ @ host Colin Jost said as the photo was displayed .
“ But does this look @ @ @ @ @ pull off a cover-up ?
” “ It ’ s like the day at the @ @ @ @ @ the residents put their own make-up on , ” Jost continued .
The segment continued @ @ @ @ @ lowlights from Trump ’ s unhinged , post-acquittal victory tour this past week , including @ @ @ @ @ annual National Prayer Breakfast and reality-TV State of the Union address .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ his orange glow is what gets the president really riled up this morning .


motherjones--2020-02-09--Joe Biden’s Biggest Selling Point Is Coming Back to Bite Him

For a long time , Joe Biden was sort of the control of the Democratic primary experiment .
Other candidates had greater range—they took their turns in the spotlight , they had louder ( or meaner , or kinder… ) supporters , or raised more money , or campaigned more , or delivered more polished speeches .
But eventually they would run their course and the former vice president would still be there , never dropping too far in the polls nor veering too far from his essential , I ’ m-dead-serious , no-malarkey brand .
That resiliency was woven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him as “ the strongest candidate ” to take on Trump ( they even included charts of polling data ) , and in recent weeks , he emphasized the importance of nominating someone who would help downballot candidates running in swing states and districts .
As impeachment reached its denouement , Biden used the drumbeat of Republican attacks against him as proof they fear him .
But evidently , the Iowa caucuses weren ’ t the only thing that broke last week ; the aura of invincibility that encased Biden ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stops in Keene and Lebanon on Saturday to see Pete Buttigieg , I kept encountering undecided voters and ( more troubling for Biden ) recently converted Buttigieg fans who had come to believe that nominating Biden might jeopardize the party ’ s chances in November .
In the eyes of these voters , the kind Biden is counting on to come home , the safest bet no longer looks so safe .
Samantha Elliott of Concord was , like a lot of people I ’ ve met this weekend , trying to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I suppose he ’ s in the mix , ” she said when I asked about Biden before a town hall in Keene , “ but my biggest concern is electability.
” These are words that would have sounded implausible not long ago , including to Elliott .
“ Electability ” was the buzzword in Iowa all summer and fall , and Biden was its leading champion—whatever you thought it meant .
“ I thought Biden was going to be the most electable , ” she said , but “ his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to expectations , and so I have concerns whether young people will come out and vote for him .
We need all groups , and I ’ m not sure he can deliver on that .
The numbers in Iowa weren ’ t there for him.
” Besides , if Biden ’ s “ the chosen one , ” as she put it , she feels it ’ s New Hampshire ’ s job to elevate someone else to keep the race competitive .
Joe Biden might be a scrappy kid in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he ’ s no one ’ s idea of an underdog .
Hence , Pete , who she says is “ eloquent , he ’ s a thinker.
” Inside the auditorium at Keene State College , Ted Braun , an undecided voter , was trying to choose between Buttigieg and the billionaire Tom Steyer , whose ads about confronting Trump had impressed him .
“ I need to see somebody who I feel confident has enough hard bark to be able to handle Trump , ” he told me .
Hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s exactly what Biden has been selling himself as for the last 10 months .
But Braun has moved on .
“ I ’ m a little bit concerned about his age and his ability to keep up with what needs to be done , ” he said .
“ To me , as we went through this entire impeachment proceeding , you heard very little from Biden , even though he was the one that was under attack .
If he ’ s under attack and has no response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t come out vigorously against Trump under those circumstances , I worry about his ability to confront Trump in a heated race.
” Mike and Nancy Meagher drove up from Amherst , Massachusetts , to see Buttigieg speak at the event .
( Candidates themselves can find the number of out-of-towners at New Hampshire events exasperating . )
While they hadn ’ t settled on a candidate ( Buttigieg was their current fave ) , Biden , in particular , had fallen off in their view .
“ We ’ re trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Meagher said .
“ I ’ m not sure , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t know if he would motivate people to come out.
” Nancy Meagher jumped in with another point : “ Look what Trump can do to somebody , ” she said .
“ I think he broke Biden down.
” The kind of personal attacks Biden was subjected to are something that whoever wins the nomination will eventually have to deal with .
Perhaps Swift Boat Veterans Against Pete is just around the corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate who ’ s just gone through the ringer , and the man voters in New Hampshire are seeing right now looks much less formidable .
Sofia Thornblad , who I met in Keene , had been preparing to choose between Sanders and Biden .
But after Biden ’ s collapse last week , she can stick with the candidate she ’ d liked all along .
“ I ’ ve always liked Pete but for me it ’ s whoever ’ s gon na beat Trump , in the end , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could do that , ” she said .
“ But after Iowa I got really excited about Pete.
” A few hours later in Lebanon , New Hampshire , I met Lynn Fisher , who was standing on the icy sidewalk outside the high school where Buttigieg would soon speak .
“ I think he could be the safe candidate , but maybe not ?
” she said , when I asked about Biden .
“ At one point I thought he was the most likely guy to get elected , but now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching Buttigieg during debates and seeing his recent successes , she was now convinced that he had “ as good a shot as any ” at beating Trump .
When a canvasser came to her door about 45 minutes before she left for the event , she moved off the fence ( for now , anyway ) .
“ He ’ s freakin ’ smart !
” she said .
Further up the line , Jonathan Kulp of Enfield , New Hampshire , told me he had long admired the former vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing him speak .
“ I wasn ’ t inspired the way I was before.
” He , like roughly 40 percent of New Hampshire voters , was undecided .
Until recently , Biden was so synonymous with safe that it started to become a joke in certain circles .
Bernie Sanders surrogate Michael Moore went around Iowa last week analogizing Biden to a boring dating profile , suggesting that you ’ d never swipe right on someone who described themselves as “ safe.
” ( This seems debatable . )
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift in the electorate as he tries to make up ground in another state where he finds himself far behind .
On Saturday , he ripped into Buttigieg , arguing that someone who was mayor of a city of 100,000 was not qualified for the job .
His campaign released a new digital ad mocking the former South Bend mayor for handling requests for decorative lights while Biden was negotiating passage of the Affordable Care Act .
Whether it sinks in over the final three days could be the story of the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of me that thinks Biden ’ s the best one that can beat Trump , ” said Melissa Mooney of Lebanon , who described herself as a single-issue “ get Trump out ” voter .
But right now , “ he ’ s not impressing anyone .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For a long time, Joe Biden was sort of the control of the Democratic primary experiment. Other candidates had greater range—they took their turns in the spotlight, they had louder (or meaner, or kinder…) supporters, or raised more money, or campaigned more, or delivered more polished speeches. But eventually they would run their course and the former vice president would still be there, never dropping too far in the polls nor veering too far from his essential, I’m-dead-serious, no-malarkey brand. That resiliency was woven into the message. His ads touted him as “the strongest candidate” to take on Trump (they even included charts of polling data), and in recent weeks, he emphasized the importance of nominating someone who would help downballot candidates running in swing states and districts. As impeachment reached its denouement, Biden used the drumbeat of Republican attacks against him as proof they fear him.
But evidently, the Iowa caucuses weren’t the only thing that broke last week; the aura of invincibility that encased Biden’s campaign also took a big hit. At stops in Keene and Lebanon on Saturday to see Pete Buttigieg, I kept encountering undecided voters and (more troubling for Biden) recently converted Buttigieg fans who had come to believe that nominating Biden might jeopardize the party’s chances in November.
In the eyes of these voters, the kind Biden is counting on to come home, the safest bet no longer looks so safe.
Samantha Elliott of Concord was, like a lot of people I’ve met this weekend, trying to decide between Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. “I suppose he’s in the mix,” she said when I asked about Biden before a town hall in Keene, “but my biggest concern is electability.”
These are words that would have sounded implausible not long ago, including to Elliott. “Electability” was the buzzword in Iowa all summer and fall, and Biden was its leading champion—whatever you thought it meant. “I thought Biden was going to be the most electable,” she said, but “his performance lately hasn’t been living up to expectations, and so I have concerns whether young people will come out and vote for him. We need all groups, and I’m not sure he can deliver on that. The numbers in Iowa weren’t there for him.”
Besides, if Biden’s “the chosen one,” as she put it, she feels it’s New Hampshire’s job to elevate someone else to keep the race competitive. Joe Biden might be a scrappy kid in the childhood parables he sometimes tells, but he’s no one’s idea of an underdog. Hence, Pete, who she says is “eloquent, he’s a thinker.”
Inside the auditorium at Keene State College, Ted Braun, an undecided voter, was trying to choose between Buttigieg and the billionaire Tom Steyer, whose ads about confronting Trump had impressed him. “I need to see somebody who I feel confident has enough hard bark to be able to handle Trump,” he told me. Hard bark. Toughness, in other words. That’s exactly what Biden has been selling himself as for the last 10 months. But Braun has moved on.
“I’m a little bit concerned about his age and his ability to keep up with what needs to be done,” he said. “To me, as we went through this entire impeachment proceeding, you heard very little from Biden, even though he was the one that was under attack. If he’s under attack and has no response even defending his son, and didn’t come out vigorously against Trump under those circumstances, I worry about his ability to confront Trump in a heated race.”
Mike and Nancy Meagher drove up from Amherst, Massachusetts, to see Buttigieg speak at the event. (Candidates themselves can find the number of out-of-towners at New Hampshire events exasperating.) While they hadn’t settled on a candidate (Buttigieg was their current fave), Biden, in particular, had fallen off in their view. “We’re trying to determine who can win,” Mike Meagher said.
Biden couldn’t?
“I’m not sure,” he said. “I don’t know if he would motivate people to come out.”
Nancy Meagher jumped in with another point: “Look what Trump can do to somebody,” she said. “I think he broke Biden down.”
The kind of personal attacks Biden was subjected to are something that whoever wins the nomination will eventually have to deal with. Perhaps Swift Boat Veterans Against Pete is just around the corner. But Biden happens to be the candidate who’s just gone through the ringer, and the man voters in New Hampshire are seeing right now looks much less formidable.
Sofia Thornblad, who I met in Keene, had been preparing to choose between Sanders and Biden. But after Biden’s collapse last week, she can stick with the candidate she’d liked all along. “I’ve always liked Pete but for me it’s whoever’s gonna beat Trump, in the end, and I wasn’t sure that Pete could do that,” she said. “But after Iowa I got really excited about Pete.”
A few hours later in Lebanon, New Hampshire, I met Lynn Fisher, who was standing on the icy sidewalk outside the high school where Buttigieg would soon speak. “I think he could be the safe candidate, but maybe not?” she said, when I asked about Biden. “At one point I thought he was the most likely guy to get elected, but now I don’t know.” After watching Buttigieg during debates and seeing his recent successes, she was now convinced that he had “as good a shot as any” at beating Trump. When a canvasser came to her door about 45 minutes before she left for the event, she moved off the fence (for now, anyway). “He’s freakin’ smart!” she said.
Further up the line, Jonathan Kulp of Enfield, New Hampshire, told me he had long admired the former vice president but had second thoughts about Biden after seeing him speak. “I wasn’t inspired the way I was before.” He, like roughly 40 percent of New Hampshire voters, was undecided.
Until recently, Biden was so synonymous with safe that it started to become a joke in certain circles. Bernie Sanders surrogate Michael Moore went around Iowa last week analogizing Biden to a boring dating profile, suggesting that you’d never swipe right on someone who described themselves as “safe.” (This seems debatable.)
Now, Biden too seems to have acknowledged the shift in the electorate as he tries to make up ground in another state where he finds himself far behind. On Saturday, he ripped into Buttigieg, arguing that someone who was mayor of a city of 100,000 was not qualified for the job. His campaign released a new digital ad mocking the former South Bend mayor for handling requests for decorative lights while Biden was negotiating passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Whether it sinks in over the final three days could be the story of the race. “There’s still a part of me that thinks Biden’s the best one that can beat Trump,” said Melissa Mooney of Lebanon, who described herself as a single-issue “get Trump out” voter. But right now, “he’s not impressing anyone.”


motherjones--2020-02-08--In New Hampshire, Biden Supporters Are Looking for a Reason to Vote for Him

At the full ( but not very big ) Rex Theater in downtown Manchester , New Hampshire , the crowd on Saturday that came to watch Vice President Joe Biden at one of his few campaign events was made up of Biden die-hards , a large collection of political tourists from outside the state , the usual undecided Granite State voters , and a sub-group of the not-made-a-choice-yet set : Biden fans looking for a reason to vote for the guy .
This bunch includes people who are drawn toward Biden and who want to vote for him but who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be past his prime and not up for the task of defeating Donald Trump .
They are concerned they themselves are stuck in the past and ought to be moving ahead with one of the other choices .
They just can ’ t get their heart ( Joe ! )
and the head ( uh , maybe not ) together .
Prior to Biden ’ s arrival , a 50-something nurse from Nashua who didn ’ t want to share her name , described her state : “ I feel a strange attraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out if it ’ s just out of loyalty .
Is it just because of Obama ?
” She noted that she was also considering billionaire Tom Steyer .
( She had gone online to a site where voters can match their positions on policies with those of the candidates , and she lined up best with Steyer . )
She noted that family members were trying to persuade her to kick Biden to the curb .
Her relatives were pushing her to vote for either Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , ” I remarked .
“ Yeah , ” she replied .
“ You should see my family.
” And there was another thing about Biden , she noted : “ It feels so unfair what ’ s been done to him.
” She was referring to Trump and the Republicans ’ efforts to smear Biden and his son Hunter .
Inside the Rex—where the P.A .
belted out The Who : “ meet the new boss , same as the old boss ” —Teri , a local businesswoman , echoed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I feel he deserves its .
And I feel so bad at what Bonzo ” —her term for Trump— ” is doing to him and his son.
” But it was clear a “ but ” was coming : “ But I want to see him more fired up.
” Biden has been , to be polite about it , an uneven performer as a campaigner .
He was feistier than usual at the Democratic debate on Friday night .
But voters at this event and others have constantly said they ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran Democrat .
And watching Biden these days is like watching a fellow on a tightrope .
His sentences often appear to be heading toward strong and crucial points .
Yet too often they get lost on the way .
My hunch is that New Hampshire residents looking to be Biden voters want to witness a clearer and more powerful Joe .
They ’ re craving that one thing that will push them over the line into a true commitment .
At the Rex , Biden delivered as much as he has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TelePrompter—he was not leaving this crucial appearance to chance—Biden presented a coherent and passionate speech to folks who largely did seem excited to be in his presence .
He slammed Trump for caging kids , for embracing and exploiting hatred , for bowing down to Putin , for serving a “ dark angry nation ” : “ I don ’ t think he possesses any empathy.
” He even went populist : “ This country wasn ’ t built by Wall Street… It was built by the middle class… Unions built the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , asserting this was “ no time for on-the-job training.
” Noting that Buttigieg has portrayed Biden as part of “ failed Washington , ” Biden asked what was so failing about passing Obamacare , reaching the Iran deal , saving the auto industry , or passing the stimulus bill that helped rescue a collapsing economy—accomplishments that he took credit for , in some cases more legitimately than others .
( Biden did stumble over the word “ Iran ” and mangled a description of the deal , and many in the audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wondering if this would be the flub that finishes him .
But the candidate recovered and pressed onward . )
Biden ’ s slap on Buttigieg was in sync with a snarky but cutting video released by his campaign that morning that contrasted Biden working on Obamacare and dealing with global leaders on the Iran deal to Buttigieg revamping sidewalks and putting new lights on a river walk .
“ We ’ re a party at risk if we nominate someone who hasn ’ t held an office higher than mayor ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden also repeated his criticism of Sanders for not being able to provide a cost estimate for his Medicare for All proposal and for Sanders ’ past votes to protect the gun industry .
And he contended that having a self-proclaimed democratic socialist on the top of the ticket will be a disaster for Democrats running for other offices .
Biden was fierce .
He declared that Trump ’ s decision to award the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh demonstrated that Trump “ doesn ’ t understand America or deserve to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden told the crowd that he cares about the challenges they face in their lives , reminding them that he , too , has experienced great losses .
And he added , “ I ’ m going to be damned if I ’ m going to stand by and lose my country , too .
Not going to let it happen.
” The crowd cheered .
It was Biden ( the 2020 model ) at his best .
The blood transfusion worked .
( Note to readers : Biden did not really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know . )
Several people walking out of the theater shared an observation : if only he had done that at the debate .
Maybe that would have been worth a few points .
It certainly was a performance that could provide Biden leaners cause to shed inhibitions and finally accept Biden as their man .
Yet as cynical reporters discussed among themselves , was this—warning : cliche ahead—too little , too late ?
Anyone can take a guess .
The interesting question is whether Biden can continue to campaign in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in New Hampshire he will still have the chance to do so as a contender .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
At the full (but not very big) Rex Theater in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, the crowd on Saturday that came to watch Vice President Joe Biden at one of his few campaign events was made up of Biden die-hards, a large collection of political tourists from outside the state, the usual undecided Granite State voters, and a sub-group of the not-made-a-choice-yet set: Biden fans looking for a reason to vote for the guy.
This bunch includes people who are drawn toward Biden and who want to vote for him but who are worried. They fret he may be past his prime and not up for the task of defeating Donald Trump. They are concerned they themselves are stuck in the past and ought to be moving ahead with one of the other choices. They just can’t get their heart (Joe!) and the head (uh, maybe not) together.
Prior to Biden’s arrival, a 50-something nurse from Nashua who didn’t want to share her name, described her state: “I feel a strange attraction to Joe. I’m trying to figure out if it’s just out of loyalty. Is it just because of Obama?” She noted that she was also considering billionaire Tom Steyer. (She had gone online to a site where voters can match their positions on policies with those of the candidates, and she lined up best with Steyer.) She noted that family members were trying to persuade her to kick Biden to the curb. Her relatives were pushing her to vote for either Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg. “Not a lot of overlap there,” I remarked. “Yeah,” she replied. “You should see my family.”
And there was another thing about Biden, she noted: “It feels so unfair what’s been done to him.” She was referring to Trump and the Republicans’ efforts to smear Biden and his son Hunter.
Inside the Rex—where the P.A. belted out The Who: “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”—Teri, a local businesswoman, echoed that sentiment: “I like Joe. I feel he deserves its. And I feel so bad at what Bonzo”—her term for Trump—”is doing to him and his son.” But it was clear a “but” was coming: “But I want to see him more fired up.”
Biden has been, to be polite about it, an uneven performer as a campaigner. He was feistier than usual at the Democratic debate on Friday night. But voters at this event and others have constantly said they’d like to see more out of the veteran Democrat. And watching Biden these days is like watching a fellow on a tightrope. His sentences often appear to be heading toward strong and crucial points. Yet too often they get lost on the way. My hunch is that New Hampshire residents looking to be Biden voters want to witness a clearer and more powerful Joe. They’re craving that one thing that will push them over the line into a true commitment.
At the Rex, Biden delivered as much as he has done to date. Occasionally glancing at the TelePrompter—he was not leaving this crucial appearance to chance—Biden presented a coherent and passionate speech to folks who largely did seem excited to be in his presence. He slammed Trump for caging kids, for embracing and exploiting hatred, for bowing down to Putin, for serving a “dark angry nation”: “I don’t think he possesses any empathy.” He even went populist: “This country wasn’t built by Wall Street… It was built by the middle class… Unions built the middle class.”
And Biden struck at Buttigieg, asserting this was “no time for on-the-job training.” Noting that Buttigieg has portrayed Biden as part of “failed Washington,” Biden asked what was so failing about passing Obamacare, reaching the Iran deal, saving the auto industry, or passing the stimulus bill that helped rescue a collapsing economy—accomplishments that he took credit for, in some cases more legitimately than others. (Biden did stumble over the word “Iran” and mangled a description of the deal, and many in the audience appeared to hold their breath, perhaps wondering if this would be the flub that finishes him. But the candidate recovered and pressed onward.)
Biden’s slap on Buttigieg was in sync with a snarky but cutting video released by his campaign that morning that contrasted Biden working on Obamacare and dealing with global leaders on the Iran deal to Buttigieg revamping sidewalks and putting new lights on a river walk. “We’re a party at risk if we nominate someone who hasn’t held an office higher than mayor” of a small city, Biden bellowed.
Biden also repeated his criticism of Sanders for not being able to provide a cost estimate for his Medicare for All proposal and for Sanders’ past votes to protect the gun industry. And he contended that having a self-proclaimed democratic socialist on the top of the ticket will be a disaster for Democrats running for other offices.
Biden was fierce. He declared that Trump’s decision to award the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh demonstrated that Trump “doesn’t understand America or deserve to be be its president.” In earnest fashion, Biden told the crowd that he cares about the challenges they face in their lives, reminding them that he, too, has experienced great losses. And he added, “I’m going to be damned if I’m going to stand by and lose my country, too. Not going to let it happen.” The crowd cheered.
It was Biden (the 2020 model) at his best. The blood transfusion worked. (Note to readers: Biden did not really get a blood transfusion—at least not that we know.) Several people walking out of the theater shared an observation: if only he had done that at the debate. Maybe that would have been worth a few points. It certainly was a performance that could provide Biden leaners cause to shed inhibitions and finally accept Biden as their man.
Yet as cynical reporters discussed among themselves, was this—warning: cliche ahead—too little, too late? Anyone can take a guess. The interesting question is whether Biden can continue to campaign in this coherent and robust fashion—and whether after the vote in New Hampshire he will still have the chance to do so as a contender.


motherjones--2020-02-08--Trump Blames the Wind for Super-Viral Photo But Says His Hair Still Looks Good

There are lots of photos of President Donald Trump .
And there are a lot of bad , weird ones .
I haven ’ t done the definitive analysis of this , but you and I both know that his personal quota of bad photos is higher than other very-photographed people in the world , who themselves suffer from a statistical likelihood of looking less than their best every now and then .
But occasionally , a new Trump photo goes viral that seems to distill his essential clownishness .
The latest was this gem , a snap of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glowing under a shock of matted hair caught in the wind : Now , it ’ s important to note there ’ s been some debate about whether or not the Twitter poster enhanced the coloring on this photo .
It would only take some very basic Photoshop skills to bump up the saturation for this kind of effect .
Even so , photos from the same setting published by official news agencies reveal that telltale lack of facial blending .
( The version I ’ ve used as the main photo for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photographer , Manuel Balce Ceneta , as the president returned to the White House , from a trip to Charlotte , N.C. on Friday ; I haven ’ t adjusted it at all , aside from cropping it to size . )
Not one to let a sleight slide , the president responded on Saturday afternoon in a tweet that labeled a black-and-white version of the photo “ fake news ” —and blamed the whole hair situation on the wind .
Lest we forget : here ’ s a reminder of just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their looks , targeting women especially by using such demeaning terms as “ horseface ” , “ fat and ugly , ” and “ pig .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
There are lots of photos of President Donald Trump. And there are a lot of bad, weird ones. I haven’t done the definitive analysis of this, but you and I both know that his personal quota of bad photos is higher than other very-photographed people in the world, who themselves suffer from a statistical likelihood of looking less than their best every now and then.
But occasionally, a new Trump photo goes viral that seems to distill his essential clownishness. The latest was this gem, a snap of Trump with his amateurish, undergraduate tan lines glowing under a shock of matted hair caught in the wind:
@realDonaldTrump returns to the White House from Charlotte, North Carolina. Photo by William Moon at the South Lawn of the White House on February 7, 2020 pic.twitter.com/n1a1Z93LrJ — White House Photos (@photowhitehouse) February 7, 2020
Now, it’s important to note there’s been some debate about whether or not the Twitter poster enhanced the coloring on this photo. It would only take some very basic Photoshop skills to bump up the saturation for this kind of effect. Even so, photos from the same setting published by official news agencies reveal that telltale lack of facial blending. (The version I’ve used as the main photo for this article was taken by Associated Press photographer, Manuel Balce Ceneta, as the president returned to the White House, from a trip to Charlotte, N.C. on Friday; I haven’t adjusted it at all, aside from cropping it to size.)
Here's an official Reuters pic and they don't allow photoshop or retouching. The one circulating probably has the saturation bumped a bit, but is pretty accurate. pic.twitter.com/EWTKYEjhGs — Chris Sorensen (@sorensen_chris) February 8, 2020
Not one to let a sleight slide, the president responded on Saturday afternoon in a tweet that labeled a black-and-white version of the photo “fake news”—and blamed the whole hair situation on the wind.
More Fake News. This was photoshopped, obviously, but the wind was strong and the hair looks good? Anything to demean! https://t.co/t8ptYMCYHf — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2020
Lest we forget: here’s a reminder of just how viciously Trump has attacked other people for their looks, targeting women especially by using such demeaning terms as “horseface”, “fat and ugly,” and “pig.”


motherjones--2020-02-08--Biden Mocked Buttigieg’s Record as Mayor in a New Video. Then Buttigieg Hit Back.

Three days before the New Hampshire primary , things are getting prickly : former Vice President Joe Biden is out with a new video mocking Pete Buttigieg ’ s record as mayor of South Bend , Indiana .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign is responding by calling Biden a Washington politician who trivializes the lives of people in communities like South Bend .
“ Let ’ s compare , ” a narrator states in the new video .
“ Joe Biden helped lead the passage of the Affordable Care Act , which gave health care to 20 million people.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she continues , deadpan , “ he installed decorative lights under bridges giving citizens of South Bend colorfully illuminated rivers.
” The compare-and-contrast continues in a similar vein : Biden helps negotiate the Iran Deal , Buttigieg tackles pet chip scanner regulations ; Biden works to save the auto industry , Buttigieg revitalizes South Bend sidewalks with “ decorative brick.
” It ends on a more serious note , attacking Buttigieg for firing a black police chief and pushing out a black fire chief .
“ [ T ] he American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from this classic Washington style of politics , ” Chris Meagher , Buttigieg ’ s national press secretary , responded in a statement .
“ While Washington politics trivializes what goes in communities like South Bend , South Bend residents who have better jobs , rising income , and new life in their city don ’ t think their lives are a Washington politician ’ s punchline.
” After finishing in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses , Biden suggested during a Friday debate that he may be on the verge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary on Tuesday .
“ The Vice President ’ s decision to run this ad , ” Buttigieg ’ s press secretary said , “ speaks more to where he currently stands in this race than it does about Pete ’ s perspective as a mayor and veteran.
” Dueling polls out Friday and Saturday showed Sen. Bernie Sanders and Buttigieg continuing to battle it out at the top after Iowa ’ s photo finish .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Three days before the New Hampshire primary, things are getting prickly: former Vice President Joe Biden is out with a new video mocking Pete Buttigieg’s record as mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg’s campaign is responding by calling Biden a Washington politician who trivializes the lives of people in communities like South Bend.
“Let’s compare,” a narrator states in the new video. “Joe Biden helped lead the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which gave health care to 20 million people.”
“And when park-goers called on Pete Buttigieg,” she continues, deadpan, “he installed decorative lights under bridges giving citizens of South Bend colorfully illuminated rivers.”
Former Mayor Pete doesn’t think very highly of the Obama-Biden record. Let’s compare. pic.twitter.com/132TB7MHaq — Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) February 8, 2020
The compare-and-contrast continues in a similar vein: Biden helps negotiate the Iran Deal, Buttigieg tackles pet chip scanner regulations; Biden works to save the auto industry, Buttigieg revitalizes South Bend sidewalks with “decorative brick.” It ends on a more serious note, attacking Buttigieg for firing a black police chief and pushing out a black fire chief.
“[T]he American people are crying out for something completely different from this classic Washington style of politics,” Chris Meagher, Buttigieg’s national press secretary, responded in a statement. “While Washington politics trivializes what goes in communities like South Bend, South Bend residents who have better jobs, rising income, and new life in their city don’t think their lives are a Washington politician’s punchline.”
After finishing in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses, Biden suggested during a Friday debate that he may be on the verge of another disappointing loss in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. “The Vice President’s decision to run this ad,” Buttigieg’s press secretary said, “speaks more to where he currently stands in this race than it does about Pete’s perspective as a mayor and veteran.”
Dueling polls out Friday and Saturday showed Sen. Bernie Sanders and Buttigieg continuing to battle it out at the top after Iowa’s photo finish.


motherjones--2020-02-08--The Trump Bump: Republicans Are Increasingly Smitten with Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin—invader of Ukraine , enemy of gay rights , election-disturber , and generally shirtless autocrat—good or bad ?
For Republicans and Democrats , this used to be a simple question .
No longer .
New data from the Pew Research Center shows a sharp partisan divide emerging when it comes to Americans ’ opinions of Putin and Russia .
Nearly one-third of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents now say they have confidence in Putin “ to do the right thing concerning world affairs.
” Only 10 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the same thing .
When Pew asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no split between Republicans and Democrats : Just 15 percent of both groups were confident Putin would do the right thing .
Republicans are now 21 points more likely than Democrats to trust Putin , the largest gap since Pew began asking about him in 2006 .
The reasons for the Party of Reagan ’ s newfound fondness for Putin are perhaps not hard to discern .
Back in 2013 , then-reality TV star Donald Trump tweeted , “ Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will he become my new best friend ?
” As a politician , Trump has called Putin a “ very smart cookie ” who is “ much smarter , much more cunning ” than Barack Obama .
“ I respect Putin , ” Trump said in November .
“ He ’ s a strong leader.
” In an era of hyper-partisan tribal fealty , members of the party he has taken over increasingly agree .
Overall , just 20 percent of Americans have some or a lot of confidence in Putin doing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 29 percent of Canadians .
Fifty-one percent of Americans have no “ confidence at all .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Vladimir Putin—invader of Ukraine, enemy of gay rights, election-disturber, and generally shirtless autocrat—good or bad? For Republicans and Democrats, this used to be a simple question. No longer.
New data from the Pew Research Center shows a sharp partisan divide emerging when it comes to Americans’ opinions of Putin and Russia. Nearly one-third of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents now say they have confidence in Putin “to do the right thing concerning world affairs.” Only 10 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the same thing.
When Pew asked the same question in 2014, there was no split between Republicans and Democrats: Just 15 percent of both groups were confident Putin would do the right thing. Republicans are now 21 points more likely than Democrats to trust Putin, the largest gap since Pew began asking about him in 2006.
The reasons for the Party of Reagan’s newfound fondness for Putin are perhaps not hard to discern. Back in 2013, then-reality TV star Donald Trump tweeted, “Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow – if so, will he become my new best friend?”
As a politician, Trump has called Putin a “very smart cookie” who is “much smarter, much more cunning” than Barack Obama.
“I respect Putin,” Trump said in November. “He’s a strong leader.” In an era of hyper-partisan tribal fealty, members of the party he has taken over increasingly agree.
Overall, just 20 percent of Americans have some or a lot of confidence in Putin doing the right thing in world affairs, compared to 29 percent of Canadians. Fifty-one percent of Americans have no “confidence at all.”


motherjones--2020-02-08--Antarctica Registered Its Highest Temperature on Record This Week

While you were drowning in this week ’ s impeachment , State of the Union , and election news , scientists were sounding yet another climate alarm : Antarctica just set a new record temperature .
On Thursday , a historical high for the continent of 65 degrees Fahrenheit ( 18.3 Celsius ) was measured by Argentinian meteorologists at the Esperanza base , on the tip of Antarctica ’ s Trinity Peninsula , beating the previous record of 63.5 Fahrenheit ( 17.5 Celsius ) set in March 2015 .
“ It ’ s a sign of the warming that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faster than the global average , ” Professor James Renwick , a climate scientist at Victoria University of Wellington , told the Guardian .
“ To have a new record set that quickly is surprising but who knows how long that will last ?
Possibly not that long at all.
” This is , how do I say it ?
Not good .
The Washington Post puts the news in its disturbing broader context : The Antarctic Peninsula , on which Thursday ’ s anomaly was recorded , is one of the fastest-warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 50 years , temperatures have surged a staggering 5 degrees in response to Earth ’ s swiftly warming climate .
Around 87 percent of glaciers along the peninsula ’ s west coast have retreated in that time , the majority doing so at an accelerated pace since 2008… “ [ This record ] doesn ’ t come as any surprise , ” wrote Eric Steig , a glaciologist studying climate change at the University of Washington .
“ Although there is decade-to-decade variability , the underlying trend across most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record will probably be broken again in the not-so-distant future .
The news came just days after the European Union ’ s Copernicus Climate Change Service announced January 2020 was the warmest January on record .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
While you were drowning in this week’s impeachment, State of the Union, and election news, scientists were sounding yet another climate alarm: Antarctica just set a new record temperature. On Thursday, a historical high for the continent of 65 degrees Fahrenheit (18.3 Celsius) was measured by Argentinian meteorologists at the Esperanza base, on the tip of Antarctica’s Trinity Peninsula, beating the previous record of 63.5 Fahrenheit (17.5 Celsius) set in March 2015.
“It’s a sign of the warming that has been happening there that’s much faster than the global average,” Professor James Renwick, a climate scientist at Victoria University of Wellington, told the Guardian. “To have a new record set that quickly is surprising but who knows how long that will last? Possibly not that long at all.”
18.3°C! – new highest temperature recorded for continental #Antarctica, yesterday at Esperanza Base, the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, 63°23′S; previous record was 17.5°C in 2015 also at Esperanza @SMN_Argentina; records began at the station in 1961, pic Nestor Franco pic.twitter.com/1qhbv0rDQj — The Antarctic Report (@AntarcticReport) February 7, 2020
This is, how do I say it? Not good. The Washington Post puts the news in its disturbing broader context:
The Antarctic Peninsula, on which Thursday’s anomaly was recorded, is one of the fastest-warming regions in the world. In just the past 50 years, temperatures have surged a staggering 5 degrees in response to Earth’s swiftly warming climate. Around 87 percent of glaciers along the peninsula’s west coast have retreated in that time, the majority doing so at an accelerated pace since 2008… “[This record] doesn’t come as any surprise,” wrote Eric Steig, a glaciologist studying climate change at the University of Washington. “Although there is decade-to-decade variability, the underlying trend across most of the continent is warming.” He says this record will probably be broken again in the not-so-distant future.
The news came just days after the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service announced January 2020 was the warmest January on record.


motherjones--2020-02-10--Who Needs New Hampshire? The Bloomberg Campaign Is Ramping Up in Massachusetts.

While the rest of the Democratic field frantically barnstormed New Hampshire on Saturday , a field director for Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign was opening his pitch to a room full of volunteers about an hour beyond New Hampshire ’ s southern boundary , in Massachusetts .
This time of the year in New England , presidential organizing doesn ’ t usually make it south of the New Hampshire line .
Traditionally , campaigns have made winning in the early voting states a priority , with most pinning their hopes on securing more cash and momentum to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday states and beyond .
The idea that a campaign would already be staffing up and training volunteers in Massachusetts—or anywhere beyond New Hampshire , South Carolina , and Nevada , the next three states to vote—would almost be too presumptuous , a waste of precious campaign resources .
Conventional wisdom dictates that if you can ’ t win in New Hampshire or South Carolina , the money and the support will be gone by the time you get to Massachusetts , which votes this year on March 3 .
If it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary , every resource is up north , not in suburban Boston , coaching volunteers for a primary nearly a month away .
But this past week , Bloomberg ’ s operation was doing just that , and a great deal more—something more on the scale of a national campaign kickoff .
First was the announcement that Bloomberg was increasing his nationwide campaign staff to 2,100 and expanding his already expansive ad buys around the country .
And then , on the Saturday before the New Hampshire primary , Bloomberg was traveling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while surrogates spread out through other states .
It was all part of a “ weekend in action ” with events in 30 states , including Massachusetts , a Super Tuesday state and the former New York City mayor ’ s home state .
( He grew up in Medford . )
“ We ’ re in swing states , ” Nick Alto , a Bloomberg Massachusetts field director , told the 20 or so volunteers who showed up in Brookline on Saturday said .
“ We ’ re in these important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for emphasis , “ Huge operations.
” The message to the volunteers was clear : You should feel the power , the methodical investment , and the stability of Bloomberg ’ s growing campaign and understand that he ’ s not going to come or go based on the whims of a handful of early voting states .
Iowa , New Hampshire , and South Carolina don ’ t matter—not that Bloomberg is even on the ballot there ; he missed the filing deadlines—because Bloomberg is doing something bigger and has the unlimited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Alto ’ s volunteer training emphasized not only that the investment has been made , but that it will continue , “ even if he ’ s not the nominee.
” Bloomberg has pledged to spend heavily to help the eventual Democratic nominee defeat President Donald Trump .
The volunteers who showed up to the Brookline state headquarters for Bloomberg seemed comforted by that message of power and stability , describing Bloomberg as someone who , as an avowed capitalist and the ninth-richest person in the world , was not vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are so worried the market is going to tank if a socialist Democrat gets elected , ” said Kevin Fandel , a retiree who showed up for training—the first time , he said , he had volunteered for a campaign .
“ He knows the markets .
He knows how to keep them stable and moving.
” Fandel said that before Bloomberg got into the race , he hadn ’ t decided on a candidate to back but was partial to Biden because he was a “ known quantity.
” But Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second thoughts about whether the former vice president is up for a big fight .
“ I think he ’ s a good man , ” Fandel said , almost apologetically .
Then he added , about Bloomberg , “ I don ’ t think he ’ s intimidated by Trump at all .
He really sees him as a con man.
” Several other volunteers offered similar sentiments , unsolicited .
Some of the present Democratic field struck them as too liberal , but the moderate candidates left something to be desired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I probably would ’ ve voted for Biden , ” said Sandy Goldstein , another phone bank volunteer , who , like Fandel , had grown less enthusiastic about the former vice president and seemed apologetic that she couldn ’ t get excited about him .
Goldstein said she liked the way Bloomberg projected firmness .
“ He shows authority and credibility , ” she said .
Some of the Bloomberg volunteers appeared worried that the other centrist candidates lacked the gumption or the means to go head to head in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Democrats have accused Bloomberg of buying his way into the Democratic race , Bloomberg ’ s bottomless pockets seemed to be a big part of the appeal .
“ I don ’ t think he ’ s buying it , I think he ’ s investing his resources , ” Fandel said .
After a moment , he added , “ You have to trust someone , and I ’ d rather have him buy the election , if that ’ s what you want to call it , than have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election.
” The Brookline volunteers also seemed to like Bloomberg ’ s reputation for directness .
“ I think there ’ s even a way to appeal to Trump voters , ” Goldstein said .
“ He ’ s got that kind of straight talk to him , but with him , it has dignity .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
While the rest of the Democratic field frantically barnstormed New Hampshire on Saturday, a field director for Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign was opening his pitch to a room full of volunteers about an hour beyond New Hampshire’s southern boundary, in Massachusetts.
This time of the year in New England, presidential organizing doesn’t usually make it south of the New Hampshire line. Traditionally, campaigns have made winning in the early voting states a priority, with most pinning their hopes on securing more cash and momentum to make it viable to set up operations in Super Tuesday states and beyond.
The idea that a campaign would already be staffing up and training volunteers in Massachusetts—or anywhere beyond New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, the next three states to vote—would almost be too presumptuous, a waste of precious campaign resources. Conventional wisdom dictates that if you can’t win in New Hampshire or South Carolina, the money and the support will be gone by the time you get to Massachusetts, which votes this year on March 3. If it’s three days before the New Hampshire primary, every resource is up north, not in suburban Boston, coaching volunteers for a primary nearly a month away.
But this past week, Bloomberg’s operation was doing just that, and a great deal more—something more on the scale of a national campaign kickoff. First was the announcement that Bloomberg was increasing his nationwide campaign staff to 2,100 and expanding his already expansive ad buys around the country. And then, on the Saturday before the New Hampshire primary, Bloomberg was traveling to Alabama and Oklahoma to make campaign stops, while surrogates spread out through other states. It was all part of a “weekend in action” with events in 30 states, including Massachusetts, a Super Tuesday state and the former New York City mayor’s home state. (He grew up in Medford.)
“We’re in swing states,” Nick Alto, a Bloomberg Massachusetts field director, told the 20 or so volunteers who showed up in Brookline on Saturday said. “We’re in these important states…and with big staffs.” He added for emphasis, “Huge operations.”
Traditionally, the idea that a campaign would already be staffing up and training volunteers in Massachusetts would almost be too presumptuous, a waste of precious campaign resources.
The message to the volunteers was clear: You should feel the power, the methodical investment, and the stability of Bloomberg’s growing campaign and understand that he’s not going to come or go based on the whims of a handful of early voting states. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina don’t matter—not that Bloomberg is even on the ballot there; he missed the filing deadlines—because Bloomberg is doing something bigger and has the unlimited resources to sustain it. In Brookline, Alto’s volunteer training emphasized not only that the investment has been made, but that it will continue, “even if he’s not the nominee.” Bloomberg has pledged to spend heavily to help the eventual Democratic nominee defeat President Donald Trump.
The volunteers who showed up to the Brookline state headquarters for Bloomberg seemed comforted by that message of power and stability, describing Bloomberg as someone who, as an avowed capitalist and the ninth-richest person in the world, was not vulnerable to accusations of socialist politics.
“People are so worried the market is going to tank if a socialist Democrat gets elected,” said Kevin Fandel, a retiree who showed up for training—the first time, he said, he had volunteered for a campaign. “He knows the markets. He knows how to keep them stable and moving.”
Fandel said that before Bloomberg got into the race, he hadn’t decided on a candidate to back but was partial to Biden because he was a “known quantity.” But Biden’s uneven debate performances recently gave him second thoughts about whether the former vice president is up for a big fight.
“I think he’s a good man,” Fandel said, almost apologetically. Then he added, about Bloomberg, “I don’t think he’s intimidated by Trump at all. He really sees him as a con man.”
Several other volunteers offered similar sentiments, unsolicited. Some of the present Democratic field struck them as too liberal, but the moderate candidates left something to be desired.
“I wasn’t hot-to-trot, but I probably would’ve voted for Biden,” said Sandy Goldstein, another phone bank volunteer, who, like Fandel, had grown less enthusiastic about the former vice president and seemed apologetic that she couldn’t get excited about him. Goldstein said she liked the way Bloomberg projected firmness.
“He shows authority and credibility,” she said.
Some of the Bloomberg volunteers appeared worried that the other centrist candidates lacked the gumption or the means to go head to head in a knock-down fight with Trump. While other Democrats have accused Bloomberg of buying his way into the Democratic race, Bloomberg’s bottomless pockets seemed to be a big part of the appeal.
“I don’t think he’s buying it, I think he’s investing his resources,” Fandel said. After a moment, he added, “You have to trust someone, and I’d rather have him buy the election, if that’s what you want to call it, than have the pharmaceutical industry or the gun industry buy the election.”
The Brookline volunteers also seemed to like Bloomberg’s reputation for directness.
“I think there’s even a way to appeal to Trump voters,” Goldstein said. “He’s got that kind of straight talk to him, but with him, it has dignity.”


motherjones--2020-02-10--How to Fix Everything in Politics, Media, Culture, and Climate: Mother Jones’ Style Guide

It didn ’ t take long for 2020 to become the kind of rumbling , brink-of-war election year that 2019 foreshadowed , with President Trump ’ s overseas outbursts and domestic distractions threatening to fog up impeachment and the election .
As the year unfolds , Mother Jones and the rest of the national media have our work cut out for us , from fact-checking to reality-checking , which takes more than reporting .
In the Trump era , it takes seeing through smokescreens in the media , scare tactics in government , and language tricks everywhere .
Words ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what “ white supremacy ” and “ white nationalism ” mean , “ extortion ” and “ quid pro quo ” mean , “ cancel culture ” means , “ detention ” means .
To that end our staff has been debating and rewriting our style guide to make sure it reflects the most accurate , accountable language in areas of race , gender , abortion , incarceration , immigration , climate science , and more .
Today , Mother Jones is publishing its style guide , the handbook our editors and reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s the first time in our 44-year history that we ’ re releasing it publicly .
We ’ re sharing it to encourage readers , and ourselves , to learn out loud about words ’ consequences and constraints .
What this means is a living guide that ’ s constantly updated , but whose goals are unchanging : challenge hidden biases in language , avoid euphemisms that creep into national vocabulary ( like “ internment ” when you mean incarceration ) , and amplify a diverse range of voices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of newsrooms have released theirs : BuzzFeed News , the Guardian , the New York Times , Rewire.News , BBC .
More newsrooms should tip their hands .
Some highlights in ours : distinctions between disinformation and misinformation ; suppression and depression of voter turnout ; victims and survivors .
You ’ ll see a default to gender-neutral occupational titles ( with exceptions ) and climate language like accepting scientific facts instead of believing in them .
• When should we use Latinx ?
Check our entry ; see if you agree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalized ( but not white ) in all references to race or should Mother Jones defer to individual writers ’ and sources ’ discretion ( as we do now ) to affirm personal choice even at the cost of consistency ?
• What ’ s the distinction between “ white supremacy ” and “ white nationalism ” ?
See our entry .
• Should we drop the hashtag from # MeToo to reflect the movement ’ s broadening beyond its social media origins ?
• Should we replace “ conspiracy theory ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term like it ) to preserve the scientific meaning of theory as an accepted body of explanations , the opposite of the flatly wrong just-a-theory use , as some scientists are pitching us to do ?
Or allow both meanings ?
• Should we use “ lab-grown ” or another term for synthetically grown animal meat ?
The biggest fallacy to avoid in style guides : the false choice between descriptivism and prescriptivism .
What a scam .
We ’ ve been sold this myth that style manuals have to choose between describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each requires the other .
You can order a la carte .
There are some gutlessly neutral , deeply flawed style guides out there .
One news organization ’ s—left unnamed as a courtesy ( the news org is good but its style guide is abysmal ) —has this dose of overcorrection : “ Do not label a person as racist.
” Because , we ’ re told , “ source dignity and reader clarity are prioritized when specific actions , rather than general labels , are specified in a story.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning “ racist ” make sense ?
This kind of hedging and shuffling and sleight of hand is exactly what repulses readers and allows racism to go unnamed and endowed through euphemism .
Accuracy requires the word when it clearly applies .
Another dose of overcaution from a newsroom ’ s internal guidelines : “ ‘ Terrorism/terrorists ’ : Do not use .
One person ’ s terrorist is another ’ s freedom fighter.
” False equivalencies like this are a familiar misfire from down-the-middle , earnest editors with good intentions but bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pendulum swing past the best balance .
“ Terrorist ” can be used as clearly to describe white supremacist terrorists as jihadist terrorists and anyone else who meets an exacting definition based on ideology , intent , and impact .
The word is not empty , innately subjective , or bluntly bigoted as an instrument of empire in all cases ; allow and use the word accurately .
Banning it would only confirm the serious charge that progressive-posturing reporters resort to cherry-picked euphemisms instead of drawing hard distinctions and calling something exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not hesitate to take a stand—see our guidelines on ability and disability , religion and atheism , abortion and law—we also don ’ t make blanket pronouncements in cases where there ’ s good reason to leave things open or let writers and sources define their own terms .
Our style guide is here , always in progress .
Reach us at styleguide @ motherjones.com and weigh in with comments .
Our copy team will answer all of your nontrolling questions ( and most of your trolling ones ) .
Enter the @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It didn’t take long for 2020 to become the kind of rumbling, brink-of-war election year that 2019 foreshadowed, with President Trump’s overseas outbursts and domestic distractions threatening to fog up impeachment and the election. As the year unfolds, Mother Jones and the rest of the national media have our work cut out for us, from fact-checking to reality-checking, which takes more than reporting. In the Trump era, it takes seeing through smokescreens in the media, scare tactics in government, and language tricks everywhere. Words’ meanings are increasingly heightened; it matters what “white supremacy” and “white nationalism” mean, “extortion” and “quid pro quo” mean, “cancel culture” means, “detention” means. To that end our staff has been debating and rewriting our style guide to make sure it reflects the most accurate, accountable language in areas of race, gender, abortion, incarceration, immigration, climate science, and more.
Today, Mother Jones is publishing its style guide, the handbook our editors and reporters use for internal guidance on word choice. It’s the first time in our 44-year history that we’re releasing it publicly.
We’re sharing it to encourage readers, and ourselves, to learn out loud about words’ consequences and constraints. What this means is a living guide that’s constantly updated, but whose goals are unchanging: challenge hidden biases in language, avoid euphemisms that creep into national vocabulary (like “internment” when you mean incarceration), and amplify a diverse range of voices. Find our guide here.
A handful of newsrooms have released theirs: BuzzFeed News, the Guardian, the New York Times, Rewire.News, BBC. More newsrooms should tip their hands. Some highlights in ours: distinctions between disinformation and misinformation; suppression and depression of voter turnout; victims and survivors. You’ll see a default to gender-neutral occupational titles (with exceptions) and climate language like accepting scientific facts instead of believing in them.
Questions we’re debating:
• When should we use Latinx? Check our entry; see if you agree.
• Should Black and Brown always be capitalized (but not white) in all references to race or should Mother Jones defer to individual writers’ and sources’ discretion (as we do now) to affirm personal choice even at the cost of consistency?
• What’s the distinction between “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”? See our entry.
• Should we drop the hashtag from #MeToo to reflect the movement’s broadening beyond its social media origins?
• Should we replace “conspiracy theory” with “conspiracy claim” (or a term like it) to preserve the scientific meaning of theory as an accepted body of explanations, the opposite of the flatly wrong just-a-theory use, as some scientists are pitching us to do? Or allow both meanings?
• Should we use “lab-grown” or another term for synthetically grown animal meat?
The biggest fallacy to avoid in style guides: the false choice between descriptivism and prescriptivism. What a scam. We’ve been sold this myth that style manuals have to choose between describing or prescribing how words work. But each requires the other. You can order a la carte.
There are some gutlessly neutral, deeply flawed style guides out there. One news organization’s—left unnamed as a courtesy (the news org is good but its style guide is abysmal)—has this dose of overcorrection: “Do not label a person as racist.” Because, we’re told, “source dignity and reader clarity are prioritized when specific actions, rather than general labels, are specified in a story.” In what world of dignity and clarity does banning “racist” make sense? This kind of hedging and shuffling and sleight of hand is exactly what repulses readers and allows racism to go unnamed. Accuracy requires the word when it clearly applies.
Another dose of overcaution from a newsroom’s internal guidelines: “‘Terrorism/terrorists’: Do not use. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” False equivalencies like this are a familiar misfire from down-the-middle, earnest editors with good intentions but bad grammar and misguided politics. This is a pendulum swing past the best balance. “Terrorist” can be used as clearly to describe white supremacist terrorists as jihadist terrorists and anyone else who meets an exacting definition based on ideology, intent, and impact. The word is not empty, innately subjective, or bluntly bigoted as an instrument of empire in all cases; allow and use the word accurately. Banning it would only confirm the serious charge that progressive-posturing reporters resort to cherry-picked euphemisms instead of drawing hard distinctions and calling something exactly what it is.
While Mother Jones does not hesitate to take a stand—see our guidelines on ability and disability, religion and atheism, abortion and law—we also don’t make blanket pronouncements in cases where there’s good reason to leave things open or let writers and sources define their own terms.
Our style guide is here, always in progress. Reach us at styleguide@motherjones.com and weigh in with comments. Our copy team will answer all of your nontrolling questions (and most of your trolling ones). Enter the breach.