Swiftboating Hillary . . . Again

Republicans with the complicity of the so-called liberal media, are expert at undermining Democratic candidates on the basis of bogus allegations that are repeated so often they become part of the political fabric.  Al Gore said he invented the internet -- which he never said.  John Kerry misrepresented his war record -- which he never did. And now, Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State provided access in exchange for contributions to her husband's charity that has done little more than enrich the Clintons themselves -- which, despite a raft of explosive headlines and breathless reporting does not appear to be the case.

Having learned nothing from the trumped up controversies of the earlier Clinton Era, from Whitewater to Travelgate, the New York Times, The Associated Press and other supposed credible media outlets continue to uncritically echo and amplify the conspiracy theories of right wing ratfucking operations whose sole aim is to take the Clintons down.

It is worth noting that Bill Clinton did not go home and paint himself in the shower after his presidency ended.  He established a charitable foundation that, according to CNN, is made up of 11 non-profit groups that work on four major issues: global health and wellness, climate change, economic development and improving opportunities for girls and women. 

It is worth noting that Charity Watch has given the Clinton Foundation an A grade, finding that in 2014, 87.2% of the Foundation's funding went to its programs, and stating that the Foundation does "really important, valuable work that saves lives of lots of people."

According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation runs an initiative that focuses on saving the “lives of people with HIV/AIDS in the developing world by dramatically scaling up antiretroviral treatment” and has expanded to address malaria and maternal health.  Another program works to prevent deforestation, develop clean energy, and help island nations meet the challenges of climate change.

What does the Donald J. Trump Foundation do again other than offer golf games and buy Tim Tebow jerseys?

It is also worth noting that neither Bill nor Hillary nor Chelsea receive any salary from the Foundation.  In fact, they have donated millions to it.

It is true that some people who gave to the Foundation also happened to have met with Clinton while she was Secretary of State but there is no evidence that they met with Clinton because they gave to the Foundation.  And there is no evidence of any quid pro quo -- that those meetings affected any action at the State Department.

Matthew Yglesias, among others, has ably debunked AP's purported expose:

The State Department is a big operation. So is the Clinton Foundation. The AP put a lot of work into this project. And it couldn’t come up with anything that looks worse than helping a Nobel Prize winner, raising money to finance AIDS education, and doing an introduction for the chair of the Kennedy Center. It’s kind of surprising.

As with so many things about the Clintons, there is an appearance of impropriety but no evidence of actual impropriety. But that doesn't seem to matter.  Under the rules of false equivalency, Donald Trump is awash in conflicts of interest and so it must be reported that Hillary Clinton is too.  Add Republican swiftboating techniques and the special media rules for Clinton-related conspiracy theories and you now have a full blown scandal that will become endless fodder for pundits, talk show hosts, Trump tweets and Republican calls for yet another Clinton investigation.

It is going to be a long eight years.

Has Red Donald Finally Gone Too Far For The GOP?

It has become clear that no matter how racist, misogynistic or xenophobic Donald Trump is -- no matter how offensive his statements about Mexicans, Muslims or women are -- the Republican Party establishment will not denounce him and the vast majority of Republicans will continue to support him.  This should not be surprising.  Racism, xenophobia and misogyny, albeit in a more subtle form, have been an essential aspect of the GOP for decades.  It is the special sauce that has kept white working class Americans in the fold ever since the segregationists abandoned the Democratic Party in the wake of LBJ's signing of the Voting Rights Act and Trump forerunner Patrick Buchanan devised Nixon's Southern Strategy a few years later -- a strategy perfected by Reagan (e.g., welfare queens) and advanced by Bush I (e.g., Willie Horton). 

From Birchers to Birthers, Republicans have sought to woo uneducated, socially conservative white men with racist and anti-immigrant appeals.  Throw in attacks on the gays and abortion-seeking women, and you've got the making of a coalition just big enough to make the presidential race competitive, control at least half the Senate and retain a gerrymandered House of Representatives.  Notwithstanding the attempts of the few moderate Republicans still extant to treat Trump as a gross aberration from Republican Party orthodoxy, Trumpism is Republicanism writ large.

But, Trump's Putin fetish and his soft-on-Russia stances are hardly Republican -- they should be an anathema to Republicans who love a good Cold War and hate a good Communist.  Throughout Obama's presidency, Republicans harshly criticized him for having the audacity to negotiate an arms treaty with Putin and for not confronting Russia's aggression more aggressively.

This ever-expanding bill of particulars should be disturbing, indeed disqualifying, for any GOP candidate -- even Donald J. Trump:

1.  Trump has repeatedly praised Putin as a leader, alternatively stating that he knows him, has a relationship with him, and never met him.
2.  Trump has relied on Russian capital to prop up his businesses, the extent of which would likely be revealed by tax returns that Trump refuses to release.
3.  Trump either appears to be unaware of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, given his word salad response on ABC's This Week, or does not oppose it -- with Trump supporters eliminating from the GOP party platform support for providing lethal defensive weapons for Ukraine.
4.  Trump's campaign manager has been a lobbyist for several pro-Putin clients, including a deposed pro-Russian Ukraine president.
5.   Trump appears to have legitimized Russia's seizure of Crimea, contending that the people there actually welcomed it.
6.  Trump has stated that he would not necessarily defend NATO countries if they were attacked by Russia, in direct violation of our heretofore unquestioned security commitments.
7.  After Russia hacked the DNC, Trump invited Russia to intervene in a United States presidential election by "finding" Hillary Clinton's missing emails and disseminating them.

Republicans have little problem with the prospect of an erratic, grossly ill-informed, racist creep, but are they comfortable with an erratic, grossly ill-informed Russian stooge?

Raising Kaine: Clinton Disappoints With VP Pick, But I'm Still With Her

Hillary Clinton could have chosen a chimpanzee to be her running mate and I would still support her.  The stakes in this election are too high.  If nothing else, the last few Days of Dystopia, aka the Republican National Convention, have made it clear that Donald J. Trump is intent on harnessing the darkest and most dangerous instincts of disaffected white Americans whose fervent cries of "build the wall," "lock her up" and "all lives matter" were absolutely chilling.  It isn't hyperbole to say that this is how fascist regimes get their start -- drumming up fear and hatred, claiming to be the one and only person who can make the country safe and strong, and then promising with nothing more than slogans to make it all happen on the first day in power.

Thankfully, because Trump is so remarkably disorganized and erratic -- and women and people of color still have the vote --  the odds still greatly favor Clinton to win the presidency.  But the fact that this might be anywhere near a close vote in November is deeply troubling, indeed, frightening. 

Which brings us back to Clinton.  I don't really need to rehash the reasons why I supported Clinton in the primaries.  (See, e.g., On Loving Bernie But Not Feeling The Bern)  And I don't really need to repeat the familiar litany of reasons why Clinton is not my ideal candidate.   (See, e.g., The Pros and Cons of Voting for Hillary Clinton)  At bottom, I believed -- and continue to believe -- that she was the candidate best positioned to beat the Republicans.  I have come to accept that while she will generally support issues critical to progressives, she also will invariably disappoint.

I just didn't think she would disappoint so soon.  I really hoped that she would not heed the calls from the more moderate/corporatist wing of the Democratic Party to choose a running mate that would make her candidacy more palatable to white blue collar men and the Democratic establishment.  I really hoped that she would shed her more cautious political instincts and understand that the political zeitgeist calls for a less traditional, more progressive choice.  I really hoped that her response to Trump's pick of a right-wing religious zealot would be to go in the other direction rather than trying to fill the vacuum in the center. 

Choosing a candidate to her left -- particularly Elizabeth Warren -- would have sent a strong signal that Clinton, having dispatched with Bernie Sanders, was not going to hew to the center.  It would have shown that she was willing to tap into the passion and energy that drove the Sanders campaign and that is, frankly, lacking among Clinton supporters.  Warren, as a running mate, would be better than anyone in the country at shaming the Republicans for their coziness with Wall Street, attacks on reproductive rights, disdain for consumers, and intransigence on the Supreme Court -- as well as exposing the idiocy, the hypocrisy and the danger of Donald J. Trump. 

But, alas, this was not to be.  Clinton has chosen Tim fucking Kaine.  Kaine is a Senator and former Governor from Virginia, an important battleground state to be sure.  He is the son of a welder with Midwest roots that give him an appealing blue collar aura.  He speaks Spanish.  But he has strong ties to Wall Street and favors greater deregulation of banks.  He is an advocate of free trade deals and supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Warren, Sanders and purportedly Clinton oppose.  And he is "personally" anti-choice. He is a white man.  He is not a progressive.  He is not an electrifying speaker.  He is a conventional pick in what is not a conventional election cycle.

I'm disappointed. Very disappointed. Extremely disappointed.  Progressives should be very, very disappointed.  Dammit!  Fuck!  ...

OK?  OK.

Now, let's get back out there and support the ticket.

Elizabeth Warren For Veep

There are some very good reasons why Elizabeth Warren would not be an ideal choice for Hillary Clinton's running mate.  Democrats would be giving up a key Senate seat at a time when they need to pick up at least four seats to regain a majority. (A Republican Governor would appoint an interim Senator until a special election could be held.)  Warren, especially assuming the Democrats do take back the Senate, would be giving up a position of enormous influence (e.g., chairperson of the Banking Committee) for a more ambiguous role.  She would be ceding her place (along with Bernie Sanders) as the leading progressive voice in Congress and would undoubtedly have to subordinate some of her views to the leader on the ticket.  

But if you put aside those pragmatic -- and very legitimate concerns -- think about how exciting it would be to have Elizabeth Warren as a candidate for national office.  For Democrats and left-leaning Independents, there isn't a more universally admired politician.  There isn't a more forceful voice for the working and middle classes.  There isn't anyone more suited to reach out to the many voters who are chafing against the status quo.  There isn't anyone better at shaming the Republicans for their coziness with Wall Street, attacks on reproductive rights, disdain for consumers, and intransigence on the Supreme Court.  There isn't anyone who is more skilled at exposing the idiocy, the hypocrisy and the danger of Donald J. Trump. 

For those of us who support Clinton but have some concerns that she will start hewing towards the center once she disposes of Bernie Sanders, it would be reassuring to have Warren as her running mate.  For those who have bought the narrative about Clinton's dishonesty and unsuitability for office, Warren's presence on the ticket would soothe the Bern.

(And Warren doesn't have the baggage that would make Sanders such a tricky choice for VP.  The right wing attack machine has yet to 'swift boat' Sanders for, e.g., his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, his conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, his call for eliminating the CIA, his role as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party at a time when it supported abolishing the military budget and seeking solidarity with revolutionary regimes in Iran and Cuba.)

And think about what it would be like to have two powerful, brilliant, fearless women running against an arrogant, misogynistic man-baby.  Such a combination, unlike any other, would electrify the non-Neanderthal electorate.  It would most likely bolster candidates down the ballot and actually make it easier for Democrats to take back the Senate and make inroads into the House.

And once elected, Warren could craft a role as a Vice President that would give her far-ranging influence on the issues she and we care about most.

Clinton-Warren 2016. 

#NeverNader: A Reminder About The Perils Of Purity

It is no coincidence that the most potent insurgencies from the left come to the fore at the end of a Democratic -- not Republican -- Administration.  That is when progressives are (often understandably) angered and disillusioned by the lack of progress (often betrayals) by their own elected leaders while the disastrous policies of the Republican predecessor have receded in memory.

And so, after Bill Clinton's second term, Ralph Nader launched his third-party effort -- a quixotic exercise that had no discernible positive long term impact on the political landscape but did help usher into power one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. 

Undeterred, Ralph Nader continues to be unsafe at any speed.  He is unapologetic, myopic and arrogant as ever.  For him, the system is corrupt, there are no lesser evils, and any compromise that might entail voting for a less-than-pure candidate is nothing short of unconditional surrender to corruption.  For him, there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.  For him, there apparently is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. 

Nader rails against Clinton, using the kind of incendiary rhetoric that feeds into the frenzy of Sanders supporters convinced that she is stealing the election:  "She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote."

And he praises Trump for bringing important issues to light, all but dismissing what could be a real dictatorship and discounting the dangers of electing a reckless, ignorant vulgar talking yam:  "He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street - I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important."

Thanks, Ralph.  You can crawl back under your rock now.

I have no issue with Sanders campaigning until the end of the primaries to amass as many delegates as possible.  And I agree that the more delegates he gets and the more states he wins, the more influence he should have on the party's platform, on changing the rules on how the Party should nominate a presidential candidate in the future and on pursuing progressive policies going forward. 

But the reality is that when the last primary is held next month, Clinton will have amassed the most votes and the most pledged delegates, and she will have won the most primaries (including more states where independents were permitted to vote).  Super delegates generally go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.  That is Clinton, not Sanders. 

Thankfully, Sanders is no Nader, and he understands what is at stake in this election.  It is hard to imagine that he would willfully undermine a Clinton candidacy.  But what is critical is that he communicate this to his supporters.  He needs to make sure that what happened in Vegas stays in Vegas.

In case you missed it, the Democratic State Convention in Nevada spun out of control when unhinged Sanders supporters harassed and threatened the Party Chair, and then threw actual chairs.  They rushed the stage yelling obscenities and screaming about a conspiracy when, by more objective accounts, they were simply out organized by a Clinton campaign that understood the rules. 

In a formal complaint lodged with the DNC, the Nevada State Democratic Party ("NSDP") expressed the fear that "the tactics and behavior on display here in Nevada are harbingers of things to come as Democrats gather in Philadelphia in July for our National Convention." The NSDP was justifiably alarmed, after "having seen up close the lack of conscience or concern for the ramifications of their actions – indeed, the glee with which they engaged in such destructive behavior," that Sanders activists will engage in "similar tactics at the National Convention in July.”

Bernie Sanders has articulated better than anyone the myriad problems with how we elect our political leaders and hopefully he will remain engaged after the election to help fix it.  But Ralph Nader's recent appearance is a timely reminder of what happens when progressives lose sight of the greatest threats to our democracy.  At present, that would be the election of Donald Trump who among many other things would have the power to nominate the next justice on the Supreme Court (and probably more after that).

Let's hope that Sanders will ensure that his supporters understand what Nader still fails to see. 

Convention-al Wisdom: A Progressive Campaign Will Appeal To A Non-Neanderthal Electorate

"There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." -- Jim Hightower

Here we go.  The experts, pundits and insiders are beginning to suggest that Hillary Clinton, having sewn up the nomination by tacking to the left, must now move to the right for the general election.  For example, The New York Times, "cites some Democrats" who are concerned that if Clinton embraces positions pushed by Bernie Sanders, it "could later hurt Mrs. Clinton and other Democratic candidates."  And who are these "some Democrats"?  We don't know because they aren't named.  The only source for this bit of conventional wisdom, comes from the founder of the "Third Way," the fiscally conservative, so-called centrist group that had far too much influence over the first President Clinton.

The mainstream media continues to yearn for a candidate who magically will unite the left and right by appealing to ordinary (white) Americans  -- a candidate who will eschew the polarizing effect of embracing such progressive concerns as climate change, economic inequality, Wall Street corruption, campaign finance, mass incarceration, immigration reform, reproductive rights and LGBT rights.  According to the conventional wisdom, Hillary's failure to hew to the right will not only endanger her candidacy, but it will be the singular cause of a dispirited electorate and increasing rancor and gridlock on Capital Hill.  As the always insufferable David Brooks warned a while back, Clinton's campaign will become destructive and divisive if she "dispens[es] with a broad persuasion campaign" that fails to attract the ever-elusive swing voter.

We will continue to hear more of this fact-free claptrap about the need to resist pressure from the Sanders campaign and move to the center; about how Clinton and her fellow Democrats must seek to attract moderates and independents rather than continue to engage in narrow and potentially divisive pandering to liberals. But this unquestioned conventional wisdom is sorely out of date. 

It ignores that the Republicans have moved so far to the right and are so ideologically extreme that the center is nowhere near where it used to be. 

It ignores that while the Republican Party is moving to the right, the electorate -- increasingly younger and less white -- is moving to the left.  Indeed, the underlying premise that liberal ideas are unpopular and inherently divisive is simply wrong, with recent polls consistently showing that Americans have shifted to more liberal positions on a variety of issues.

It ignores the outsized role that Americans who are angry and frustrated with the status quo will play in this year's election.  It is a fact that independents are no longer -- if they ever were -- the equivalent of middle-of-the-road, moderate voters.  They are, instead, reflective of those energized by the Sanders campaign who decry the corrupting influence of money in politics and the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.  Moving to the center is going to alienate, not engage them.

It ignores that Clinton's leftward-leaning campaign has done nothing to undermine her support with the various constituencies of the Democratic Party that she has energized and that what she now needs to do is engage the voters energized by Sanders. 

And it ignores that Clinton actually is pretty liberal.  Sure she had a bad patch of supporting her husband's horribly misguided policies in the 1990s, and there is no excusing her Iraq War vote.  But she does have long history of supporting core progressive positions on reproductive rights, on childhood poverty, on health care, on gun control and a host of other issues.  As pointed out at FiveThirtyEight, she was one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she was there and has a history of espousing liberal views.

So, here's some wisdom for the Convention and beyond that stands at odds with the conventional wisdom:  Clinton must unequivocally embrace a progressive party platform.  She must choose a running mate to her left.  At the Convention, Elizabeth Warren should be the keynote speaker, Bernie Sanders should nominate Clinton, and other progressives must play prime time roles.   

A campaign and candidacy that focuses on progressive themes and chastises Trump, Cruz/Fiorina or whoever runs on the Republican side for not believing in climate change, for seeking to undermine women's reproductive rights, for their hostility to LGBT rights, for inhumane immigration proposals, for insisting that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the cure for what ails the economy, for facile demagoguery in the place of foreign policy ideas, might alienate extremist Republicans.  But such an approach will appeal to the wide swath of non-Neanderthal voters needed to elect the next president. 

Down Ballot Blues: Hillary Clinton Can Better Help Democrats Take Back The Senate

Assuming a Democrat wins the White House but the Senate remains in Republican hands, there will be no political revolution as Bernie Sanders promises and little of the relatively more incremental change that Hillary Clinton proposes.  Supreme Court vacancies, including the current one, will likely remain vacant, with Republicans having no incentive to confirm a Democratic nominee -- even after the election.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine very many Republicans foolhardy enough to dissent from a rabid GOP base that would strenuously object to any nominee to the left of the late Antonin Scalia.

On the other hand, if the Democrats can take back the Senate -- and gain seats in the House -- it is far more likely that a Democratic President can successfully pursue progressive policies.  (Think Elizabeth Warren as Chairperson of the Banking Committee.)   More importantly, in my view, the balance of power on the Supreme Court would shift to the left of center for the first time since about 1970, and with that shift (along with a similar shift in the lower federal courts), there is enormous potential to transform society with a justice system that would advance, rather than impede, privacy and reproductive rights, civil rights, voting rights, consumer and workers' rights, and criminal justice. 

There's your political revolution!

The Democrats need to pick up just four seats to control the Senate (with the Vice President then serving as tie-breaker), and there appear to be at least six seats currently held by Republicans that can be had -- Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.  (Colorado and Nevada, currently held by Democrats, however, are also in play.) 

The Republicans who find Trump too abhorrent and erratic and Cruz too creepy and extremist may sit out the election altogether, greatly benefitting Democratic candidates.  Meanwhile, particularly if Trump is the nominee, Republican Senate and House candidates in these battleground states will be put in the uncomfortable position of having to distance themselves from their own presidential candidate (and conservative voters) or risk alienating independents -- especially independent women -- and whatever remaining moderate Republicans still exist.

But still there are huge challenges for Democrats, most significantly, the likelihood that the Koch Brothers and other right wing mega-donors, realizing that neither Trump or Cruz are electable, will focus their vast resources on Senate and Houses races to keep Congress in Republican hands.  Which leads to a critical question of which Democratic candidate is better equipped to help Democratic candidates down the ballot.  The answer is the only real Democrat in the race -- Hillary Clinton. 

Sanders has been an Independent for his entire political career -- as mayor, Congressman and Senator.  He only became a Democrat to run for President.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  But his campaign staff and wildly enthusiastic supporters appear so focused on "The Bern" that they have yet to even consider supporting other Democratic candidates.

Hillary Clinton, unlike Sanders, has deep ties to the Democratic Party that go back at least to her work on George McGovern's campaign. As Clinton herself said:  “I’m also a Democrat and have been a proud Democrat all my adult life. I think that’s kind of important if we’re selecting somebody to be the Democratic nominee of the Democratic Party.  But what it also means is that I know how important to elect state legislatures, to elect Democratic governors, to elect a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.”

And Clinton, in great contrast to Sanders, has put her money where her mouth is.  In addition to raising money for her own campaign, Clinton raised an additional $15 million for the DNC and state parties in the past quarter.  Sanders has not raised a penny for other Democratic candidates during this time.  Indeed, when Sanders was asked by Rachel Maddow last week whether he would turn his fundraising ability toward helping the Democratic Party more broadly, including helping their campaign committees for the House and the Senate, his noncommittal response was:  "Well, we’ll see. And, I mean right now, again, our focus is on winning the nomination."

As Jamelle Bouie put it "Hillary Clinton is running to lead Democrats, and Bernie Sanders is running to lead liberals."  Consequently, Clinton is more concerned with traditional party building and leading a broader coalition that includes not only the liberals and progressives that Sanders is courting.  While this often results in what appears to be Clinton's infuriating hedging and measured compromise on issues in order to please conflicting constituencies, it also means that she is far better equipped to help a wide range of Democratic candidates down the ballot.  And, it is only by taking back the Senate -- and then the Supreme Court -- and defeating Republicans in local elections throughout the Country that there is even a possibility of true progressive change.

Obama's Troubling SCOTUS Pick

President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court of the indisputably brilliant and eminently qualified jurist, Merrick Garland, seems like the tactical move of a political genius.  Garland is truly a "centrist" judge, with a reputation for fairness, civility and following the rule of law.  He has taken the traditional route to the federal judiciary:  (1) Harvard Law School, (2) prestigious clerking positions (Judge Friendly on the Second Circuit and Justice Brennan on the high court), (3) prosecutor (including supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing prosecution), (4) corporate lawyer.  He is a 63-year old white male who has served on the D.C. Circuit since 1995.  Republicans have no legitimate argument for blocking confirmation hearings or, much less confirmation itself of such a reputable, non-partisan nominee. 

Thus, Obama has laid the groundwork for a sustained attack on the unprecedented obstruction of the GOP.  Republicans in the Senate will be able to do little more than offer increasingly lame arguments that have no basis in tradition or logic that will resonate only within their rabid, fact-free echo chamber. The Democratic nominee for president will have strong grounds for challenging the extremism of a Republican Party that won't even given such a moderate choice a hearing. 

But while this might appear to be at least a shrewd short-term strategy, I fear that it is an enormous mistake for several reasons.

First, key to using Republican obstruction against them and highlighting the importance of the Supreme Court as an election issue is a unified push by liberals that urges the Senate to, as Elizabeth Warren so forcefully put it, "do your job."  But, I for one, don't want the Senate to confirm this particular nominee, particularly given his pro-prosecution record on criminal justice issues.  I may be wrong, but I doubt if there are many progressive advocacy groups excited to mobilize for his nomination either.

Second, assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, the Senate Republicans will likely have an epiphany about doing their job, realizing that Garland is going to be a far more conservative pick than anyone that Hillary will nominate.  Thus, while there is no chance Garland will be confirmed before the election, he will likely be confirmed during the lame duck period before Hillary takes office.  This will deprive the next Democratic president of filling Scalia's seat with a progressive or at least a left-of-center nominee.  And it will put on the bench a justice who is unlikely to shift the court on many critical issues, particularly when it comes to criminal justice and the death penalty.

Third, Obama could have chosen from a deep bench of progressive legal minds with diverse ethnic backgrounds that would fire up a liberal base that might not otherwise be very enthused about a Clinton candidacy.  I couldn't agree more with Kerry Eleveld who put it like this:

Progressives could have had three people on the ballot come November—the nominee, VP, and the SCOTUS pick who never got a vote. If that person had looked in any way like the group of voters who form what's become known as "the Obama coalition," she or he could have symbolized the very future of our nation that Republicans are actively working so hard to deny.

On the other hand, this could turn out to be genius.  Perhaps the Garland nomination will hurt vulnerable Republican Senators who must uncomfortably defend their obstruction.  Then, when Hillary wins and the Democrats take back the Senate, Obama can graciously withdraw the nomination, claiming that, as the GOP had been saying all along, it is up to the next president to choose the next Supreme Court justice. Hillary then picks a true progressive that shifts the balance of the Court and we all live happily ever after.

Note To Hillary: Stop Alienating The Left

As I've written before, my admiration for Bernie Sanders and what he stands for goes back decades, but I fear that in a general election the well-honed, well-financed right wing attack machine will launch a shock and awe red baiting campaign against this socialist Jew that would drown out his ideas and undermine his candidacy.  Given the stakes in this election -- particularly, the Supreme Court -- electability trumps (pun intended) everything.  And so, I've have made my peace with Hillary Clinton because, despite her many flaws, I believe she best appeals to the diverse core constituencies that will ensure a Democratic victory in November.  But her flaws, unfortunately, continue to frustrate and, unless she changes her approach, are likely to alienate one key constituency -- progressives.

While Hillary has thankfully (and credibly) adopted many progressive positions, in no small part due to Bernie's challenge from the left, she remains remarkably tone deaf when it comes to the progressive community.
  
She must stop attacking Bernie's integrity and his voting record as somehow less than progressive.  This does nothing to shake Bernie's progressive supporters and only furthers a narrative that she is less than honest and will say anything to get elected.  It is perfectly appropriate to argue that many of his proposals -- such as single payer health care and college free tuition -- are unrealistic, and that she has better, more practical policy ideas.  It is fine to ask what specific plans he has to get Big Money out of politics (particularly given his comment that "any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions," which makes no sense).  It is even ok to make the argument that Bernie is not as electable as she is.  But parsing Bernie's votes just makes her look disingenuous. Voting on bills in Congress invariably involves difficult choices about legislation that includes some good, some bad and some ugly.  It is unseemly to criticize Bernie for voting for a good bill that contained some bad and ugly sections or rejecting a bill that, in his view, contained too much that was bad and ugly.

And she's got to stop fawning over Republican icons.  Hillary has repeatedly touted her friendship with and admiration for Henry Kissinger, one of the most villainous U.S. political leaders of the 20th Century.  His role in the Viet Nam War alone, from undermining the Paris peace talks prior to Nixon's election to directing the massive clandestine bombing campaign in Laos and Cambodia, which indiscriminately killed and displaced millions of civilians, should be enough to disqualify Kissinger from polite company, much less make him a sought-after foreign policy consultant.  Apart from Hillary's close relationship with him -- which is troubling enough -- the fact that she felt compelled to name check Kissinger during the debates shows a disturbing disconnect with the left. 

Then today, in the context of Nancy Reagan's death, Hillary praised the Reagans for starting a "national conversation" about HIV/AIDS.  This is as mind boggling as it is offensive.  It is beyond dispute that President Reagan did nothing and said nothing while the AIDS epidemic became a national and international health crisis.  Despite the desperate need for federal funding and research, as well as leadership to quell the homophobic reaction to the disease, the Reagans remained silent.  By the time President Reagan ultimately addressed the issue of AIDS in 1987, towards the end of his presidency, over 36,000 had been diagnosed with AIDS and almost 21,000 people had died.  This was one of the most despicable aspects of his despicable presidency.

Hillary has since claimed that she misspoke about the Reagans' record on HIV/AIDS, but what was she thinking?  And why does she continue to say things that are undoubtedly going to alienate voters that she is going to need in November?  This is a burning (berning?) question.

Three Easy Steps For Democrats

The Republican Party is trying to cope with the overtly racist, xenophobic, misogynist, homophobic, climate-change-denying chickens that have come home not only to roost, but to crap all over the GOP Establishment.  Many high powered Republicans are threatening to bolt the Party or at least disavow Donald Trump, their Party's current frontrunner.  The most realistic alternative is the universally loathed Ted Cruz.  There is talk of a brokered convention that could result in a Party-shattering bloodbath and a possible third party challenge.  Meanwhile, particularly if Trump becomes the nominee, Republican candidates for Congress will have to decide whether to support him or run away from him, and thereby alienating either independents who will instead vote for Democrats or Trump supporters who will instead burn crosses. 

This fracturing of the Grand Old Party provides the Democrats with an incredible opportunity to restore some measure of sanity -- and humanity -- to the country's political institutions.  They have a chance to win the Presidency, reclaim a majority in the Senate, and reshape a Supreme Court that has been a conservative sinkhole for decades.  But being Democrats, they are equally likely to screw things up with their preternatural inclination to avoid partisan confrontation, move to the center, and misread the zeitgeist. 

I am not a political consultant, but I play one in the blogosphere.  And in that role, I want to suggest three inter-related steps that the Democrats must take to ensure a progressive victory in November and beyond.

1.  Supreme Court Matters.  President Obama must nominate an indisputably qualified, left-of-center candidate for the Supreme Court -- and soon.  One potential candidate, who is reportedly being vetted by the White House, is Judge Jane Kelly.  She is a former public defender from Iowa with a compelling life story.  Kelly currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, having been confirmed by the Senate in a 96-0 vote.  What makes her particularly attractive is the way her nomination will discomfort Senator Charles Grassley, the current Republican Chair of the Judiciary Committee and the ugly face of the obstructionist right, who strongly backed her confirmation to the federal bench in 2013.  

The inevitable Republican refusal to hold confirmation hearings for such an otherwise  unassailable Supreme Court nominee must then become a major political issue.  Obama should hammer the Republicans daily for their unprecedented refusal to abide by the Constitution and exercise their duty to give "advice and consent. Senate Democrats should hold their own mock confirmation hearings if the Republicans won't do their job.  This should be treated like Ted Koppel-style hostage crisis reporting (e.g., "This is Day 57 of the Republicans failure to hold confirmation hearings"). Democratic presidential and senate candidates must make this a central aspect of their campaigns, asking whether We the People really want Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz, for that matter) to choose the next several Supreme Court Justices.

Not only will this provide a perfect vehicle to illustrate Republican obstruction and hypocrisy, but it would shed a critical light on what should be a key election issue.  Democrats need to stress that a liberal majority on the Court can make an enormous difference in people's lives and what horrifying consequences are in store if a conservative majority is restored and then solidified.  It needs to be stressed over and over how the Court can be transformed from the most corporate-friendly court since the 1930s to one that is far less deferential to polluters and Wall Street fraudsters, and far more protective of women's health and reproductive rights, privacy, voting rights, labor and civil rights.  Citizens United and other unprincipled decisions of recent terms can be overturned.

2.  Stay to the Left.  Bernie Sanders' campaign has obviously resonated with a wide range of committed, enthusiastic voters and tapped into legitimate anger and frustration about the current state of our politics.  There is no question that he has moved the Party -- and Hillary Clinton -- to the left.  It wasn't that long ago that Democrats were afraid of being dubbed "Liberal," and now, thanks to Bernie, the two candidates are fighting over who is the true Progressive.  His calls for changing a rigged, corrupt political system and fighting the inequality it has engendered need to continue to be a critical aspect of a Democratic campaign no matter who is nominated. At the same time, the Democrats must confront and address issues uniquely faced by people of color whose support is absolutely necessary for a victory in November.  And they must focus on convincing women voters, including those unaffiliated with either political party, that their health, privacy, reproductive rights, and economic well-being will be at risk if a Republican wins the presidency.

(On a related note, Hillary and Bernie need to insist that Debbie Wasserman Schultz be removed as the head of the Democratic National Committee immediately. She has been an absolute disaster for the Party, and, as a shill for Wall Street, she is the exact wrong person to be hosting the Convention.  Her latest inexcusable stunt is the co-sponsoring a bill to delay and gut implementation of regulations developed by the Elizabeth Warren-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would crack down on usurious payday lenders who prey on the poor.)

3.  Fear Itself.  It seems likely that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party's nominee, but we could end up with one of the other candidates who, with the exception of Ted Cruz, only seem less frightening by comparison.  But all of them are extreme right wing zealots -- and the Democrats need to scare the shit out of the public by explaining what this country would look like if they took power.  Racism, religious intolerance and misogyny have long been pillars of Republican orthodoxy but they are no longer shrouded in coded language and dog whistles. This makes it far easier expose the Republicans for what they really stand for.

Voters need to realize that the leading Republican candidates have little respect for or understanding of the Constitution -- they intend to round up immigrants and Muslims, build a wall on our southern border, engage in torture and other war crimes, and essentially create a White Christian Nation.  Seriously.  In addition, they all maintain extreme positions on abortion rights -- some more extreme than others -- and their Party's relentless war on women's health would only be ratcheted up by a far right Supreme Court majority that would certainly overturn Roe v. Wade.  Then there's their contempt for science and stubborn refusal to accept the reality of climate change, their promise to repeal Obamacare without an alternate plan to provide health care beyond the availability of emergency rooms, and their cynical economic plans that mainstream economists conclude will create enormous tax breaks for the wealthy while exploding the deficit.

The truly frightening world view and policy positions of Trump, Cruz and their cohorts are so far being drowned out by the posturing, rhetoric and sophomoric insults that seem to comprise the sum total of Republican debate.  As we laugh at how crazy it is that these fuckers have actually resorted to dick jokes, we are in danger of losing sight of how dangerous they really are.
 
The roadmap for Democrats is pretty simple:  1) The Supreme Court; 2) A Progressive Platform; and 3) Fear.  Don't blow it.

[Related posts:  Justice Scalia Has Left The Building; Public Defender for Justice; Republicans Will Not Release Their Stranglehold On The Supreme Court; Schadenfreude Tinged With Fear As The GOP Devolves Into The Party Of Trump]

Schadenfreude Tinged With Fear As The GOP Devolves Into The Party Of Trump

Most likely hurt and disappointed that neither of them were endorsed by David Duke, the former KKK Grand Wizard himself, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both condemned Donald Trump for not immediately disavowing Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.  That appears to be the kind of close question that separates the candidates in today's GOP -- whether or not to overtly accept support from the KKK.

Trump's obtuse response to Duke's warning to European Americans that a vote against Trump is "really treason to your heritage" was just one highlight from a week that included his threats to sue the media that showed a frightening misunderstanding of the First Amendment and tweets that proudly quoted his obvious role model, Benito Mussolini.

Despite the faux outrage from Rubio and Cruz about the Duke endorsement, both indicated they would nevertheless support Trump if he were to win the Republican nomination.  Sure he may be a mean-spirited, megalomaniacal racist clown, but he is a Republican and that's good enough for them.

It has been enormously satisfying to watch the endangered species formerly known as mainstream Republicans freaking out as they belatedly realize that their Party has been taken over by a vulgar talking yam, as Charles Pierce has brilliantly dubbed him.  They act as if Trump came out of nowhere, as if the anti-intellectual, anti-government, boorish, jingoistic demagoguery spewed by Bush/Cheney and then VP-candidate Sarah Palin and now Trump isn't all of a piece. They remain blithely unaware that they have enabled and capitalized on the irrational and racially-inspired Obama hatred, Tea Party craziness and knee-jerk obstruction that has consumed the Republicans these past seven years, leaving them with a great big pile of shit that a growing number of their constituents think is ambrosia.

Meanwhile, their last, great hope to defeat Trump is Marco Rubio, who, let's not forget is a Tea Partier himself.  They are vainly trying to prop up this incredible political lightweight who has so little to work with that he is resorting to juvenile jokes about Trump wetting his pants during the last debate and insinuating how Trump's small hands reflect on his manhood. 

It is mostly fun, but more than a little bit scary, to think about what will happen if Trump wins the nomination.  Hopefully it would motivate and inspire Democrats, Independents and most sentient beings to get out the vote to defeat him.  Even the most diehard Hillary-haters and Nader deadenders could not possibly underestimate the unmitigated danger of a Trump Presidency. 

And the Republicans?  Will the Party establishment get in line and reluctantly support Trump as the perceived lesser of evils?  Surely many will, although not with either the enthusiasm or unanimity a party's candidate would hope for.  And an unraveling of what has long been -- particularly in contrast to the Democrats -- a cohesive, consistent political structure could be devastating.  Think about how the Trump and the Republican establishment will reach consensus on a party platform.  More importantly, there are several vulnerable Republican Senate candidates running in blue and purplish states.  Will they campaign alongside their Party's nominee and possibly alienate independents and more moderate (rational) conservatives or will they endeavor to keep Trump at a respectful -- or disrespectful distance.  Either way, it is sure to be a painfully awkward dance and provides the Democrats with a golden opportunity to win back the Senate as well as the Presidency -- and then let the Republicans try to block a Supreme Court nominee.  (But I'm getting way ahead of myself) 

Watching the Republican Party implode and become the Party of Trump is like watching a spectacular, but slow-moving train wreck. It is grotesque but at the same time it is hard to turn away.  The ultimate question, as it screeches off the rails and crashes into a fiery mess, is whether it will destroy just the Republican Party or take the whole country down with it.

Leading Republican Candidates In A Nutshell

All hat, no cattle

All hate, no cattle

All hair, no cattle

Republicans Will Not Release Their Stranglehold On The Supreme Court (Ever) Without A Fight

Relying on hypocritical, ahistorical, patently bogus rationalizations, the Republicans will not allow President Obama to appoint a Supreme Court justice to replace the recently-departed Antonin Scalia, and flip the Court from a conservative one to a liberal one.  What should also be clear is that as long as they control the Senate, Republicans won't let the next Democratic president do so either. 

Unlike Democrats, who by and large believe in democratic rule -- i.e., legislative solutions to governing -- Republicans rely on a gerrymandered House of Representatives and a conservative Supreme Court to obstruct liberal initiatives and ensure that their own unpopular policy positions are enacted or upheld -- from allowing unfettered campaign contributions and unrestricted gun rights to gutting environmental regulations and impeding reproductive rights.  And so, they have aggressively and successfully agitated for a conservative federal judiciary for decades -- and they will not release their stranglehold on the high court without a bitter and prolonged fight.

President Richard Nixon's appointments to the Supreme Court, notably Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell (he also appointed Harry Blackmun) put an end to the liberal Warren Court, and ushered in a conservative majority that ever since has been increasingly more favorable to corporations, law enforcement, landowners and gun owners, and more skeptical to voting rights, civil rights, reproductive rights and LGBT rights.  And while there have been a few critical victories for liberals over the last few decades, the conservatives have long been in firm control of the Supreme Court.

And there you have the basis for the right wing apoplexy on contemplating Scalia's replacement.  Imagine what the Court would look like if Scalia's seat is taken by a liberal-leaning justice.  Suddenly, Justice Kennedy, the conservative Reagan appointee who occasionally votes with the liberal bloc, will no longer be the coveted swing vote.  That role will go to Justice Breyer, a left-of-center Clinton appointee.  And just like that, right wing fevered dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade,  eliminating the concept of one person one vote, sabotaging Obamacare, destroying the financial capability of labor unions, and restoring the ban on same sex marriages would be gone. 

So Republicans have come up with ludicrous justifications for thwarting the next nominee, whoever it may be.  First, there is the argument that a justice should not be confirmed during an election year.  Except 14 justices were confirmed in election years, including Justice Kennedy, who was unanimously confirmed in the last year of President Reagan's second term by a Democratic majority.

Then there is the idea floated by some that any nominee to replace Scalia should be a like-minded conservative.  Tell this to the first President Bush, who replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.

Most recently, the constitutionally-challenged Rand Paul has argued that Obama should not be permitted to appoint a Supreme Court justice because he has a conflict of interest. 

Finally, of course, there is the Bork excuse.  Republicans like to argue that it was the Democratic Party that started politicizing Supreme Court nominations when they defeated Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to replace Lewis Powell in 1987.  But Bork was no mere conservative.  He was a radical jurist whose views on the federal role in protecting civil rights, voting rights and reproductive rights were quite far outside the mainstream.  Importantly, while his nomination was scuttled after an incredibly contentious confirmation hearing (with 6 Republicans voting against him, by the way), Reagan's subsequent appointees -- Kennedy (who was nominated after Bork's defeat) and Scalia -- were confirmed, as were the extremely conservative nominations of the two presidents Bush. 

Even if Senate Republicans deign to fulfill the letter of their constitutional responsibilities by holding hearings on Obama's nomination(s) or those of his successor, it is hard to imagine the current Republican Senate approving any nomination that is left of the current swing justice, Justice Kennedy, under any circumstances -- an obstructionist position that has no historical precedent.

And keep in mind that not only is there one current vacancy to fill, but there soon may be more. Justice Ginsburg is 82, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer is 78. 

If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders wins the presidency, the Democrats would theoretically have a chance to maintain a liberal majority on the Court for a generation or more.  (Conversely, a Republican president would take us back to the Dark Ages -- or at least the pre-New Deal 1930s -- for the foreseeable future.)  But Republicans have shown throughout the Obama Presidency that they will go to whatever lengths are necessary to thwart any hint of a perceived liberal agenda -- and they have rarely paid the price.  Their base loves it, the mainstream press ignores it, and the Democrats seem unable to do more than whine.

The only way to stop the Republicans from preventing a long overdue shift in the Court's balance of power is to elect a Democratic president AND ensure a majority of Democrats in the Senate.  This makes the battle for the presidency more important than ever.  But don't forget the Senate where the Democrats need to pick up at least four seats.  There appear to be six seats currently held by Republicans that are within reach --Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.  (Colorado and Nevada, currently held by Democrats, are also in play.)  Let's get to work. 

It's Not Just Trump -- The Entire GOP Field Is Comprised Of Xenophobic Bigots

Has Donald Trump finally gone too far in calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States?”  When the likes of Dick Cheney -- the torture-loving, fear-mongering war criminal himself -- thinks this is an inappropriate response to domestic terrorism, it should give one pause.  But, really, Trump has done nothing more than take well-honed Republican talking points to their logical ends.  His exploitation of the public's fear in the wake of the violence in Paris and San Bernardino (but not Colorado Springs) to fire up Republican voters with hateful, xenophobic rhetoric is right out of the standard Republican playbook.

Trump's latest comments are perfectly consistent with his campaign strategy that seeks to appeal to the worst aspects of the American psyche and are of a piece with his other abhorrent proposals -- building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, abolishing birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants, mass deportations, closing mosques, and implementing a Muslim database. 

One would think that any reasonable, responsible, ethical Republican would have called him out long ago.  Perhaps there are no longer any reasonable, responsible, ethical Republicans.  Even now, Republican leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan condemned Trump's latest remarks while acknowledging they would still vote for Trump if he were the Republican nominee. 

The other leading Republican candidates for president understand -- as Trump does -- the importance of stoking fear, panic and hatred to garner the support of the typical Republican voter.  The only difference is that they -- unlike Trump -- seem to understand that at some point they will have to pivot and appeal to the more sane sectors of the populace in order to remain competitive in a national election.  And so, while they agree with Trump's underlying premise that adherents to Islam are presumptively dangerous, they won't go as far as he is willing to go. 

Still, they go pretty far. 

Both Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush have pushed plans that would allow entry to Syrian refugees who are Christian but not Muslim. Ben Carson does not believe a Muslim should be allowed to become president and would also prevent Muslim refugees from entering the country, comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs.  Marco Rubio would shut down not only mosques, as Trump has vowed to do, but would close "any facility that’s being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States."  Even the purportedly moderate (by comparison) John Kasich has proposed the creation of a new federal agency that would promote Judeo-Christian beliefs.

As these other Republican candidates denounce Trump's latest outrage, don't be fooled.  There is little daylight between them.  Trump's bombast is merely providing cover for their equally morally bankrupt campaigns

GOP Microcosm

What did the Republicans do this week? 

Seeking to undermine President Obama's efforts at the UN climate summit in Paris, they passed resolutions to roll back the EPA's recent regulations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  They blocked bills aimed at sensible gun control -- one that would prevent those on the no fly list from buying firearms and another that would have expanded background checks to include gun shows and online sales.  They voted to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare.  On a positive note, they offered thoughts and prayers to the victims of gun violence.

Climate change denial.  NRA obeisance.  Hostility towards women's health.  Opposition to health care for the poor.  Meaningless religious gestures.

That's your Republican Party.

p.s.  According to the latest polls, more than 1/3 of Republican voters support a fascist.  Their second choice is a man who this week appeared to confuse a Palestinian terrorist organization with a spread made from garbanzo beans.

The Republican Party's Frankenstein

“If you’re a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you’re going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you’re going to do irreparable damage to the party.”   -- Lindsay Graham, New York Times, 12/2/15

Graham was referring, of course, to Donald J. Trump, but if you throw in misogynistic and homophobic, he just described all of the Republican's top-tier candidates, as well as a wide swath of their party's base. 

I can't recall when I've enjoyed a New York Times article as much as the one in this morning's paper: Wary of Donald Trump, G.O.P. Leaders Are Caught in a Standoff.  It describes the Republican establishment's panic over the possibility that Trump could actually win the party's nomination and their fear of the consequences if they try to take him down.

What is particularly amusing is that these stalwarts of the Grand Old Party seem remarkably unaware that Trump is their very own creation.  They fail to understand that he is a natural outgrowth of their cynical manipulation of the frustration and anger of the mostly white Christian voters who they have relied on in election after election but who are no longer willing to follow their lead. 

Charles Pierce has reminded us that it has been "one long, continuous plague of Republican extremism that began quietly when the party moved west and south in its orientation, and when Richard Nixon discovered that George Wallace was onto something that could be immensely useful to a shrewd and brilliant code-talker like Nixon himself."  Or, as William Greider explains:  "The GOP finds itself trapped in a marriage that has not only gone bad but is coming apart in full public view. After five decades of shrewd strategy, the Republican coalition Richard Nixon put together in 1968—welcoming the segregationist white South into the Party of Lincoln—is now devouring itself in ugly, spiteful recriminations." 

Encouraged by a compliant media that is wed to principles of false equivalency and "both sides do it," and thus has refused to reckon with the fact that one of our two major parties is controlled by radical extremists spewing dangerous falsehoods, the GOP has thrived. They've done so by encouraging Tea Party nonsense and birther madness. More recently, they've gleefully stoked hysteria over Black Lives Matter and Syrian refugees and Planned Parenthood's fetal tissue program to tragic ends.

Trump, apparently, has gone too far.  But, as many others have observed, how can a Party that put forward the bad joke that is Sarah Palin as the person to be a heartbeat away from the presidency have any credibility in now arguing that Donald Trump, on the contrary, is unqualified?

Indeed, Trump is simply a more vulgar version of the Republican Party's (slightly) more polished candidates.  In terms of actual policy, there is little daylight between Trump and the rest of the field on climate change measures (against), Wall Street reform (against), immigration reform (against), women's reproductive rights (against), gun control (against), admitting Syrian refugees (against), torture (in favor), tax cuts for the wealthy (in favor), social program cuts (in favor), Obamacare repeal (in favor).

Nevertheless, as the Times reports, for the GOP, "irritation is giving way to panic as it becomes increasingly plausible that Mr. Trump could be the party’s standard-bearer and imperil the careers of other Republicans."

Many leading Republican officials, strategists and donors now say they fear that Mr. Trump’s nomination would lead to an electoral wipeout, a sweeping defeat that could undo some of the gains Republicans have made in recent congressional, state and local elections. But in a party that lacks a true leader or anything in the way of consensus — and with the combative Mr. Trump certain to scorch anyone who takes him on — a fierce dispute has arisen about what can be done to stop his candidacy and whether anyone should even try

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Jerks and Knee-Jerks: Profiles In Cowardice, Bigotry and Ignorance

Earlier this week, in a piece, Shame the Bigots But Address the Fear, I emphasized the importance of taking seriously the American public's genuine fear about safety and security, and not treating everyone who expresses concerns about the influx of refugees as a cold-hearted bigot.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be calling out and shaming the cold-hearted bigots -- including, but not limited to, the entire field of Republican presidential candidates. 

There's Donald Trump, who proposes closing mosques in the United States, requiring all Muslims to register in a data base, and is not opposed to forcing them to wear special identification badges (yellow crescents?), drawing a disturbing parallel to Nazi Germany. 

Marco Rubio, given the opportunity to disavow Trump, attempted to trump him.  He would not only shut down mosques, but would close "whatever facility is being used — it’s not just a mosque — any facility that’s being used to radicalize and inspire attacks against the United States."

Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz believe we should only allow Christian refugees to settle here, drawing a disturbing parallel to the Spanish Inquisition.

Ben Carson, not to be outdone, compares Syrian refugees to rabid dogs ("If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog"), drawing a disturbing parallel to an ignorant nut case.

(For those keeping track, those five miserable human beings are supported by about 80% of Republican voters)

And then there are the panic-stricken House Republicans, who have voted for a "pause" in the process to allow refugees from Iraq and Syria, ignoring the fact that none of the Paris attackers were refugees -- from Syria or anywhere else --  and that we already have a painstakingly arduous process in place.  This paragraph from a New York Times article says it all: 

When pressed, most Republicans could not specify which aspects of the rigorous refugee vetting program that they found inadequate. [House Speaker Paul Ryan’s] staff members cited a Bloomberg poll of 1,002 adults released on Wednesday, conducted by Selzer & Company, that found that 53 percent of those surveyed said the resettlement program should be halted.

Pathetically, 47 craven Democrats voted with Republicans in a final tally of 289-137.

And then there are the majority of governors, including presidential candidate John Kasich, who would refuse to allow Syrians to resettle in their states.  One of the more egregious is purported Christian, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who denied admittance to two Syrian refugee families the day before they were scheduled to arrive in Indianapolis.  (Connecticut's governor graciously accepted the two families)

Democratic Roanoke Mayor David Bowers said his city would not be spending any resources on resettling Syrian refugees, suggesting the U.S. consider a plan similar to the internment of Japanese nationals during WWII.

And let's not forget our elected state officials.  There's Republican Rhode Island state Sen. Elaine Morgan, who opposes resettling Syrian refugees because "[t]he Muslim religion and philosophy is to murder, rape, and decapitate anyone who is a non Muslim" and suggests that "we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous [sic]."  And then there's Republican Missouri state Rep. Mike Moon who is calling for a special legislative session to stop “the potential Islamization of Missouri.”

The terrorist attacks in Paris have brought out the worst kind of fear-mongering and demagoguery from (mostly) Republican politicians.  These bigoted, inhumane and ignorant responses stem from the desire to pander to the least exceptional aspects of the American psyche for political gain as well as from what Paul Krugman describes as the right wing's propensity for panic.  Andy Borowitz, the great satirist, wrote a piece in the New Yorker this past summer, joking that "a group of scholars who have been monitoring the descent of the bar over the past few decades have concluded that the bar can no longer be lowered."  That proved to be far too optimistic.

Shame The Bigots But Address The Fear

Republicans have long proven their genius for exploiting fear for political gain, using bigotry and cheap slogans to project an aura of toughness.  Aided by a feckless media, they have long been perceived as better able to protect Americans from harm than Democrats, who are thought to be more concerned with political correctness than national security.  And so, we have GOP leaders, like Jeb!, using alarmist rhetoric about an existential threat to western civilization and agitating for all out war.  In response to the terrorist attacks in Paris, Republicans are calling for the shutting down of mosques in the U.S., permitting only refugees who can establish their Christian bona fides, and closing our borders to Syrian toddlers trying to escape the ravages of civil war and terrorism. (Mostly) Republican Governors seek to deny resettlement of refugees in their states.  Even the purportedly moderate (by comparison) presidential candidate John Kasich has proposed the creation of a new federal agency that would promote Judeo-Christian beliefs.

It is critical to call out these bigots and moral cowards, to shame them for their xenophobia and ignorance.  President Obama was right in mocking them when he said: “At first they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”

But Democrats also have to acknowledge that Republicans are tapping into a real fear, that they understand it, and -- in contrast to the hateful rhetoric and simplistic clichés used by Republicans -- that they have the far better approach for keeping Americans safe.

And so, it is important to repeatedly emphasize the fallacy of condemning Islam and all Muslims based on the violence and repression committed by individuals and states in the name of Islam.  As Reza Aslan put it, in a remarkable exchange on CNN in which he repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to move the talking heads off their narrative that Islam is a repressive, violent religion:  "The problem is that you’re talking about a religion of one and a half billion people, and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush."

It is important to explain that the screening process for accepting refugees is an arduous one that can take 18 to 24 months before a refugee is approved for admission to the U.S.  Refugees are vetted by several different agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security.

Fingerprints are taken, biographical information is collected. They are then each individually interviewed by U.S. officials trained to verify that they're bona fide refugees.  Refugees from Syria are then subject to additional screening that looks at where they came from and what caused them to flee their home, stories that are checked out. All of this occurs before a refugee is allowed to set foot in the country.

It is also important to stress that condemning Islam and refusing to accept refugees who aren't Christian will actually make us less safe.  As President Obama explained:  “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the (Republican) rhetoric that’s been coming out here during the course of this debate. ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there's a war between Islam and the west. When you start seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting that Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims in a wartorn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

Democrats will play right into the old GOP playbook that portrays them as arrogant elitists detached from real world concerns unless they are able to assure Americans that they get it -- that they take the fear of ordinary Americans about safety and security seriously and don't consider everyone who expresses concerns about the influx of refugees to be cold-hearted bigots. 

Washington Governor Jay Inslee has provided a primer on how to do just that:

“We’ve got to beat these guys in hearts, as well as U.S. Air Force,” he said. “We also have to win the moral battle. And that’s a battle of hope, and a vision for the future where we can live together, and I think this is part of that.”  Inslee said he was sensitive to “very legitimate and real” fears that ISIS militants could pose as refugees in order to sneak into America and commit more crimes. But, he said, “Leadership calls for people to recognize it’s real [and] act responsibly — in this case that means insisting on a robust, multi-layered screening process before they’re allowed in this country.” “I think that our nation is tested from time to time, and I think this is one of those times to really dig deep and see what kind of character our nation and my state has,” he added. “I’ve always believed my state and the country has always been a place of refuge from those who are persecuted. Right on the Statue of Liberty, they talk about the wretched refuge of your teeming shore, and I don’t know where we’ve had more people who fit this classification of victim.”

A large swath of the American public clings to false narratives about the nature of Islam and the steadfastness of Republicans when it comes to national security.  It won't be easy, but to change that narrative we need to not only shame GOP leaders for their ignorance and bigotry, but must also assure the American public that Democrats understand and can address their fear. 

Dayenu! It Would Be Enough To Oppose GOP Candidates For Any One Of Their Inane Positions

In the classic Passover song, Dayenu, to show appreciation for each of the miraculous Biblical events marking the Jewish Exodus, we sing "Dayenu," which roughly means, "it would have been enough." Escaping slavery in Egypt would have been enough; parting the Red Sea would have been enough; having our needs met during the 40 years wandering in the desert would have been enough, etc.  

If you replace the celebratory and joyous spirit of the song with disgust and despair, Dayenu is not a wholly inappropriate response to the vile nonsense spewing from the Republican candidates running for president.  Their positions on any of a number of keys issues certainly would be enough -- standing alone -- to vote against them.

It would be enough to vote against the Republicans if only for their denial of the existence of man-made climate change and/or their unwillingness to do anything to combat global warming.  GOP candidates running for president would hobble the EPA, negate Obama's executive actions to reduce carbon emissions, support the gutting of environmental regulations aimed at ensuring clean air and water, and expand the production of fossil fuels regardless of the environmental consequences.

Dayenu!

It would be enough to vote against the Republicans if only for their extreme positions on women's reproductive rights, including their desire to overturn Roe v. Wade (and nominating Supreme Court justices committed to doing so) and defund Planned Parenthood.  While essentially all of the GOP candidates are anti-choice, many go so far as to support banning abortion even in the case of rape and incest (e.g., Rubio, Carson, Huckabee, Paul, Jindal, Santorum) or support exceptions for the life (but not the health) of the mother (Jeb!, Cruz).

Dayenu!

It would be enough to vote against the Republicans if only for their opposition to immigration reform, and their inhumane proposals that range from building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, abolishing birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants, freezing green card applications, and mass deportation.  These positions, as noted below, have only gotten more extreme in the wake of the Paris attacks.

Dayenu!

It would be enough to vote against the Republicans if only for their opposition to raising the minimum wage while proposing tax plans that provide enormous gains for the top 1% and a pittance for the middle class.  Republican candidates continue pushing failed economic theories that benefit the wealthy but cause widening inequality, less economic growth and higher unemployment.  Indeed, the partisan disparity in job growth is stunning:  under Obama, the U.S. added an average of 107,000 jobs a month; under Clinton, 240,000; and under Bush, 13,000 jobs a month.

Dayenu!

It would be enough to vote against the Republicans if only for their potential nominations to the Supreme Court.  Given the advanced ages of several of the justices, the next president will most likely have the opportunity to appoint more than one new justice, thereby impacting the balance of the Court for at least another generation.  Another Republican appointee would create a rock solid conservative majority that would surely overturn Roe v. Wade, further dismantle Voting Rights, revisit and overturn the Affordable Care Act, dismantle federal regulations on everything from the environment to Wall Street, further limit available remedies for individuals against corporations, allow for greater intrusion of religion into the public sphere, and roll back advances in civil rights and criminal justice. 

Dayenu!

It would be enough to vote against Republicans if only for their desire to deregulate Wall Street.  Dayenu!  If only for their bigoted views on LGBT rights and what they euphemistically call "religious liberty."  Dayenu!  If only for their opposition to any reasonable gun control legislation.  Dayenu!

And finally, and most recently, it would be enough to vote against the Republicans if only for their fear-mongering and senseless demagoguery in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris.  Their ideas run the nonsensical gamut from insisting on using the term "radical Islam" (Rubio's linguistic solution) to closing mosques in the U.S. (Trump) to only admitting Christian refugees from Syria (Jeb!, Cruz) to closing our borders to Syrian refugees altogether (Carson, Rubio, Huckabee, Jindal, Paul) -- even to orphan toddlers (Christie).  Trump would send back the refugees who are already here.  They have nothing to offer but tough-sounding rhetoric.  A prime example is Jeb!, who calls for us to "declare war and harness all of the power that the United States can bring to bear, both diplomatic and military of course, to be able to take out ISIS."  He and his cohorts continue to rely on the same illogic -- and advisers -- used by Jeb!'s brother in responding to 9/11, conveniently forgetting that invading Iraq, dismantling the Baathist Party, relying on torture, and committing other inexcusable acts of incompetence created ISIS in the first place.

Dayenu!  Dayenu!