On Monday, I linked to a tweet by Mehdi Hasan, which had linked to a tweet by Aaron Rupar, who had posted a clip of ABC's Martha Raddatz. The correspondent had asked New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu about Donald Trump's remark that if enough of his supporters voted in the upcoming presidential election, they wouldn't have to vote again.
Sununu made light of the question, Raddatz responding "O.K." and immediately changed the subject. Hasan remarked "if you want to understand the failure of U.S. journalism, especially the complete inadequacy of political interviews in this country," the exchange provided a great example. I remarked "as Hasan observed, that is how it's done all too often on broadcast news."
It was an excellent catch by Hasan (and Rupar) and this tweet of his is also very helpful. That is not because Hasan is insightful but because it brings to light excellent commentary provided by NewsNation's Chris Cuomo on Monday night, which Hasan should take to heart but obviously won't. The entire piece is very valuable, this portion beginning at 4:28:
The most frustrating thing for me is that you can have it both ways. Israel's attacks have gone on much too long. There's too much death, especially to non-Hamas women and children. Hamas must return the hostages. Over 300 days, including the Americans, that this country barely pays lip service to- a little bit at the RNC, maybe you get a little bit at the DNC. Maybe not.
The eight American hostages- whether still alive or deceased- are reportedly not able to dribble a basketball. Cuomo emphasized their plight. There is no indication that Hasan ever has referred to them. The NewsNation anchor continued
And all those other people- military, non-military, male, female, where are they? When do they get given back? Then you negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas being replaced by a regional consortium of protection and facilitated elections of non-terror actors who don't campaign on eradicating the Jews.
When are the hostages to be returned? Most of us in the west thought that they should have been returned oh, 10 or 11 months ago. At present, it appears that Benjamin Netanyahu has little or no plan for the day after- for what would become of Gaza if and when Hamas is destroyed, which obviously is his goal.
Were Hamas to agree, Israel could now sign a temporary ceasefire in return for Hamas releasing the hostages, though surely some of them have died in captivity. Moreover, probably not all would be returned, lest Hamas lose its primary bargaining chip. (That's the way terrorists do it, Mehdi.) Israel would be setting its war aim- destruction of Hamas- back but the world, which loves (only) dead Jews and has seemingly lost interest in having Hamas eliminated, would rejoice. (The exception would be many Islamist extremists because an insufficient number of Jews would have been killed.)
The ceasefire would serve the cause of justice and stability only if, as Cuomo suggests, there is a regional consortium of powers which would facilitate elections which would not yield a victory for terrorists, as it did for Hamas in Gaza in 2005. He adds
If this happened, God forbid, if we got hit like that in America the way they got hit in the Golan Heights on Saturday, we would level Lebanon. You know it and I know it.
It is shocking that he have been so passive about our hostages. Don't we care about our own anymore?
Former White House national security advisor John Bolton
condemned the deal as a not a swap but a surrender by the Biden administration.
"Terrorists and rogue states all around the world will
take note of this and it endangers other Americans in the future," he
said.
The deal was also criticised by Robert Zachariasiewicz, a
former agent with the US Drug Enforcement Administration, who helped lead the
team that arrested Viktor Bout.
"Today's actions just placed a target on back of every
United States citizen travelling throughout the world and they just became a
commodity," he told the BBC's World Tonight.
"I think we just sent the message that it's really good
business to illegally detain and if not kidnap American citizens, and it's
really great to have one in your back pocket if you need them for a trade at
some point."
That's what Hamas has- not only many Israelis but also several Americans in their back pocket. Imagine the USA attacked attacked, whether with the ferocity Israel was on 10/7/23 or even as it was on 7/27/24. As Cuomo repeatedly has noted, the response by our nation would be fierce and overwhelming, and heaven help Code Pink when it would stand as the lone objector.
The Biden Administration has been pushing the ceasefire which has been on the table for many weeks now. Both the President and his understudy and would-be successor realize that continuation, and especially escalation, of the war would be vey harmful to heading off the extraordinary danger posed by Donald Trump's candidacy. Regrettably an outlier, Chris Cuomo understands clearly what is going on in Gaza.
Sorry Chris, those of us who want a ceasefire condemn the killing of kids anywhere and by anyone and want a ceasefire to protect all kids, on all sides.
Those who oppose a ceasefire are the ones who don’t care about 14,000 plus Palestinian kids murdered by Israel. https://t.co/15pJotB6PZ
At a Turning Point rally Donald Trump held in West Palm
Beach on Friday
“Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t
have to do it any more,” the Republican former president said on Friday night
at a rally hosted in West Palm Beach, Florida, by the far-right Christian
advocacy group Turning Point Action.
“You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t
have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians,” he said with a slight shake of
his head and his right hand pressed against the left side of his chest.
He added: “I love you. Get out – you gotta get out and vote.
In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good,
you’re not gonna have to vote.”
Her teeth pulled, ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week on
Sunday asked New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu, chief surrogate for Nikki
Haley's failed presidential run, a question she could not avoid posing
The transcript shows that Aaron Rupar did not take the quote out of context:
Well, I think -- I think that was a classic Trump-ism, if
you will. I think he’s just trying to make the point that this stuff can be
fixed. You know, obviously, it’s -- we want everybody to vote in all elections.
But I think he was just trying to make a hyperbolic point that -- that it can
be fixed as long as he gets back into office and all that. But, you know,
classic Trump right there.
And the first word from Raddatz was "O.K.," followed by a question about the impact of Vice-President Kamala Harris' impending nomination on the race.
We all remember January 6, 2021, the fake electors scheme, and the repeated claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. However, Trump biographer Tim O'Brien reminds us
“He’s now president for life. President for life,” Trump
said of Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2018. “And look, he was able to do
that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.” In
2019, he fantasized about remaining president “at least for 10 or 14 years.”
That same year he also took to Twitter to share that his supporters “would
demand that I stay longer” than two terms in office. He floated the idea of
three terms again when he was campaigning in 2020.
Raddatz could have asked Sununu what a "Trump-ism" is. She might have asked him what "stuff" Trump wants to have "fixed." The governor could have asked about the proposal in Project 2025 which would eliminate the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, which enforces civil provisions of he federal laws that safeguard the right to vote. And what is "all that?"
As Hasan observed, that is how it's done all too often on broadcast news. Any politician can, and will, effectively answer a question by batting it away, diverting to talking points or, as in this case, chalking it all up to a joke or as Sununu did, attributing it to a person just being himself ("classic Trump right there"). Whatever you call it, it is not journalism.
You will not be surprised that Susan Hermerling, Ph.D., who
describes herself as a "Harvard-trained Prof. of Global Inclusive
Leadership," is staunchly behind the nomination of Vice President Kamala
Harris for President. Slamming criticism of Harris, she writes in an opinion
piece in Forbes
The latest attack on Harris is that she is a “DEI Vice
President” Specifically, Tennessee Congressman Timothy Burchett, who is
incidentally exactly the same age as Harris and arguably possesses a thinner
resume, claims that because she is a woman of color chosen for such a high
office, she is just another example of the kind of “mediocrity” that you get
when you make a “DEI hire.”
“DEI hire” is a disparaging term that refers to quotas or
targets for hiring racial and ethnic minorities, women, and/or people with
disabilities for positions of authority and/or power. Because it refers to all
of the above groups, the term “DEI hire” actually implies that only
heterosexual, white men are qualified for such high leadership positions.
Indeed, the same people who use the term also tend to extol the idea of
“meritocracy.”
"Implies" does a lot of work here. My strenuous
disagreement with Dr. Hermerling may "imply" that I believe that she
is dishonest, stupid, or ill-informed.
But I am implying no such thing. And the term "DEI
hire" only indirectly, with a stretch, implies that only heterosexual white
men are qualified for such high leadership positions. Neither Burchett nor any
other critic of Harris, on this matter or others, has suggested that she is not
heterosexual, a sexual preference pertaining to nothing here. Nor have the critics suggested anything in terms of disabled people.
Hermeling very likely knows that in
the summer of 2022, there was broad and deep concern in the Democratic Party
about President Joe Biden running for re-election.. Yet, she almost certainly is unaware that the
long-time Democratic strategist and Harris admirer (and current CNN
contributor) Karen Finney in mid-2022 would warn
When you had people who were trying to test the waters” for
a presidential bid, “the party rose up and made it clear to those individuals —
who were mostly white men — that to disrespect the vice president would not be
well received by women and people of color within the party. They got a little
bit of a smack in the face.
Though that is a clear example of the perceived need for
diversity and inclusion (the "d" and the "i" in DEI), Representative Burchett was referring instead to candidate Biden's selection of Ms. Harris as his
2020 running mate.
During his campaign for the nomination, Biden already had
promised he would select a woman. And as of July 20, the presumptive
presidential nominee evidently already had narrowed his short list to five
black women: Val Demings of Florida, Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, former
national security adviser Susan Rice, and Karen Bass and Harris of California.
At roughly the same time,with belief growing that Harris would be the pick, We Have Her Back, a group
including former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarret and leaders from Planned
Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center, sent a letter to media outlets. They urged fairer treatment of Harris and complained "women have been subject to stereotypes and tropes about
qualifications, leadership, looks, relationships and experience. Those
stereotypes are often amplified and weaponized for Black and Brown women."
On August 7, 2020, more than 700 "Concerned Black Women
Leaders" issued a public statement condemning the "relentless attacks
on Black Women and our leadership abilities" allegedly occurring during
the vice-presidential search.
released a strongly worded open letter Monday, warning Biden
that not picking a Black woman would cost him the election. The signatories of
the letter included rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs, radio show host Lenard McKelvey
(a.k.a. Charlamagne tha God), actor Cedric Kyles (a.k.a. Cedric the
Entertainer), commentator Van Jones, Bishop William J. Barber and civil rights
attorney Ben Crump, among others.
"P. Diddy," Cedric the Entertainer, and Van Jones?
O.K. But cross Bishop Barber, Ben Crump, and "Charlamagne tha God"? Cross them at
your own peril. The letter writers noted
For too long Black women have been asked to do everything
from rally the troops to risk their lives for the Democratic Party with no
acknowledgment, no respect, no visibility, and certainly not enough support. Failing to select a Black woman in 2020 means you will lose
the election. We don’t want to choose between the lesser of two evils and we
don’t want to vote the devil we know versus the devil we don’t because we are
tired of voting for devils — period.
After Harris was selected the following month, then-House
Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (who had engineered nomination of Biden) told CNN
“Joe and I talked about it several times when he was trying to make his
decision. He had said it would be a woman. And I don’t mind saying now, I said
to him in private that I thought that a lot of the results would turn on
whether that woman (would) be a Black woman.”
Jim Clyburn, a group of prominent black men, Concerned Black
Women Leaders, We Have Her Back, all delivered roughly the same message. This message was that black women are not to be denied the recognition due them
because, well, they are black women.
Exerting political influence is a tradition as old as the
Republic- and when you've got it, flaunt it. However, individuals such as
academic Susan Hermerling, who prides herself on the study of "global inclusive leadership," were alive and sentient in 2000 when Joe Biden made a vice presidential selection based upon the inherited
characteristics of gender and race.
So many individuals and special interest groups have embraced the notion that these traits are so important that Harris' election even as a Vice President was historic. Nevertheless, they
refuse to accept the obvious: that the rise of Kamala Harris to great national
prominence is a triumph of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion movement.
Reflecting Washington’s changing power dynamics, Biden’s
meeting with Netanyahu will not be the only one scrutinized: Just as many eyes
will be on Vice President Kamala Harris, who will hold a separate meeting with
the prime minister. Biden and Netanyahu will meet Thursday afternoon and then
visit with families of Americans held hostage; Harris is slated to meet with
the Israeli leader later that day.
According to The Jerusalem Post, 71 members of Congress
skipped out on listening to Netanyahu's address. One of these was a Republican,
the radically right-wing isolationist Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and the other
70 are Democrats.
Two of these cited prior commitments- Virginia senator Tim
Kaine, who nevertheless issued a statement criticizing Netanyahu's appearance;
and US Representative Katie Porter of California. Evidently, most of the
members who missed the speech did not explain their absence, although doing so,Newsweek reports, were the following: Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeff
Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland;
and US Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; Ilhan Omar of
Minnesota; Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida; Jim Clyburn of South Carolina;
and Robert Garcia, Sara Jacobs, and Ami Bera of California.
They should have attended the address and in response to
incendiary, demeaning, or destructive remarks made by the Israeli prime
minister struck a dignified and eloquent pose by remaining seated.
Yet, those who explained their boycott of a
speech given by the head of state of this nation's most loyal ally should be
given credit for the courage of their convictions. Not so the individual who presides over the Senate, whose one
constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate.
The current Vice President of the USA, the world's
greatest superpower, skipped the address of the Prime Minister of a nation at war, instead speaking at a conference in Indiana of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Inc. The
racially segregated sorority is a member of the Divine Nine, which represents
historically black sororities and fraternities including Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority,
which Harris remains a member of from her days at Howard University.
The 15-minute speech, intended to reinforce support with the
base of the Democratic Party (and especially of hers), reportedly had been
scheduled months in advance. However, commitments such as this are meant to be
broken and as both Vice President (to a President increasingly limited as he
ages) and (soon to be) nominee for President, Harris almost as a matter of
course will be postponing appointments.
The Vice President should have done so on Wednesday by performing the one task the Constitution calls on her to perform. If she chose not to do so, Harris could
have issued remarks critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu, as did several
Senators and U.S. Representatives. The alternative was to take the easy way out, as she did.
In ducking the congressional session, Harris highlighted the
lack of importance of her office. There is nothing consequential she (or anyone in that
position) must do other than casting the deciding vote if there is a tie in the
US Senate. She has done that very well but ought to have shown up on Wednesday.
Instead, the candidate who is very definitely not a product of DEI showed us what she is made of.
“A COLORED sorority” … in 2024 on national tv… this clown thought it was correct and appropriate to use the term “colored” to describe a distinguished and historic African American sorority.
But what is even worse… a Black man sat a few feet away on that couch and didn’t… https://t.co/DLjkfst8u3
A clip that went viral on X, formerly Twitter, shows Fox
& Friends hosts discussing Harris’ having not given a sit-down media
interview yet, with Kilmeade arguing that the vice president had instead chosen
to address a “college sorority” — referring to her plans to address the
historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at its annual convention in
Indianapolis on Wednesday in one of her first campaign stops.
A social media post by independent Fox News watchdog Bad Fox
Graphics on X, however, shared the video and misquoted Kilmeade’s comment,
claiming instead that he had said “colored sorority.”
Afterward, Democratic National Committee chairperson Jaime Harrison posted his own tweet criticizing the remark of the Fox News host and
A number of journalists shared the claim as well, including
Politico Playbook writer Eugene Daniels, who later deleted his tweet and noted
that a Fox representative had reached out to correct the accusation. “Eugene
Daniels’ now deleted tweet completely misquoted and unnecessarily maligned
Brian Kilmeade who clearly said college sorority,” Fox News said in a
statement.
Fox also referred Mediaite to a rebuttal by Kilmeade’s
co-host Lawrence Jones who was sitting beside him in the studio during the
moment, and confirmed that his co-host said “college.”
The right-wing Jones went too far, though, when he "slammed Harrison for being 'so damn dishonest."
Harrison wasn't being dishonest; he jumped to a conclusion, probably a wrong one.
Listening to the video carefully, most individuals would hear "college." However, Kilmeade seems to pronounce the "o" in "college" slightly differently (a very subtle difference) than it typically is. It sounds more like the "o" in "colored" than in "college." I don't discount the possibility that Kilmeade was thinking "colored," thought better of it, and switched to "college." Nor is it impossible that he always intended to say "college" but for whatever reason was thinking of the other word.
So Jaime Harrison very likely was mistaken, but not dishonest, for thinking the Fox News host had said "colored." That would have been totally inappropriate, referring to a "colored sorority." One should never say "colored sorority" any more than he should say "people of color." Really.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., blasted Kamala Harris in a
social media post Monday, calling her a “DEI vice president,” using the
initialism for “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs.
"The media propped up this president, lied to the
American people for three years, and then dumped him for our DEI vice
president," Burchett said on X.
He also referred to Harris as "a DEI hire" in a
brief interview Monday, telling CNN that during the 2020 campaign candidate Joe
Biden said “he was going to hire a Black female for vice president.”
“What about white females? What about any other group?”
Burchett added.
Biden said at a March 2020 Democratic debate that he’d
choose a female running mate but did not mention race or ethnicity. Other top
running mate contenders at the time included Sen. Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.
On July 20, 2020 presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had revealed
he was considering four Black women to be his running mate, and has been receiving extensive vetting briefings about each potential candidate.
“I am not committed to naming any (of the potential candidates), but the people I’ve named, and among them there are four Black women,” Biden told MSNBC’s Joy Reid on “The ReidOut.”
He said he is getting a “two-hour vetting report” on each of his potential picks, and that he and his team have gone through “about four candidates” so far. “Then, when I get all the vetting done of all the candidates, then I’m going to narrow the list, and then we’ll see. And then I’m going to have personal discussions with each of the candidates who are left and make a decision,” Biden said.
Biden is considering a broad tier of candidates to be his running mate, after pledging earlier this year to pick a woman for the job. CNN previously reported that Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Rep. Val Demings of Florida, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice and Rep. Karen Bass of California are among the Black women being considered.
Warren and Whitmer were on Biden's long list. However, everyone at the time understood that Biden's short list consisted of black women. Later in the day after Harris was selected, an NPR station explained
Four days after the election, then-House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said
that he had privately urged President-elect Joe Biden to pick a Black woman as his running mate before Biden chose Kamala Harris, America’s first female, first Black and first South Asian vice president-elect.
“Joe and I talked about it several times when he was trying to make his decision,” Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat who’s the highest-ranking African American member of Congress, told CNN’s Dana Bash on Saturday. “He had said it would be a woman. And I don’t mind saying now, I said to him in private that I thought that a lot of the results would turn on whether that woman (would) be a Black woman.”
As the Harris criticisms ticked up in the weeks before the pick, Biden's campaign tried to diffuse them. "Ambitious women make history, change the world, and win. Our campaign is full of ambitious women going all out for Joe Biden," Biden's campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, tweeted in late July.
Ahead of Harris' selection, a group called We Have Her Back — which includes former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and leaders from Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center — sent a letter to various media outlets demanding fair coverage of the vice presidential candidate.
"Women have been subject to stereotypes and tropes about qualifications, leadership, looks, relationships and experience. Those stereotypes are often amplified and weaponized for Black and Brown women," the letter said, urging the media to resist popular coverage tropes such as "likeability" and "electability" for candidates who happen to be women — analysis they said is hardly ever applied to male candidates.
"Black and Brown women" were the individuals valued by We Had Her Back and
Biden's pick came amid intense pressure from Democrats not only to pick a woman, which he promised to do in March, but also to pick a woman of color. That drumbeat began well before George Floyd's killing at the hands of Minneapolis police but intensified amid sustained protests across the country.
Harris will be the fourth woman on a major party's national ticket. All three women to run for president and vice president have lost: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in 2008 and Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.
Evidently, Harris had the inside track over the other black women because she had been a friend of the late Beau Biden when both were state Attorneys Genera. The selection of the California senator was hailed by progressives, liberals, and centrists across the country because she was a certain kind of woman- a black woman or a woman of color, depending upon the label.
Now Kamala Harris has been selected by Democratic power brokers as the party's presidential nominee in part because she is the sitting Vice President- a very unpopular Vice President but still with the advantage of holding that office. Curiously- though not particular surprisingly- she has been challenged by no one, despite Democratic officials and liberal/progressive pundits insisting that the Party has a "strong bench."
And why should she? In today's Democratic Party, Kamala Harris has an advantage which Andy Beshear, J.B. Pritzker, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, even Gretchen Whitmer- each of whom has been mentioned as part of that formidable bench- doesn't have.
But that's not the point. Harris has had the advantage of serving under the incumbent Democratic President, Joe Biden, who endorsed her for the presidency to avoid all the nasty questions and controversy which inevitably would have arisen had he not done so. Quickly making her the presumptive presidential nominee was the obvious default position.
Not so, though, her selection in August, 2020 as Joe Biden's running mate, which is the move to which Representative Burchett was referring, and for which he is being criticized. Democratic honchos and mainstream journalists are hailing the ascension of Kamala Harris specifically and explicitly because she is a black woman (or black and Asian-American woman). If that wasn't an example of hiring someone because of principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, it' will be a surprise to everyone who celebrated the selection of Kamala Harris because she is black, female, and if victorious, would make "history."
On Real Time with Bill Maher, comedian Larry Wilmore was criticizing the Republican Party for its long-standing opposition to women by avidly opposing abortion rights, when host Bill Maher (at 35:14 of the video, unfortunately now removed) contended "Yeah, but it's not because they hate women. It's because they think it's murder."
At least Larry Wilmore was there to inject some sense into the cacophony of testosterone flowing on the Overtime portion of Real Time with Bill Maher.
Keep that in mind when viewing theOvertime segment. Maher stated "brawn is not valued as much as" it once was. A United States Representative from Florida who recognizes an opportunity when he's handed one, Byron Donalds, remarked
I'm with you. Young boys, really, the last two decades in America. We got a real problem, masculinity is important. It's important not just (for) cultural reasons. It's important for your development from a boy to a man, to realize what is important, to realize that you have a responsibility to go out there and gather, and work hard, and earn and you know, you gotta have that grit and toughness to be a leader, to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision you choose to make in your own personal life but those, those traits are important for masculinity and for men. To take them away rally hurts not just men, it hurts women as well.
Applause followed, suggesting Trump may have made a mistake in bypassing Donalds for J.D. Vance (probably not, though). The "to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision to make in your own personal life" is first cousin to "must be a husband and a father" but at least a little more subtle than the then-Ohio senatorial candidate who in 2022
for a solid week in July kept using the term "childless" in an effort to insult his foes on the left.
"We're effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too," Vance told Tucker Carlson at the time.
I didn't see the interview and therefore cannot vouch for the response, though odds are prohibitive that there was no objection from Carlson, who spoke at the past week's convention.
If there had been a thoughtful woman on Maher's panel, perhaps she would have asked why women are not to "work hard, and earn." Better yet, arguably, would be to have asked Donalds what on God's earth a "responsibility to go out and gather" means. In Donald Trump's world, would that have been a reference to sultry women or to loyal subjects?
Representative Donalds, he of the masculinity, grit and toughness references, had not been prompted by a social science exchange about the difference between the sexes but in a discussion about the attempt on the life of Donald Trump.
Fortunately, though, Wilmore was there at the Overtime desk explaining to Donalds "Although, I don't think it's fair to put the shooter in that particular category because that thing has turned up many times in the past..." It's not as if Thomas Matthew Crooks had been a feminist wimp when he purchased a semi-automatic rifle, climbed onto a roof, and decided to incur his own violent death by shooting at a presidential candidate.
This (phony) projection of uber-masculinity has become a thing in the G.O.P.; witness the Hulk Hogan "speech," more a performance, in Milwaukee. We don't yet know whether Crooks was plagued by mental illness but Republican messaging may be gradually and subtly shifting from blaming craziness to blaming feminized society for high-profile shootings.
And yet Maher, in the main portion of Real Time and on an earlier date, had endorsed the idea that opposition to reproductive rights stemmed from a heartfelt belief that the procedure is killing/ murder. If it is, then surely pro-life states would punish not only the doctor performing an abortion but also the individual who has sought, requested, and paid for this horrific crime.
Surprise, not surprise. The forced-birth advocacy organization Charlotte Lozier Institute summarized the status of abortion law in each state and the District of Columbia and concluded "some states have no criminal abortion statues at all and among those that do, only tow (Nevada and Oklahoma) appear to have statutes allowing the prosecution of mothers."
Of course, most laws not only can be interpreted in more than one manner but also are written ostensibly to allow lawmakers on both sides of an issue to claim some vindication. And the Charlotte Lozier Institute is eager to persuade all parties that there is nothing for women to fear in current state law or proposed state law.
There is. Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews in March of 2016 whether he "believe(s) in punishment for abortion, yes, or no, as a principle," Donald Trump responded "the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment." When Matthews responded "for the woman.?" the presidential candidate replied "yes, there has to be some form."
The interview was taped hours before it was broadcast, and Trump's statement recanting the Kinsley Gaffe was released even before the interview was broadcast. Honesty is not the best policy, at least not when running for President.
Trump's cleanup on aisle 4 included the preposterous notion that when the procedure takes place, "the woman is a victim in this case." This mirrors what other conservatives have claimed over the years in the rare instances in which they've been asked the fundamental, and critical, question which Matthews posed. In the rationale of the forced-birth advocates, the woman acts with no agency; she is not a thinking, rational being but helpless and hopeless without a man's direction.
The official position of the unquestioned, heavyweight champion of the Republican Party is that a woman is an unshaped piece of clay, while two of his important subjects, Byron Donalds and J.D. Vance, are on that page, with barely concealed contempt for men who are childless and women who prefer to be childless. They, as well as the vast majority of pro-life advocates, will tell you that their opposition to abortion is rooted in abortion (allegedly) being murder. Nonetheless, there is something darker at play, one whose implications may be broad, deep, and destructive.
At his acceptance speech in Milwaukee on Thursday night,
Donald Trump- or as the cable news enjoys referring to him, "President
Trump"- spoke very early about the attempt on his life the previous Friday
night. Including applause, chants,
pregnant pauses, and a pretentious hug and kiss, the candidate addressed the
incident for over fourteen minutes (3:08 to 17:24 of the video
below).
He attributed his great good luck to the Almighty because he
knows that there is nothing right-wing agnostics and atheists like more than to
be convinced that God is on their side. The man never known to crack open a
Bible or cite any verse of Scripture
remarked of the Secret Service agents guarding him
These are great people at great risk, I will tell you, and
pounced on top of me so that I would be protected. There was blood pouring
everywhere, and yet in a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my
side. I felt that.
A moment later, he added
I’m not supposed to be here tonight. Not supposed to be
here.
[Crowd chants “Yes, you are.”]
Thank you. But I’m not. And I’ll tell you. I stand before
you in this arena only by the grace of almighty God.
And watching the reports over the last few days, many people
say it was a providential moment. Probably was.
The family of Corey Comperatore probably is less certain
that the incident was "a providential moment." NBC 10 Philadelphia
reports
Thousands of mourners paid their respects at a Pennsylvania
banquet hall Thursday to the family of a former fire chief who was shot and
killed during the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.
Trump sent a note of condolence hailing Corey Comperatore as
a hero, a copy of which was displayed at the visitation. He did not attend the
memorial, which was the second of two public events memorializing and
celebrating Comperatore’s life. Hundreds of people gathered Wednesday at a
vigil for him at an auto racing track.
A private funeral is scheduled for Friday. Trump is not
going to the funeral because of Secret Service concerns, according to a source
familiar who was not authorized to speak publicly.
So, let's see if we understand this. The Secret Service is
required to go where the person it protects goes. It now protects presidential candidate Donald
Trump, who at his personal convention on Thursday praised the "very brave
Secret Service agents (who) rushed to the stage" and "are great
people at great risk" who "pounced on top of me so that I would be
protected." That same Donald Trump is now an odds-on favorite to
become the USA's next president- and as he promises, a "dictator on day
one."
And now, according to a news report "Trump is not going
to the funeral because of Secret Service concerns." In all likelihood, that concern is that the
next president does not want to go to the funeral. If he did ask to go and the
SS turned him down, citizen Trump- infamous for
being vindictive- would remember when he became President Trump.
We don't know why he did not want to go. In 2018 he cancelled an appearance at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris,
evidently because he didn't want his hair to get mussed, though he did ask
"Why should I go to that cemetery. It's filled with losers." In 2020
he skipped the Atlanta funeral service and Washington, D.C. memorial for John
Lewis because, probably, it was John Lewis.
Nor did he attend ceremonies for Corey Comperatore, who as
an attendee of the Trump rally, presumably was an ardent fan of the GOP
presidential candidate. Instead, he spent most of the time eulogizing himself,
convincing his fans that his survival (by a bullet that barely grazed him) was
an act of God.
Abraham Lincoln once reportedly remarked "Sir, my
concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on
God's side...." Trump, instead, displayed his characteristic humility,
asserting "I had God on my side."
In October of 2017, Yahoo News correspondent Jon Ward noted
At some of Trump’s lowest moments over the past few months,
conservative religious leaders have materialized at the White House to
literally lay hands on him in prayer.
The photos of these moments have a powerful resonance for
many American Christians who are steeped in a fundamentalist form of the faith
that is individualistic, populist and places a high value on outward forms of
religiosity. Their faith practice is characterized by a fascination with
emotional experience and with big, dramatic gestures and story lines.
We've seen always seen photos because that is precisely
what they are: photo-ops "with big, dramatic gestures and story
lines."
Which is what we were regaled with in the acceptance speech
in Milwaukee. The whole unity shtick at the beginning was totally for show,
completely insincere, and and contrary to the spirit of Matthew 6:5-7:
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For
they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that
they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their
reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your
Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Joe Scarborough wisely and very courageously asserts
.... Again, a good question to ask about what he said in a private fundraiser. A good question to ask- I would have asked the same question. But to ask that question about absent any context seems to me to be- you talk about a phony, a moral relativism is just screaming through that part of the interview. And I must say I was shocked.
Scarborough was talking about Lester Holt, the anchorperson for NBC, the parent company of MSNBC, where Scarborough works. He criticized him as a "phony" displaying "moral relativism." After the "Joe" of Morning Joe, Reverend Al Sharpton claimed "I completely agree with you."
Not so much. The money quote
Clearly, I don't think that President Biden has engaged in that kind of rhetoric that would in any way incite people to do things that we saw on January 6 or the attack on (Nancy) Pelosi's husband. But at the same time, I think we have the moral obligation to be consistent. You cannot- cannot- stand up against what happened to Pelosi's husband or what happened on January 6 and then act like it's alright what happened to Donald Trump and I think that is part of the challenge that we have.
Besides threatening to quit if Morning Joe is pulled from the air again, Joe Scarborough also swiped at NBC colleague Lester Holt for his Biden interview, namely his question about the "bullseye" remark.
There are two possible explanations for Sharpton's terrible bothsiderism. Or the motive might be the characteristically bad judgement of someone who was an anti-white crusader in the 1980s.and virulent anti-Semite in the 1990s.
In either case, the implication that Democrats have condoned the shooting of Donald Trump bears resemblance to the criticism of a few Democrats, most significantly South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, for condemnation of alleged sloganeering with "defund the police." That would have been valid had Clyburn identified any Democrats who employed the slogan. He could have done so- there were two of them, Representative Cori Bush and Representative Rashida Tlaib.
There- I've named names, which is more than Clyburn did, as befitting the ardent supporter of the doomed black lives matter movement, which gave rise to what small support there was of the defund the police movement.
And it's also more than what Al Sharpton has done in the matter of Democrats minimizing the assassination attempt upon Mr. Trump It would be truly impressive to hear the scoundrel do so, given that there seems to have been none. Decades ago, we recognized him as a race hustler. To this day, whatever Al Sharpton is up to, it's no good.
If Sarah Longwell's point is "one good rally from time to time is insufficient for the very moment we face," she is right.
This is bad. Come at me all you want. This is not good! This isn’t the way to beat Trump. One good rally from time to time is insufficient to the very dangerous moment we face. https://t.co/TBAlfQPe8J
But first to NBC News' Lester Holt, conducting an interview without apparent shame or regret, states
well, let's talk about the conversation that this has started and what we say out loud and the consequences. You called your opponent an existential threat. On a call a week ago, you said it was time to put Trump in the bullseye. There's some question about the context but you appreciate that words matter.
On a call- presumably private- with donors on July 9, Biden stated "I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump. I'm absolutely certain I'm the best person to be able to do that. So, we're done talking about the debate, it's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
There was no question about the context. The President was obviously referring to defeating Donald Trump in November and used a term ("bullseye") understood by virtually everyone over the age of, say, 60. The remark also was made in private, though as former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling could attest to, the private often becomes public and is treated as if it had always been public, or worse.
And most obviously, to view today's GOP and to suggest that anything President Biden has said is in the same incendiary ballpark as numerous remarks by Republicans is dishonest and reprehensible. Following the attempted assassination of ex-President Trump, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene accused the Democratic Party of trying to "murder President Trump" and contended "the Democrats are the party of pedophiles, murdering the innocent unborn, violence, and bloody, meaningless, endless wars." In an expression of what Republicans consider "unity," two days later, on Monday, Greene spoke at the Republican National Convention.
Which only figures. Donald Trump refers to violent insurrectionists from January 6, 2021 as hostages- even as real, live Americans are being held hostage in Gaza- and suggests he will pardon them if he is elected. He has called- publicly for televised military tribunal of Liz Cheney and for imprisonment of elected officials and has declared "I am your retribution." He has pledged to be a "dictator" the first day of his presidency, with imagination the only limit as to what executive orders he might sign that day and what orders he may give the military to enact revenge upon his enemies. And Republican officials throughout the land have pledged allegiance to Mr. Trump and echo his words.
Did words "matter," as Lester Holt put it to President Biden, when Paul Pelosi was brutally attacked in his own home, Donald Trump Jr. reposting an image with a pair of underwear and a hammer and “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready," and the ex-President two days later calling the USA "rigged, crooked, and evil?" Did words matter when the plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was announced and at a Trump rally the crowd chanted "lock her up" and Trump responded "lock them all up?" Did words matter when there were threats of violence against state election officials by Trump loyalists?
Yet, Donald Trump as of last Friday appeared to be headed for victory this fall and, following his triumphant fist-waving after being injured on Saturday- aided by endless replaying of the photo-op by the media- is now an extremely heavy favorite to be elected. Ironically, Trump's masterful performance after being shot points the way to a move available to the incumbent President which would energize voters and give him a very good chance of defeating his opponent.
"Fight! Fight! Fight!" shouted Donald Trump as the Secret Service agents allowed the ex-President to raise his arm and fist triumphantly. "Fight! Fight! Fight!" chanted attendees at the first night of the Republican convention in a signal that it's not only Lester Holt who understands that words matter.
The crowd's hearty endorsement of a violent belligerence reflects the powerful message of strength, even invulnerability struck by the ex-President two nights earlier. Holt would prefer Joe Biden and his Party avoid this sort of response, or anything even remotely similar, in favor of comity and unity.
But two can play the game Donald Trump has begun and continued, and Joe Biden could be the second. Longwell is correct that Biden's response to his dire political situation is insufficient. However, Biden can take a page from Trump's playbook and simultaneously reinforce his instinct to call for unity, patriotism, and sacrifice.
The President, though facing long odds, is determined to run for re-election. He must be equally determined to win the election and the way forward is both unspoken and obvious.
Biden needs to schedule a rally- an outdoor rally- immediately. It would take place after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention but otherwise as soon as possible. It would give him a chance to project strength- not his strong point- and patriotism, which is his strong point. It could be his version of the George W Bush post 9/11 theme of a return to normalcy as a refutation of terrorist attacks and terrorists themselves.
"If we don't exercise our freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, domestic terrorists have won," the President could declare. (The FBI is reportedly investigating Saturday's attack as a case of "domestic terrorism," however that's defined.) A rally would have a particularly significant impact upon a race in which one candidate, the President, is considered by many voters to be too old while the other is (wrongly) characterized as a tower of strength and resistance.
And it would be extremely safe. There has been an assassination attempt upon one presidential candidate, one leading to the swift killing of the apparent perpetrator, There will not be another. Security will be extraordinary at any rally, let alone an outdoor one. The message has been sent: appear with a firearm at any gathering attended by a presidential candidate in any capacity, and you will be shot dead instantly.
Extraordinary, also, is that there is no report of any Democrat or liberal/progressive pundit or journalist even suggesting the possibility that the President promptly demonstrate to voters that he is vital, virile, and up to any challenge. It's enough to question how seriously Donald Trump's opponents and critics take the "existential threat" posed by the former President.
Literally big, a former New York Giants offensive tackle is coming up big figuratively:
So theres an active shooter and trump tells his secret service detail to hold up so he can yell fight! Fight!?? So they stand there for several moments and audience stands there vs getting down. Lucky more weren't shot.
When the curtain goes up, Trump is ready to put on a performance and this probably was an even more impressive one than what he did on The Apprentice for several seasons. And there is no question what Trump meant when, with acquiescence of the Secret Service, he raised his arm, shook his fist, and yelled "fight! Fight!"
Megyn Kelly, who once adamantly maintained that Jesus Christ and Santa Claus were white, wants you to believe otherwise.
An utter dishonest fail on every level. She actually brings up the “bloodbath” BS! https://t.co/G1X9Sw419O
We were just looking back at some of the things that former President Trump has said. He warned last March that of potential death and destruction if he were charged by the Manhattan District Attorney. "Our country is being destroyed as they tell us to be peaceful. " Trump in January warned of bedlam in the country if the criminal charges against him succeeded. And of course in March, he said now if I don't get executed, there's going to be a bloodbath for the whole- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. He said he was partly joking and that was taken out of context. But those are indeed his words and have heard it from supporters as well and supporters are in some parts angry and let's remember January 6.
In blasting Raddatz for bringing up the bloodbath, Kelly is misinterpreting Trump's more famous reference to "bloodbath," which, remarkably, was the common interpretation of his remarks, these New York Times reporters notwithstanding. (The candidate shortly afterward used the same term in railing about immigration but at that time appeared to be referring strictly to that issue.) On March 18, 2024 Maggie Astor of The New York Times wrote
He made the remarks in Ohio on Saturday, in a speech delivered on behalf of Bernie Moreno, whom he has endorsed in Tuesday's Republican Senate primary. After vowing to impose tariffs on cars manufactured outside the United States, he then said: "Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a blood bath for the whole- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a blood bath for the country."
Mr. Trump did not say that it would be a bloodbath for the auto industry, for autoworkers, or for Detroit. He said it would be a bloodbath for the country. A couple of weeks later, the ex-President would use "bloodbath" again, this time referring specifically to immigration. However, in his remarks in Ohio, he was referring to the country, not to the auto industry.
It was harmless, albeit absurd, that Megyn Kelly would characterize Santa Claus, a fictional character supposedly based, loosely, on a monk in Turkey. However, it is dangerous that she would claim it is "verifiable fact" that "Jesus was a white man." For Megyn Kelly, the dishonesty continues, helping to obscure the extreme peril that Donald Trump poses to the nation.
Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday included lawyer and Orthodox Jewish conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro; CNN commentator and former South Carolina state legislator Bakari Sellers; and former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In the Overtime segment, the first question pertained to speculation about the identity of Donald Trump's pick as a vice=presidential running mate.
- Sellers: the only person who poses any fear for Democrats is probably Marco Rubio. Marco- he looks like the future, he has a great deal of experience, he can talk to Hispanic voters in ways and communicate in ways that otherwise Trump and Burgum would have trouble doing and he's a notable opponent to Kamala Harris in debate. There's no concern over Burgum or J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance- uh, he stands for nothing.
- Maher: But,uh, wait a second. I read that because they're both from Florida, Trump and Rubio, that they can't be on the same ticket.
- McCarthy: So Rubio would move to Virginia-same thing that Cheney did. He moved out of Texas and went back to Wyoming. You can't come from the same state.
- Maher: I know. So you move-
- Shapiro: He could residency, actually, in Nevada, right? He actually spends a fair amount of his year in Nevada.
- McCarthy: He would have to resign from the Senate and-
- Shapiro: DeSantis would appoint his replacement.
- McCarthy: Yeah.
- Maher: So-
- McCarthy: He can do it. He just can't be from the same state.
Four men, three white and one black, two Democrats and two Republicans. Three of the four make their living from politics and one is fairly well-versed in politics as a de facto requirement of his vocation as a comedian.
And all of them ignorant.
Article II, paragraph 3 of the USA Constitution states "The electors.... shall vote for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." A constitutional scholar and political science professor explains
In 1804, the United States adopted the 12th Amendment, which
addresses some of the confusion around the Electoral College and altered the
process. The Vice President was put on a separate ballot, allowing electors to
vote for one person for President and another person for Vice President. Now,
candidates for both offices simply run together as a unified ticket. However,
the residual requirement that the electors could not cast both ballots for a
person from their own state was not removed.
No, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a presidential and a vice-presidential nominee of the same party can come from the same state. Someone on that four-person panel should have realized it. But the ignorance of an individual who recently served as the highest-ranking Republican in the nation is astounding, at the least.
