Thursday, July 30, 2020

Can Donald Postpone The Election? - Updated

Fortunately the short answer is no, he can't. (Big sigh of relief.) He suggested it this morning and of course, the political world went nuts. Even Mitch McConnell spoke against the president, which he almost never does:

“Never in the history of the Congress, through wars, depressions and the Civil War have we ever not had a federally scheduled election on time, and we’ll find a way to do that again this Nov. 3,” McConnell told Max Winitz, the lead evening anchor at WNKY 40.

When Winitz asked whether the Nov. 3 election date is “set in stone,” McConnell responded, “That’s right.”

“We’ll cope with whatever the situation is and have the election on Nov. 3 as already scheduled,” the GOP leader said.
(From The Hill, read the entire story here.)

Still, I was surprised to read how sharply Steven G. Calabresi, an arch conservative and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, pushed back on Donald's stupid idea. In an opinion column at the New York Times, titled: Trump Might Try to Postpone the Election. That’s Unconstitutional and subtitled He should be removed unless he relents, Calabresi said this:

I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including voting for Donald Trump in 2016. I wrote op-eds and a law review article protesting what I believe was an unconstitutional investigation by Robert Mueller. I also wrote an op-ed opposing President Trump’s impeachment.

But I am frankly appalled by the president’s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.

Here is what President Trump tweeted:



The nation has faced grave challenges before, just as it does today with the spread of the coronavirus. But it has never canceled or delayed a presidential election. Not in 1864, when President Abraham Lincoln was expected to lose and the South looked as if it might defeat the North. Not in 1932 in the depths of the Great Depression. Not in 1944 during World War II.

So we certainly should not even consider canceling this fall’s election because of the president’s concern about mail-in voting, which is likely to increase because of fears about Covid-19. It is up to each of the 50 states whether to allow universal mail-in voting and Article II of the Constitution explicitly gives the states total power over the selection of presidential electors.

Election Day was fixed by a federal law passed in 1845, and the Constitution itself in the 20th Amendment specifies that the newly elected Congress meet at noon on Jan. 3, 2021, and that the terms of the president and vice president end at noon on Jan. 20, 2021. If no newly elected president is available, the speaker of the House of Representatives becomes acting president.

President Trump needs to be told by every Republican in Congress that he cannot postpone the federal election. Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional and without precedent in American history. Anyone who says otherwise should never be elected to Congress again.
(This is the column in its entirety.)

Steven G. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law.

Update. In a story labeled "News Analysis," this is how the New York Times is covering Donald's tweet and the reaction to it:

For several years, it has been the stuff of his opponents’ nightmares: that President Trump, facing the prospect of defeat in the 2020 election, would declare by presidential edict that the vote had been delayed or canceled.

Never mind that no president has that power, that the timing of federal elections has been fixed since the 19th century and that the Constitution sets an immovable expiration date on the president’s term. Given Mr. Trump’s contempt for the legal limits on his office and his oft-expressed admiration for foreign dictators, it hardly seemed far-fetched to imagine he would at least attempt the gambit.

But when the moment came on Thursday, with Mr. Trump suggesting for the first time that the election could be delayed, his proposal appeared as impotent as it was predictable — less a stunning assertion of his authority than yet another lament that his political prospects have dimmed amid a global public-health crisis. Indeed, his comments on Twitter came shortly after the Commerce Department reported that American economic output contracted last quarter at the fastest rate in recorded history, underscoring one of Mr. Trump’s most severe vulnerabilities as he pursues a second term.

Far from a strongman, Mr. Trump has lately become a heckler in his own government, promoting medical conspiracy theories on social media, playing no constructive role in either the management of the coronavirus pandemic or the negotiation of an economic rescue plan in Congress — and complaining endlessly about the unfairness of it all.

“It will be a great embarrassment to the USA,” Mr. Trump tweeted of the election, asserting without evidence that mail-in voting would lead to fraud. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

The most powerful leaders in Congress immediately shot down the idea of moving the election, including the top figures in Mr. Trump’s own party.

“Never in the history of the country, through wars, depressions, and the Civil War have we ever not had a federally scheduled election on time, and we’ll find a way to do that again this Nov. 3,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said in an interview with WNKY television in Kentucky. “We’ll cope with whatever the situation is and have the election on Nov. 3 as already scheduled.”

Mr. Trump’s tweet about delaying the election marked a phase of his presidency defined not by the accumulation of executive power, but by an abdication of presidential leadership on a national emergency.

Faced with the kind of economic wreckage besieging millions of Americans, any other president would be shoulder-deep in the process of marshaling his top lieutenants and leaders in Congress to form a robust government response. Instead, Mr. Trump has been absent this week from economic-relief talks, even as a crucial unemployment benefit is poised to expire and the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome H. Powell, warned publicly that the country’s recovery is lagging.

And any other president confronted with a virulent viral outbreak across huge regions of the country would be at least trying to deliver a clear and consistent message about public safety. Instead, Mr. Trump has continued to promote a drug of no proven efficacy, hydroxychloroquine, as a potential miracle cure, and to demand that schools and businesses reopen quickly — even as he has also claimed that it might be impossible to hold a safe election.

William F. Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who mounted a largely symbolic challenge to Mr. Trump in the Republican primaries this year, said on Thursday that the president’s tweet was a sign that Mr. Trump was panicked and unmoored. Though Mr. Weld has argued for years that Mr. Trump had dictatorial impulses, he said Thursday that the election-delay idea was “not a legitimate threat.”

“So many dead and the economy in free fall — and what’s his reaction? Delay the election,” Mr. Weld said. “It’s a sign of a mind that’s having a great deal of difficulty coming to terms with reality.”

Mr. Trump has attacked the legitimacy of American elections before, including the one in 2016 that made him president. Even after winning the Electoral College that year, Mr. Trump cast doubt on the popular vote and postulated baselessly that Hillary Clinton’s substantial lead in that metric had been tainted by illegal voting.

With that as precedent, there has never been much doubt — certainly among his opponents — that Mr. Trump would attempt to undercut the election if it appeared likely he would lose it. While Mr. Trump does not have the power to shift the date of the election, there is ample concern among Democrats that his appointees in Washington or his allies in state governments could make a large-scale effort to snarl the process of voting.

Given the extreme nature of Mr. Trump’s suggestion, there was an odd familiarity to the response it garnered from political leaders in both parties. There was no immediate call to the barricades, or renewed push from Democrats for presidential impeachment. Opposition leaders expressed outrage, but most agreed, in public and private, that Mr. Trump’s outburst should be treated as a distress call rather than a real statement of his governing intentions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in government, replied to Mr. Trump’s tweet simply by posting on Twitter the language from the Constitution stating that Congress, not the president, sets the date of national elections. Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, a Democrat who chairs the congressional committee that oversees elections, suggested in no uncertain terms that Mr. Trump’s tweet was another symptom of his inability to master the coronavirus.

“Only Congress can change the date of our elections,” Ms. Lofgren said, “and under no circumstances will we consider doing so to accommodate the President’s inept and haphazard response to the coronavirus pandemic, or give credence to the lies and misinformation he spreads regarding the manner in which Americans can safely and securely cast their ballots.”

Republicans, who typically answer the president with a combination of evasion or no comment, did not rush to become profiles in courage by thundering against an out-of-control presidency, and some ducked the issue entirely when confronted by reporters. But many others were blunt in their rejection of Mr. Trump’s position.

“Make no mistake: the election will happen in New Hampshire on November 3rd. End of story,” Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican who is up for re-election, said on Twitter.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said on Capitol Hill, “Since 1845, we’ve had an election on the first Tuesday after November first and we’re going to have one again this year.”

Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress, echoed that position, saying “we should go forward.”

Others were more equivocal, following a well-worn Republican playbook for avoiding direct conflict with the president over his wilder pronouncements. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, asked in a Senate hearing whether he believed it was legal for a president to delay an election, said he was “not going to enter a legal judgment on that on the fly this morning.” That would be an assessment, he said, for the Justice Department.

Even Mr. Trump’s campaign declined to turn his tweet into a rallying cry, instead playing down the notion that it might have been a policy prescription. Hogan Gidley, a spokesman for the campaign, said Mr. Trump was “just raising a question about the chaos Democrats have created with their insistence on all mail-in voting” — an obviously false paraphrase of the president’s tweet, one that minimized the gravity of what Mr. Trump had said.

The timing of Mr. Trump’s tweet, as much as the content, highlighted the extent to which he has become a loud but isolated figure in government, and in the public life of the country. In addition to failing to devise a credible national response to the coronavirus pandemic, he has not played the traditional presidential role of calming the country in moments of fear and soothing it in moments of grief.

Never was that more apparent than on Thursday, when Mr. Trump spent the morning posting a combination of incendiary and pedestrian tweets, while his three immediate predecessors — Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — gathered in Atlanta for the funeral of John Lewis, the congressman and civil rights hero.

As mourners assembled at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Mr. Trump had other matters on his mind, like hypothetical election fraud and, as it happened, Italian food.

“Support Patio Pizza and its wonderful owner, Guy Caligiuri, in St. James, Long Island (N.Y.).” the president tweeted, referring to a restaurateur who said he faced backlash for supporting Mr. Trump. “Great Pizza!!!”
(This is the story in its entirety.)

And this is the front page of today's issue of the Times:


Herman Cain Dies Of Coronavirus

Former presidential candidate Herman Cain boasted about attending the Tulsa rally in June. You know, the one with no masks and no social distancing:

Image





Now Mr. Cain has died from COVID-19:












Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Donald Looks Awful

These pictures and the video in Aaron Rupar's tweet were taken today.

Donald's visit to Midland, Texas:

US president Donald Trump delivers remarks on restoring energy dominance in the Permian basin in Midland, Texas on July 29, 2020. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)









How on earth could Donald's staff let him go out in public looking like that? Isn't there anyone at the White House who has standing to save him from looking ridiculous? Do they really secretly hate him?

This Day In History, 1980: The First Picture Of Diana

 Arthur's first shot of Diana, at a polo match in July 1980
Credit: News Group Newspapers Ltd

This is the first picture of Diana Spencer that ever appeared in a newspaper. It wasn't published until a few weeks later but it was taken 40 years ago today, by royal photographer Arthur Edwards. In a 2017 article in the Irish Sun newspaper, he tells the story:

Those first, early meetings with Diana — then a shy teenager — remain burned into my memory nearly 40 years on.

My job on The Sun had been to be the first to identify and photograph the woman who would steal Prince Charles’s heart.

I did find her and photograph her before my rivals.

But I shoved the picture in a drawer because I couldn’t believe the Prince, who was nearly 32, would be going out with a teenager.

My remarkable friendship with Diana began exactly a year to the day before her wedding to the world’s most eligible bachelor.

Tracking down Charles’s new love had become a bit of an obsession with me as I followed him everywhere.

Along the way I saw his other girlfriends, like Davina Sheffield and Sabrina Guinness, but they didn’t last long.

He had only recently broken up with Marjorie [sic] Wallace, a stunning girl with model looks who we all thought would be The One.


Note: Charles's girlfriend before Diana was Anna Wallace. 

Then on July 29, 1980, the trail took me to a polo match at Cowdray Park at Midhurst, West Sussex.

I’d been told Charles had arrived with a girl called Lady Diana Spencer but no one seemed to know what she looked like.

Looking around I saw a pretty girl sitting among the crowds wearing a necklace with the letter D on it.

I gave it a go and politely asked: “Excuse me, are you Lady Diana Spencer?”

When she said yes I asked to take a photograph. So she posed for me, her hand delicately framing her face.

It was the first of hundreds of thousands of pictures I would take over the coming years.

But I filed this one in a drawer after discovering that Earl Spencer’s youngest daughter, who worked as a nursery teacher, had only just celebrated her 19th birthday.

I had the scoop of the year but I sent the roll of film back to the office by messenger with a note, “File this, because I’m not sure”.

A month after I’d first photographed her I was driving along the banks of the River Dee near Balmoral, certain she was The One.

Then I saw Prince Charles fishing with an unusual-looking ghillie.

It was Diana dressed as a man. I stopped the car and tore across the field, while Diana ran away, hid behind a tree and used a mirror to look over her shoulder to see where I was.


She suddenly made a dash for it through the trees and I got all these pictures.


Charles stomped out of the river fuming because his fishing had been interrupted.

We then ran my photo of Diana from the polo on Page 1 with a headline: Lady Diana Spencer — All the Qualities to be Queen. (Read the entire article here.)

And one more thing: Diana's famous blue gown, the one she wore while dancing with John Travolta at the White House in 1985, will be going on display at Kensington Palace: 





The dress was featured in the 1997 Christie's auction and sold for $222,500, the highest sale price of all 80 dresses. The buyer was anonymous and the dress has been sold a couple of times over the years. The independent charity Historic Royal Palaces purchased it in December:  

A midnight blue velvet gown worn by Princess Diana when she famously danced with actor John Travolta has sold for £264,000 ($347,000).

The princess wore the dress, made by couturier Victor Edelstein, at an event at the White House in November 1985.

Photographs of the princess and the Hollywood star gliding around the room to the music of "Saturday Night Fever" were seen around the world, and Travolta later described the experience as having been "like a fairy tale."

Historic Royal Palaces (HRP), an independent charity that looks after palaces in the UK, paid a princely sum for the dress on Tuesday -- the day after the dress failed to sell at auction.

"We're delighted to have acquired this iconic evening gown for the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection -- a designated collection of national and international importance -- over twenty years since it first left Kensington Palace," said Eleri Lynn, curator at HRP, in a statement.

"Not only is the 'Travolta' dress a fantastic example of couture tailoring designed to dazzle on a state occasion, it represents a key moment in the story of twentieth century royal fashion."

The dress had been expected to fetch up to £350,000 (about $388,000) at Kerry Taylor Auctions on Monday.

HRP purchased the gown outside of the auction, according to a spokesman.

A spokeswoman for Kerry Taylor Auctions told CNN that they wouldn't comment on why the dress didn't sell at auction, but the seller is happy that the dress will remain in the UK.

The auction house last sold at the same auction house for £240,000 ($311,000) in March 2013, to a British buyer who bought the dress as a gift for his wife.

Diana wore the dress with a sapphire and pearl choker, an outfit that has since become emblematic of the princess. Lynn said Diana had become a fashion icon like Jackie Kennedy or Audrey Hepburn, calling the princess "timeless, elegant and still so relevant."
(From CNN.com; read the entire story here.)

Pete Souza, who was the official White House photographer for President Obama, also served in that role during the Reagan administration. He took the famous picture; here's another shot from the same night: 



If the Travolta dress got the highest price at Christie's, which dress got the lowest? It was a pink silk dinner dress by Catherine Walker, worn by Diana in 1993: 


Catherine walker – Page 2 – Princess Diana News Blog "All Things ...

Sale price? $21,850.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

A Message From Donald Trump

Note the date: 

Image

A View From The Other Side

Tony Green is a conservative and a Trump supporter. He believed the coronavirus was a big hoax from the libs trying to damage Donald Trump. He made fun of people wearing masks. He ignored social distancing guidelines and threw a big party for his family. It was his God-given right. Here's how he describes what happened next:

Imagine the sound and vibration of an old-fashioned electric heater going through your whole body. Imagine gasping for air with every step you take. Imagine rubbing Icy Hot all over your head to soothe a painful headache. Imagine your eyes in a bowl of water while you’re still seeing through them. Imagine collapsing and waking up in the ER only to find out COVID-19 attacked your central nervous system, and the doctor had just saved you from a stroke.

If that were the worst of it, it would be bad enough. But that’s not the worst of it. This is the story of one family’s harrowing fight with COVID-19.

Full disclosure: I am a gay conservative, someone that often juggles persecution for my sexuality while being true to my values. Such a combination requires a lot of tenacity to earn respect from either group.

I admit I voted for Donald Trump in 2016. I admit traveling deep into the conspiracy trap over COVID-19. All the defiant behavior of Trump’s more radical and rowdy cult followers, I participated in it. I was a hard-ass that stood up for my “God-given rights.”

In great haste, I began prognosticating the alphabet soup about this “scamdemic.” I believed the virus to be a hoax. I believed the mainstream media and the Democrats were using it to create panic, crash the economy and destroy Trump’s chances at re-election.

And so, believing the pandemic to be a hoax, my partner and I hosted family members on Saturday, June 13. On Sunday, June 14, I woke up sick.

By Monday, June 15, my partner and my parents were all sick. That same Monday, my in-laws traveled to witness the birth of their first grandchild. They took with them my father-in-law’s mother and one of my partner’s sisters. That night my father-in-law became ill. Then my mother-in-law and their daughter began feeling sick. So they cut their trip short.

Two days later, my father-in-law’s mother got sick. The new mommy and daddy got sick, too. We all tested positive for COVID-19. Only the newborn was spared.

My father-in-law and I both went to the hospital on June 24. The virus had attacked my central nervous system, and the staff stopped me from having a stroke.

My father-in-law’s mother was admitted a day later. On July 1, she died of COVID-19/pneumonia. The chaplain wanted the family to break the news to my father-in-law, and he learned how his mother lay on her deathbed and then drifted off without any family by her side, even though he was in the room next to hers.

On the day of her funeral, which was July 14, five more of our family members tested positive for the virus. That evening, my father-in-law was put on a ventilator.

You cannot imagine the guilt I feel, knowing that I hosted the gathering that led to so much suffering. You cannot imagine my guilt at having been a denier, carelessly shuffling through this pandemic, making fun of those wearing masks and social distancing. You cannot imagine my guilt at knowing that my actions convinced both our families it was safe when it wasn’t.
(Read the rest of the column here.)

Monday, July 27, 2020

100 Days To Go

Jonathan Bernstein looks at the state of the race at the 100-days-out mark:

Sunday marked 100 days until the election, so I’ll break my general rule of thumb — which is to ignore the horse-race polls until after the conventions — for a day. And what those polls say is pretty simple: Former Vice President Joe Biden has opened up a solid lead over President Donald Trump.

How solid? Checking the averages: FiveThirtyEight estimates an 8 percentage point lead, RealClearPolitics says 9.1 percentage points and the Economist puts it at 8.4 percentage points. How big is that lead? Big enough. Even if the polls are a bit off and Trump is actually doing better, and even if he still has an Electoral College advantage and everything breaks in his favor, there’s no way he wins if the polls look this way in November.

But of course it’s July, not November. The good news for Trump is that despite everything that’s gone wrong, even a modest rally would put him close enough that a normal polling error and an Electoral College edge could be enough to win a second term.

The bad news for him is that it seems unlikely he can do that. Trump has trailed Biden in head-to-head polling throughout the campaign, long before the pandemic and ensuing recession. It’s anybody’s guess what will happen with the virus by November, but it’s hard to believe that it will no longer be a dominant issue — and Trump’s polling on the pandemic is bad and getting worse.

The economy is a bit more complicated, but public opinion has trended against Trump there, too. I still think that a president could have sold high unemployment as an unavoidable consequence of the successful fight against the virus, but that would’ve required showing a lot more success, and a president who had built trust with the electorate and knew how to show empathy. At this point, it seems more likely that Trump will be punished for his handling of the economy.

In fact, the polls so far may even be understating Biden’s lead. Biden gets about 50% of the vote in head-to-head polls, but Trump’s disapproval rating has been at or above 55% for a while, and has almost always been higher than 52%. It’s true that some people voted for Trump in 2016 despite not liking him, but it’s a lot tougher to win votes from people who think you’re currently doing a bad job as president. And don’t forget: Polling errors could go in either direction, and there’s no guarantee that Trump will wind up having an Electoral College advantage.

There are enough unusual things going on this year that it’s worth being skeptical of anyone making confident predictions. Still, everything in the polling right now looks grim for Trump. And he’s running out of time to do anything about it.
(This is the column in its entirety.) 

Catching Up With The People Covers - Updated/Regis and Harry and Meghan

During the Coronavirus shutdown, I've gotten out of my routine of weekly Guessing Game posts and posting the new cover. The missing covers are posted below, along with the "Last year at this time" covers from 2019. I'm even going to do a short Guessing Game list. What will be on the new cover this week? My guesses:

Olivia de Havilland and/or Regis Philbin: Dead celebrities
Harry and Meghan: A new book, titled Finding Freedom. It will be released in the U.S. on August 11
Oprah: Is she discontinuing her magazine (or possibly going to online only?)
Taylor Swift: A new album
Demi Lovato: Engaged
Kim and Kanye: Some kind of drama or other.

Stories that appear on the new cover will be highlighted in green.

Update: I called the cover stories, and for some reason People has posted two versions of this week's cover, one with Regis Philbin as the main story; the other with Harry and Meghan:

Issue dated August 10, 2020: Harry and Meghan
Image

Issue dated August 10, 2020: Regis Philbin
Image


They've done this occasionally before, with one cover on issues going out to subscribers and the other for newsstand sales.

Last year at this time it was Bachelorette Hannah:

Issue dated August 12, 2019



Here are the previous covers:

Issue dated June 8, 2020
Lori Loughlin, Mossimo Giannulli 'Deeply Regret What They Did' in ...


Issue dated June 15, 2020
 Image


Issue dated June 22, 2020
Image


Issue dated June 29, 2020
Image


Issue dated July 6, 2020
Image


Issue dated July 13, 2020
Image


Issue dated July 20, 2020
Image


Issue dated July 27, 2020
Image


Issue dated August 3, 2020
Image


Here are the "Last year at this time" covers:

June 10, 2019
Image result for alex trebek on cover of people magazine


June 17, 2019
Image result for Chip Gaines cover of People


June 24, 2019



July 1, 2019



July 8, 2019



July 15, 2019



July 22, 2019



July 29, 2019



August 5, 2019
Image



Sunday, July 26, 2020

This Day In History, 1990: ADA Signed Into Law





Saturday, July 25, 2020

Donald Catches A Ball

Image


Image

When Dr. Fauci's pitch goes wide, who cares, right? He's still a world-class physician and scientist who has spent his entire life working to protect Americans from infectious diseases. (I first heard of him in 1986 when I read And The Band Plays On, Randy Shilts's history of the AIDS crisis.)

This guy, on the other hand... When Donald first became president I wondered here in the blog, why does this guy always look so awkward? (Not to mention that for all his tough guy bragging and blustering, Donald looks like a scared little boy.) Sitting in a chair, wearing White Tie, trying to do anything athletic, he almost can't function in his own skin. He can't do humanness right. It reminds me of a column LA Times opinion columnist Virginia Heffernan wrote about Donald in April, 2017:

THIS is what makes my head spin: The president is not a moral figure in any idiom, any land, any culture, any subculture. I’m not talking about the liberal enlightenment that would make him want the country to take care of the poor and sick. I mean he has no Republican values either. He has no honor among thieves, no cosa nostra loyalty, no Southern code against cheating or lying, none of the openness of New York, rectitude of Boston, expressiveness and kindness of California, no evangelical family values, no Protestant work ethic. No Catholic moral seriousness, no sense of contrition or gratitude. No Jewish moral and intellectual precision, sense of history. He doesn’t care about the life of the mind OR the life of the senses. He is not mandarin, not committed to inquiry or justice, not hospitable. He is not proper. He is not a bon vivant who loves to eat, drink, laugh.

There’s nothing he would die for — not American values, obviously, but not the land of Russia or his wife or young son. He has some hollow success creeds from Norman Vincent Peale, but Peale was obsessed with fair-dealing and a Presbyterian pastor; Trump has no fairness or piety. He’s not sentimental; no affection for dogs or babies. No love for mothers, “the common man,” veterans. He has no sense of military valor, and is openly a coward about war. He would have sorely lacked the pagan beauty and capacity to fight required in ancient Greece. He doesn’t care about his wife or wives; he is a philanderer but he’s not a romantic hero with great love for women and sex. He commands loyalty and labor from his children not because he loves them, even; he seems almost to hate them — and if one of them slipped it would be terrifying. He does no philanthropy.

He doesn’t — in a more secular key — even seem to have a sense of his enlightened self-interest enough to shake Angela Merkel’s hand. Doesn’t even affect a love for the arts, like most rich New Yorkers. He doesn’t live and die by aesthetics and health practices like some fascists; he’s very ugly and barely mammalian. Am I missing an obscure moral system to which he so much as nods? Also are there other people, living or dead, like him?


It's the nothingness. There's just nothing there. (Click here to read more about the nothing of Donald.)

This Day In History, 1975: A Chorus Line




My favorite song? What I Did For Love. 

Friday, July 24, 2020

The Top 1% - Update

I'm going to keep posting these as I see them; see the first post here.




 Update on Wednesday, August 5. Another one:

Image


The sender is newly promoted campaign manager Bill Stepien. It's hard to read so I typed out the content:


CONFIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY: PLEASE DON'T SHARE  

Friend,

I'll get right to it.

November 3rd is coming at us fast and I'm prepared to do whatever it takes to secure another victory for President Trump.

The president said that you're one of his strongest allies. I always trust what he thinks, so I only have one question for you: are you ready to flight alongside me and CRUSH Joe Biden on Election Day?

I know you're up for the challenge. You've been a strong supporter of the President since the very beginning, which is why I need you to take the Official 2020 Campaign Strategy Survey. 

This survey is strictly confidential and is meant for your eyes only. If should go without saying, but please do NOT forward this to anyone. [end]


When I see these missives I always wonder why they're insisting on secrecy. Given that the message probably went to literally millions of people, the campaign can't possibly believe that no one will forward it. I got it from David Corn, of Mother Jones, who posted it on Twitter. Not exactly confidential. 

Is it possible this is some kind of reverse psychology? Trying to trick recipients into sharing it? No way to know. And wouldn't you love to know what's on the Official 2020 Campaign Strategy Survey?  



The Death Toll Of 47 September 11's

Writing at The Bulwark in an article titled "Why Can't Trump Land A Punch?," Molly Jong-Fast ponders Donald's campaign and why it's not
going so well:

In 2015, Trump crushed an entire political dynasty with two words: “low energy.” But Jeb wasn’t the only recipient of a truly destructive nickname. Trump was the king of the takedown. In the Republican primary, Trump eviscerated his enemies with a single tweet or a mean nickname, impaling the other two heavyweight contenders with one adjective each—“Liddle Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted.”

What a difference four years makes.

Trump’s nicknames no longer shape the news cycle. Trump’s Twitter account no longer drives the narrative. And Trump’s lies are no longer reported as fact, even on Fox News. (Well, with some obvious exceptions.)

What happened?

In 2015, the American political world had never been confronted by a politician so deeply untethered to the truth. Trump lied the same way normal people breathe. Whether it was about his finances, or his health, or “watching Shark Week” with a porn star. (Best euphemism ever?)

Trump literally paid actors to come to his announcement that he was running for president and pretend to be supporters!

Can you imagine what would have happened to any other Republican presidential candidate in the history of Republican presidential candidates if they had gotten caught paying a crowd to show up for their launch?

John [sic] Huntsman: Dead.

Bob Dole: Dead.

Phil Gramm: Triple dog dead.

And Trump’s super power wasn’t just his shamelessness in lying about himself—he was willing to lie about what he wanted to do as president.

Presidential candidates are always promising crazy stuff that has no way of passing into law.

But there has always been a line. Like, if you were running for president you could promise that you would “end poverty” or “fit your entire tax return on a postcard.” And sure, everyone knew that you weren’t going to really do those things because the problems were complex and legislating is hard and blah, blah, blah. But at least, in a perfect world, these goals were theoretically possible.

No one was ever willing to say, “Vote for me and we’ll change the universal gravitational constant.” Or, “I pledge that together, we can make alicorns real.”

But Trump kind of was. He promised not only to build an unbroken physical wall stretching across America’s entire southern border—itself an exercise in magical thinking—but that Mexico would pay for this contraption.

He would have had a better chance with the alicorns. I hear InGen is doing amazing work these days.

Democrats didn’t know what to do with someone who lied like Trump. And the media found themselves totally at sea because there was no handbook in America for a free press covering an aspiring autocrat.

But things change. And people and institutions change, too. Donald Trump is no longer an outsider promising to blow things up. He’s the guy in charge and he blew things up real good. Promises made, promises kept!

Because of Trump’s administration, the United States has endured (so far) the equivalent death toll of 47 September 11’s. The unemployment rate is double digits, and many of us cannot safely leave our homes. Weirdly enough, people now seem to view “blowing it all up” as more bug than feature. Go figure.

Trump has other problems, too.

For instance, everything Trump accuses Biden of doing, he does himself, only worse. So when Trump World tried to shop the idea that Biden was creepy with women, all it really did was remind people that Trump has more than two dozen sexual assault allegations on his rap sheet.

When Trump World pushed the idea that Hunter Biden was somehow corrupt, you couldn’t help but think about Jivanka and DJTJ and all the ways the Trump family has been siphoning cash out of the public coffers.

Trump World tried painting Joe as doddering and old at the same time that the president was rambling through daily press conferences and struggling to walk down a ramp.

This is the problem with projection: Once people get wise to the pathology, then every boomerang you throw at your opponent comes back and pops you in the nose.

But ultimately, Trump’s biggest problem is himself.

Donald Trump has been president for 3 years and 186 days. He is no longer an outsider and the country is not better off than it was in 2016.

Unemployment is at 11 percent. Numerous countries have closed their borders to America (including, this past weekend, the Bahamas). And Trump still has no plan to slow the spread of coronavirus.

In 2015 Trump was able to make the case that he was a changemaker. He could say, as he did to African Americans, “what do you have to lose?”

But in mid-2020, the problem is that Americans can see exactly how much they’ve lost and are keenly aware of how much they still could lose.

And it’s a lot.
 (This is the article in its entirety.)

Thursday, July 23, 2020

AJ Doesn't Like Donald Anymore And Jason Miller Is Still Slime

AJ's taste in men has improved over the course of Donald's presidency. I'm not talking about Jason, she still hates him with the fury of God's own thunder (Hi, Aaron) and with good reason. But she's seen the light where Donald is concerned and is now supporting Joe Biden. As shown in the tweets below, Jason is still a deadbeat dad, and she said a few days ago that he hasn't seen his son in several months. Unbelievable.




Click here to read the Vanity Fair article she's referring to below. 










































Click on the "AJ Episodes" label below to read previous posts about 
this situation. As you read them, be aware that over the last few years
AJ has occasionally deleted her Twitter account. Right now, she's back 
online and her tweets look like tweets again.