Month: October 2022

There was a point during the 2016 campaign when Kevin McCarthy, in a meeting with other House Republican leaders, privately expressed the belief that Russia was paying Donald Trump. It was a reasonable conclusion in light of Trump’s bizarre and seemingly counterproductive affinity for Vladimir Putin, but it’s likely that Trump was simply more interested in building a brand-name tower in Moscow than in winning the presidency.

Today, the episode is more noteworthy for what it says about the character of McCarthy. CNN is reporting on a different private conversation involving McCarthy. This one, which occurred in June 2021, involved the mother of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died of a stroke on January 7, 2001 after being being bear-sprayed during the riot. Also present were DC Metro police officer, Michael Fanone, who had a heart attack during the insurrection and suffered a traumatic brain injury, and a Capitol Police officer, Harry Dunn, who engaged in extended hand-to-hand combat in his effort to defend the government.

McCarthy reportedly told these three people that Donald Trump “had no idea his supporters were carrying out the attack.”

But McCarthy maintained Trump was unaware of the violence inside the Capitol when he spoke with Trump by phone that afternoon. He also appeared to take credit for getting the then-President to make a late-afternoon public statement urging his supporters to “go home,” according to one of the meetings’ attendees, then-DC Metropolitan police officer Michael Fanone.

“I’m just telling you from my phone call, I don’t know that he did know that,” McCarthy said during the June 2021 meeting about Trump’s knowledge of the fighting, according to audio secretly recorded by Fanone at the time…

These are weasel words, at best. To understand, we need to look at a statement released byRepublican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler on February 12, 2021.

“In my January 12 statement in support of the article of impeachment, I referenced a conversation House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed to me that he’d had with President Trump while the January 6 attack was ongoing. Here are the details:

“When McCarthy finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’

“Since I publicly announced my decision to vote for impeachment, I have shared these details in countless conversations with constituents and colleagues, and multiple times through the media and other public forums.

“I told it to the Daily News of Longview on January 17. I’ve shared it with local county Republican executive board members, as well as other constituents who ask me to explain my vote. I shared it with thousands of residents on my telephone town hall on February 8.

“To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time.”

Herrera Beutler interpreted Trump’s remarks as an acknowledgment that he understood that it was his MAGA crowd overrunning the Capitol and that he supported their efforts. For one thing, if Trump had actually been serious about believing in was an Antifa riot (a laughable supposition), McCarthy had disabused him of that view.

In fact, the reason McCarthy shared this information with the congresswoman (and others) is that he found Trump’s behavior dishonest and reprehensible.

On a phone call with several other top House Republicans on Jan. 8, Mr. McCarthy said Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 had been “atrocious and totally wrong.” He faulted the president for “inciting people” to attack the Capitol, saying that Mr. Trump’s remarks at a rally on the National Mall that day were “not right by any shape or any form.”

During that conversation, Mr. McCarthy inquired about the mechanism for invoking the 25th Amendment — the process whereby the vice president and members of the cabinet can remove a president from office — before concluding that was not a viable option.

But six months later McCarthy defended Trump in this meeting with victims by suggesting the disgraced ex-president hadn’t necessarily known that his own people were attacking the police.

This too is “atrocious and totally wrong,” as well as “not right by any shape or any form.”

The meeting came as a number of House Republicans were attempting to downplay or distort the facts of what took place on January 6, when Trump’s false claims of a stolen election triggered a deadly attack on the Capitol by a violent pro-Trump mob.

It also took place as McCarthy was “backing off on a pledge to appoint Republicans to the special January 6 Committee,” Fanone writes, adding: “The only reason McCarthy had agreed to meet with us was because he’d been getting heat for refusing to see me.”

As of right now, prognosticators say it is more likely than not that the Republicans will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections. If that happens, it’s also more likely than not that McCarthy will replace Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House.

If you don’t want to see that happen, don’t vote for your Republican congressional candidate, and encourage others not to vote for them either.

=Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of Bodiam Castle in the UK. The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 5×7 inch canvas panel.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have repainted the moat. It now appears as a greenish color. Moving to the castle, I have added to the shadows. Finally, I have repainted the foreground greenery.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.
.

Steve M. has a pretty jaded view of the Republicans’ response to the latest Herschel Walker scandals. In his opinion, the GOP strategists actually welcome the controversy because negative media attention is precisely what Walker needs. He notes that the latest Fox News poll shows Sen. Raphael Warnock receiving a greater percentage of support from Democrats than Walker is getting from Republicans. What could change that in Walker’s favor? Nasty reporters asking nasty questions about an abortion Walker paid for back in 2009.

This has the potential to increase Walker’s support within his party. Republicans who were lukewarm about Walker might rally around him now.

Unlike in the past when Republicans fought back against troubling revelations by changing the subject or accusing the Democrats of similar offenses (whataboutism), the GOP now seems to be simply saying that Walker’s hypocrisy and lies don’t matter because, if elected to the U.S. Senate,  he’ll serve as a loyal member of the party.

Republicans officials and their allies are making very public displays of support for Walker. The message is that whatever he’s done in his life, Walker will vote the way Republicans want him to vote — and also that he’s being attacked by the Democrat/media Axis of Evil…

…this time, Republicans are barely trying to change the subject. It appears as if they want the Walker scandal to be the subject, because they want Walker to be perceived as a victim of a brutal assault by the amoral do-anything-to-win liberals. And I worry that it might really work.

For one thing, the Republicans actually are trying the whataboutism offense, as can been seen here from Georgia resident Erick Erickson’s take on the controversy from a few days ago.

The forcefulness of Walker’s denial will matter to voters and he’s got to use it to pivot back to what is not a distraction to voters, their pocketbooks. And if he wants, he can tie it to Reverend Warnock’s own problems from running over his wife to trying to avoid a process server over child support, etc.

Erickson actually promulgated Warnock-ran-over-his-wife-and-obstructed-an-investigation-into-child-abuse allegations back in 2020 during the special election against Kelly Loeffler. Politifact judged them “highly misleading.” In the latter case, Warnock insisted that lawyers be present when teens were questioned and, although he was arrested, the charges were dismissed. As to the former, no one ever alleged that Warnock’s wife was run over.

Warnock was married to Oulèye Ndoye; they divorced in May [2020]. Until July, Ndoye served on Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ executive team as the city’s senior human trafficking fellow.

Warnock called police to Ndoye’s Atlanta home shortly before 8:30 a.m. on March 2. According to a police report:

Warnock said Ndoye accused him of running over her left foot with his 2014 Tesla while they were arguing in her driveway. Ndoye was reluctant to show her foot to the officer, who wrote: “I did not see any signs that Ms. Ouleye’s foot was ran over.” Medical personnel arrived and were “not able to locate any swelling, redness, or bruising or broken bones on Ms. Ouleye’s left foot.”

Sounds like an ugly incident, but nothing like what Erickson has continuously alleged. As to the allegation that Warnock tried to avoid a process server, he didn’t try very hard.

Atlanta-area process server Frank Swindle said he was nevertheless able to serve the papers, which were part of the child custody court case.

Swindle told PolitiFact in a phone interview that he approached Warnock outside of Ndoye’s home and when he told Warnock he was there to serve him court papers, Warnock got in his car and began to drive away. Swindle said he was able to put the paper on the car’s windshield and saw it there as Warnock drove away.

“He drove away and he waved at me,” Swindle said.

So, as you can see, the Republicans are definitely trying to distract from Walker’s problems but suggesting that Warnock is no better.

I don’t see any way that it helps Walker to be exposed again as a complete liar and hypocrite. His advantage appears to be that the top of the Georgia ticket is the governor’s race between incumbent Brian Kemp and Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams. Kemp appears to have a strong lead and that is something Warnock will need to overcome if he’s going to keep his seat. Simply put, more Republican votes are likely to be cast for Kemp and Warnock needs some of those voters to reject Walker.

The crossovers will not come from stout Republican base voters, but from less partisan types. Walker can definitely win, but the abortion controversy isn’t going to be the reason why.

The first time I encountered the power of Internet politics was with the Bill Bradley for president campaign in 2000. John McCain also utilized the web effectively that year, and I still remember Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah inviting everyone to visit OrrinHatch2000.com every two seconds. But it was Howard Dean in 2004 who really figured out how to raise considerable amounts of money online through small donors.  At the time, and even a decade forward, it seemed like small donors might really solve the problem of the Republicans having a structural financial advantage which, of course, causes the Democrats to gravitate to a very centrist economic position so they can at least compete for large donor money. The double-win hope was that the Democrats would win more elections and feel free to have a more common-person focus while they were doing it.

But, writing in the New York Times, Tim Miller is correct to note that the whole thing has curdled. It reminds me of way the best dreams of the Sixties crashed on the shoals of Altamount, overdoses, Erhard Seminars Training, and Reaganomics. What we have now is a racket where countless gullible victims are separated from both their money and their tether to reality.

One of the cool things about the Dean campaign (and it shared this with the liberal blogosphere) was the sense of empowerment it gave to people. Deaniac’s came together in real life and online organically, establishing networks of common-minded people who quickly realized they had the power to make change. Part of that was financial power. The money was coming from people who didn’t give much and didn’t expect any direct return. The ask wasn’t personal, but broadly ideological, and more progressive than what Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party had on offer.

But today the art of getting money from ordinary folks has been perfected, and it entails causing a constant state of panic. These days there is plenty to panic about, but that’s part of the problem. We’d be frazzled even without being constantly reminded that we should be frazzled.

And so we’re deluged on both the left and right by constant alarmist pitches to give away our money, often to candidates who have no hope of winning. Donald Trump and his GOP took it step further by deceptively convincing people to give recurring donations without realizing they were making that commitment.

Last year I wrote about how the National Republican Congressional Committee’s donation form used a prechecked box scheme, which automatically doubled the dollar amount and made it recurring. A warning aggressively threatened donors if they unchecked the box. Similar tactics resulted in the Trump campaign’s having to return $122 million to supporters who had been duped and, in some cases, financially devastated.

The truth obviously suffers, since exaggeration and lies get more clicks than a sober explanation of our urgent challenges. So a side-effect of fundraising is a dumber, angrier electorate. We’re no longer getting some tonic to two-party corporatism but a nation of rattled morons who’ve just been bilked out of fifty bucks (or a hundred or a hundred and fifty).

We started out with an establishment that wouldn’t listen to us–that thought DLC Centrism was near perfection, that invading Iraq was a reasonable action–and we found a way to make our voices heard and to sway some elections and force the media to improve.

But now we’re just being brainwashed by sophisticated schemes that make us dupes and set us at each other’s throats.

Obviously, the right is enormously more responsible for this development than the left, mostly due to their more unscrupulous nature. But for progressives, we need to wake up to what’s been lost. Our best tool is now turned against us and our country. What we thought would lead to vast improvements is now threatening everything.

It’s not enough to have a faith in the possibility of progress. You also have to have a plan.

When human nature asserts itself and its gravitational pull on progress, we can’t pretend it’s not happening.

It counts as a service that Tom Rogan took the effort at the Washington Examiner to explain that Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against CNN is a load of crap and should fail. It’s rare to see anything produced for that audience that is level-headed and factual.

The suit, which takes issue with the on-air talent at CNN fairly consistently comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler, can’t overcome the First Amendment right to speak one’s mind. When it comes to public figures like the president of the United States, people have strong opinions and they’re allowed to express them provided there’s no malice. “Malice” is defined as knowing what you’re saying is false and not caring. But comparing contemporary political figures to historical ones isn’t subject to factual verification.

Rogan makes a straightforward case both for why Trump’s suit will not succeed and for why it should not succeed. He also knows who he’s trying to persuade:

In this case, Trump’s lawyers must prove either that CNN knew said statements were false or recklessly and deliberately aired them without concern for accuracy…

…In Europe, defamation lawsuits are used to deter reporting and commentary as much as to contend with it after the fact. The wealthy and powerful can threaten bankruptcy with legal fees and drawn-out proceedings, even if what was said is ultimately upheld. Were this standard applied to the U.S., vibrant conservative blogs and social media commentary would cease to exist in any form similar to today.

Europe is a constant punching bag of the right, but it’s true that the U.S. has more press freedom. It’s also true that U.S. conservative blogs and social media are so committed to recklessly and deliberately false activities that they’d face an existential crisis if held to a stronger defamation standard.

It’s ironic, but our country is struggling to contend with the repercussions of the right-wing’s commitment to misinformation. Most famously, this led to the mass-delusion coup attempt on January 6, 2021, after which Trump was suspended from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter.

The way I see it, the right has been abusing their First Amendment rights to such a degree that they’re responsible for restricting everyone else’s freedom of expression. This gives them little ground to stand on when complaining about comparisons to Nazis.

What they’ve done is force us all to consider the limits of free speech. We have a government to protect, and we can’t have insurrections based on nothing but lies. We also have to protect people from fraud and incitement to crime. How many people are on trial or have already been convicted of criminal activity related to January 6? Most of them were victims of The Big Lie.

Suspending people from social media for spreading malicious lies is one way of trying to deal with the problem, but it resets freedom of expression for everyone. It’s a sign that there are only so many lies the system can bear before it begins to crack.

Rogan didn’t raise these points, perhaps because he doesn’t agree with them, but also because his audience wouldn’t listen. But they might be receptive to the message that if CNN is restricted in what they can say, then they too will have their freedom of expression curtailed.

Here’s an iconic title track to an iconic LP with an iconic album cover:

About 3 decades ago, my now-wife and I would hear plenty of performers on the then-thriving coffee house circuit perform covers of this particular song. Most did well. Good times.

Cheers.

 

As Ukraine makes advances in the east and south, and Russian forces retreat and collapse, I take special notice of the following comment:

On Monday, the spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged that “superior tank units” of Ukraine had “wedged in the depth of our defense line” near the villages of Zolota Balka and Oleksandrivka in the Kherson region.

Why would a Russian military spokesperson admit that Ukraine has superior tank units? I ask this quite aside from the possibility that it’s true. I don’t think Putin’s Russia cares one bit about the truth of anything. Ordinarily they like to project strength, not weakness, so it’s noteworthy that here they’d prefer to look outgunned.

Now it could be that the breakthrough near Kherson truly involved a tank battle that the Russians lost, but I suggest the truth is probably that the Russian forces ran away. I don’t think the soldiers in the field see the point in dying for Kherson. But the Kremlin doesn’t want to admit that it has a massive morale problem, so it’s preferable to blame losses on the equipment NATO is providing. This can justify more defense spending, help answer critics of their strategy, and perhaps avoid a more general refusal to fight.

To the extent that the West swallows this “superior tank unit” explanation, it only encourages them to give more. So, that’s another reason I think it’s least bad excuse they could come up with. I see it as a giant warning sign that Russia is nearing some kind of reckoning. When your best lies are actually more helpful to your adversaries than yourself, you’re almost out of lying ammunition.

It’s only one data point or measure of where things stand politically today in America, but the latest Gallup survey shows something that really ought to be impossible:

Americans’ views of the two major U.S. political parties remain more negative than positive, but the Republican Party’s favorability is now slightly better than the Democratic Party’s.

Both parties’ images have shifted slightly since last year, with the GOP’s favorable rating edging up four percentage points to 44% and the Democratic Party’s rating slipping by the same amount, to 39%.

With the government gridlocked on many things, inflation high, and markets reeling, I can understand why neither party gets high marks from the public, but I can’t think of a single reason why the Republicans’ position should have improved over the last year.

But the aggregate generic ballot question confirms it.  A year ago, the public preferred that the Democrats control congress by a 45.1 to 41.7 percent margin, and today the split is down to 45.4 to 44.2 percent.

Yes, the Dems still show a slight advantage in the most important predictor of the upcoming midterm elections, but as with the Gallup results, we see the Republicans inching up.

On October 3, 2021, Biden’s upside-down approval numbers stood at 45.0 positive and 48.9 negative. Today, he gets the thumb’s up from only 42.1 percent compared to 51.9 percent who are dissatisfied. Personally, I have difficulty understanding why the president’s numbers haven’t improved, at least modestly, after a very productive summer. But it definitely looks like he’s a drag on the whole party.

What’s most perplexing is not that Biden is unpopular, nor that his party is treading water, but that the public hasn’t grown more negative about the Republicans. We certainly see indications that the public is not keen on many individual Republican candidates for office. Many of them appear too far out of the mainstream for the electorate’s taste. But this doesn’t seem to be reflected in the broader image of the GOP.

I’m also not sure what’s more urgent: to figure out what the Democrats are doing wrong or what the Republicans are doing right?

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be starting a new painting. It is Bodiam Castle in the UK. The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 9×9 inch canvas panel.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have now repainted moat in a shade of blue. Also revised are the shadows and reflection. Finally, the foreground greenery has been revised.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.