Eight Years Late, Better than Never

Now anti-Trump, veteran advisor and media figure Mark McKinnon can be seen saying (beginning at 3:30)

Can we just put Liz Cheney on Mount Rushmore? My god,  she's the only Republican who- she's the only Republican left with a backbone to stand up for the Constitution... 

And by the way, unlike me, who's kind of a squish Republican, she's very conservative, super conservative, Wyoming conservative, Dick Cheney conservative. So for he to come out like this, again, it shows she puts principle over party and it's just- I'm so proud of her doing this. And I think it's going to make a big difference- she's saying. It's a big voice for at least the 20% of voters who voted for Nikki Haley and probably lots more to say "you know, listen, the Republican Party under Donald Trump is not one any of us under Bush or Reagan or McCain recognize anymore.

They should, because it's still that party and has been since at least the time of Ronald Reagan with a brief timeout for John McCain. And it may help Kamala Harris- assuming, of course, that Donald Trump is either too stupid (unlikely) or too proud and arrogant (much more likely) to go to Michigan and remind Muslim voter who Ms. Cheney's father is. Charlie Pierce, much more favorable to Harris than am I, writes

It is now the second day, and I think I have had my fill of the Apotheosis Of The Cheneys. It is nice that Liz Cheney is working so hard for the Democratic ticket. But it is goddamn weird that a retired war criminal like Dick Cheney is shouted out at a Democratic rally. As I believe I've said a number of times, this is indeed an all-hands-on-deck moment. However, all-hands-on-deck does not mean all hands on the bridge. The Cheneys get a laurel and hardy handshake from me, and then I'll move along to appreciate the contributions of the people who have spent decades fighting the politics that a) made Trump not only possible, but inevitable, and b) that the Cheneys have represented for their entire public careers.

It's not surprising that Liz Cheney would endorse, even attend a rally, with Harris, given that Cheney was the de jure vice chairperson, arguably de facto chairperson, of the January 6 committee. She not only knows what Donald Trump is all about, but has a stake in his defeat because in early July

Former President Donald Trump amplified posts on social media calling for a televised military tribunal for former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney and the jailing of top elected officials, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

“ELIZABETH LYNNE CHENEY IS GUILTY OF TREASON,” one post created by another user that Trump amplified on his social media website Truth Social on Sunday reads. “RETRUTH IF YOU WANT TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.”

Still, Cheney deserves credit for going where few others have gone, given that

A separate post Trump amplified on Truth Social Sunday includes photos of 15 former and current elected officials and says, “THEY SHOULD BE GOING TO JAIL ON MONDAY NOT STEVE BANNON!”

In addition to Biden and Harris, the post includes photos of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Mike Pence and members of the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

So the former Wyoming congresswoman has at least shown more courage than McConnell, Pence, and other Republicans who have endorsed Trump or merely signaled they will not support the ex-President in November. Nonetheless, as Charlie Pierce wrote a couple of years ago, Republicans who stuck with their party until Trump presented an obvious danger to the survival of the republic are welcome onto the bus but in the driver's seat.

Pierce added "Thursday's Nicolle Wallace show on MSNBC was an exaltation ceremony with Liz Cheney cast in a role somewhere between Joan of Arc and Wonder Woman. I lasted about 10 minutes." That's generous and as I've implied previously, it's about ten minutes longer than Nicole Wallace deserves. 

 

Share |

Foolish Assertion

As a man who is explaining to people, women included, I must be mansplaining here. At least Nicole Wallace would think so.

In which a strong, independent woman with a national TV platform turns two other strong, independent women with national TV platforms and the power to literally silence Vance into victims who cannot handle… a man ✨talking✨ during a debate. https://t.co/KmzBJD9uSV

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 2, 2024

Ironically, Wallace's argument would be stronger if she had claimed that Vance was simply incorrect. It is debatable (pun intended) whether there had been an agreement for the moderators of the vice-presidential faceoff not to challenge the candidates on the validity of their statements.

Preceding Tuesday night, articles describing or even listing rules of the debate appeared in, presumably among others, The Washington Post, The New Republic, The New York Times, USA Today, and TIME. Although it had been widely assumed prior to the debate that there would be no fact-checking by CBS' O'Donnell and Brennan, none of these pieces addressed the issue.

One exception was a article on the website of NBC Chicago, which was entitled Fact-checking and more: What are the rules for tonight's VP debate? There, we could read "unlike the September presidential debate, CBS announced Friday that it will be up to the candidates to keep each other honest at Tuesday's debate."

Presumably, the reporters did not make this up out of whole cloth. Rather, it is likely that while there was no written agreement on the matter of fact-checking, the two sides had agreed informally that the moderators would avoid it. I would characterize that in, in the traditional manner, as a "gentleman's agreement," if it weren't likely to trigger Nicole Wallace.

This is the exchange to which Wallace refers was referring

MB: Thank you, Governor. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status. Norah.

JDV: Well, Margaret, Margaret, I think it's important because…

MB: Thank you, senator. We have so much to get to.

NO: We're going to turn out of the economy. Thank you.

JDV: Margaret. The rules were that you guys weren't going to fact check, and since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on. So there's an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.

MB: Thank you, Senator.

JDV: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.

 MB: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.

There probably was an understanding between the two camps that "you guys weren't going to fact check," as J.D. Vance alleged. If there were not, either Norah O'Donnell or Margaret Brennan should have stated so following what Wallace labeled "mansplaining" by the GOP vice presidential candidate. 

Obviously, there was no such interjection by the moderators. We can only assume, therefore, that Vance was essentially correct, which suggests that, spontaneously or by design, the CBS duo itself broke the rules of the debate.

Even in the unlikely event that Vance was incorrect in his charge, his objection must not be written off as "mansplaining." He would have been as likely to respond assertively to what he believed, or at least claimed, was a breech of an agreement. 

The cynical might suggest that Wallace's accusation is as credible as one might expect from  a news host who frequently has her husband as a guest husband Michael Schmidt without ever revealing her relationship to him. If not so cynical, one should merely maintain that Wallace's nonsense is beneath her.

Share |

One Candidate Speaking Truth

Will Bunch is disappointed in a comment made by Tim Walz at his debate Tuesday night against J.D. Vance.

"I've become friends with school shooters" was an unfortunate Walz misstatement

— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) October 2, 2024

It certainly was a misstatement, a stupid thing to say on national television. Given the context of his statement, as well as common sense, the Minnesotan evidently meant the parents or family of school shooters or of his victims. The statement was preceded by "Yeah, I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents" and followed by

I've seen it. Look, the NRA. I was the NRA guy for a long time. They used to teach gun safety. I'm of an age where my shotgun was in my car so I could pheasant hunt after football practice. That's not where we live today. And several things I want to mention on this is talking about cities and where it's at. The number one, where the most firearm deaths happen in Minnesota are rural suicides. And we have an epidemic of children getting guns and shooting themselves. And so we have, and we should look at all of the issues, making sure folks have healthcare and all that. But I want to be very careful. This idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn't mean you're violent. And I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. Sometimes it just is the guns. It's just the guns. And there are things that you can do about it. But I do think that this is one, and I think this is a healthy conversation. I think there's a capacity to find solutions on this that work, protect Second Amendment, protect our children. That's our priority.

            

This was  a substantive response from a candidate more substantial than his running mate who recognizes that gun ownership ought to be put into context." I was the NRA guy for a long time. They used to teach gun safety. I'm of an age where my shotgun was in my car so I could pheasant hunt after football practice. That's not where we live today."

That's not where we live today is an acknowledgement few politicians are willing to make- that circumstances in America have changed. It's not a statement Kamala Harris would make. However, Walz is, or at least once was, a guy who owned a weapon when men of that time and place did so.. 

At her own debate, Harris was queried about her current health care plan because she had supported "Bernie Sanders' proposal to do away with private insurance" and since then has "proposed a plan that included a private insurance option." She replied in part

And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff. As it relates to the Affordable Care Act.

Asked about health care (health care!), the presidential nominee managed to remind viewers that she owns a gun. Congratulations, Madame Vice President; we're impressed that you're a kickass woman. One individual who admits that he is not a psychologist or sociologist nonetheless defines "out-of-nowhere brags" as "rather rare. Typically the occur when the speaker wants that dopamine rush of sharing perceived superiority so badly that they can't bring themselves to wait until the right moment arises."

By contrast, not only did Walz note the importance of not stigmatizing mental illness, he put the importance of mental health in context as of less importance than firearm possession,, which he clearly believes is serious business. He explained

This idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn't mean you're violent. And I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. Sometimes it just is the guns. It's just the guns. And there are things that you can do about it.

Sometimes it just is the guns. This is a bold statement, though it shouldn't be. It's bold because no one else says it. Not Harris, not her fellow Democrats (though Connecticut's Chris Murphy comes close), and certainly not Republicans, who generally worship firearms. As Walz recognizes, mental illness cannot be ignored- but it has become a scapegoat. In the hands of the wrong person, or occasionally the right person at the wrong moment, the gun becomes the most deadly weapon a civilian can possess.

Tim Walz probably is not ready to become a presidential candidate, and he is not one. The once very unpopular Kamala Harris has proven herself a viable presidential candidate as her surge in polls the last couple of months has demonstrated. However, unlike the former California senator and the deeply dishonest Republican candidates J.D. Vance and Donald J. Trump, Tim Walz is one candidate for national office who has principles he's ready to defend.

Share |

Losing the Narrative

We need to heed the eleventh chapter of Genesis (New International Version).

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.

This bears relevance to a tweet from a prominent far-right blogger and a statement by the governor of Minnesota.

In newly unearthed video, Tim Walz BRAGS about overwhelming small-town America with migrants:

"We have more refugees per capita than any other state. That's not just morally a good thing, it's our economic and cultural future.

"This beautiful diversity we see out in… pic.twitter.com/oRwpr8KPs3

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 1, 2024

Acceptance of a huge number of immigrants is a moral good. It probably will prove to be a significant part of Minnesota's cultural future. And it will be a part of the state's economic future, although I'm guessing whites, Asian-American and Pacific Islanders, Latinos, generational African-Americans and other blacks, and possibly even tribal individuals also will be contribute to Minnesota's future.

Nonetheless, fifty languages being spoken in the school is nothing to brag about, merely a reality which must be addressed. It will be a very costly reality, whether that cost is borne by the federal government, state government, or local taxpayers. Failing to support (even assist) them in an effort to become fluent in English is necessary if they are to participate in all respects -"holistically," as Kamala Harris probably would put it- in our nation's culture.  It's also critical in order to engage in- again, as Harris would term it- an "opportunity economy." In short, to become Americans.

Schools- public, non-charter- play a major role in that. Ian Bremmer on Friday's Overtime segment of Real Time with Bill Maher, responded to survey data indicating that young men are now more religious than young women. He noted (at 2:02) 

I mean in the sense that it's just one more sign of society atomizing, you know- not as much time with families, not as much belief in church. You know, more people going to private schools as opposed to more in public. That's something I worry about generally.

 

           

When God wanted to destroy the dreams of the Babylonians, he confused their language, which disrupted their work and made it impossible for them to communicate with each other.  No longer able to have a stable society with a common language, they scattered to the ends of earth. Therein is a message we should embrace. Now atomized, the Babylonians had become mere individuals with no sense of community.

Approving and encouraging the American mosaic does not require turning a blind eye to the immense problems we will increasingly encounter, especially in schools, with a multiplicity of languages commonly and routinely spoken. The value of diversity must not lend itself to glorifying the babble of languages spoken in schools which, while at this moment unavoidable, is an obstacle to promoting academic achievement.

The likes of Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump, unconcerned with aiding immigrants and hostile to diversity generally, will not fully understand that.  Yet it's something that much of the American left, including vice-presidential hopeful Tim Walz, should grasp but are disregarding or have lost sight of.

Share |

Stop the Bloviating

There are several wise rules which will prevail at the debate between vice presidential nominees Tim Walz and J.D. Vance, to be held on October 1 and moderated by Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan of CBS News.

As with the presidential debate between Harris and Trump, each candidate will be standing at a lectern. Thankfully, there will be no opening statements and most importantly, no live audience.

There also will be no real-time fact-checking by the moderators. Instead, as Chris Cillizza explains on substack, CBS will offer viewers the opportunity to use an on-screen QR code which can take viewers to a live fact-checking site staffed by CBS journalists. Cillizza explains why this will be little utilized, and hence very nearly worthless. However, as to the more general issue of fact-checking in a debate, the veteran journalist explains

I believe, deeply, that there are objective facts. Like, say, the 2020 election was not stolen.

But, I also know that ALL politicians shade and shape facts and figures to work for them. And that these “facts” aren’t necessarily outright false but absolutely need more context in order to give a viewer or reader the full picture.

(To be clear: Trump does this sort of shaping and shading — and outright lying — more than any other politician I have ever encountered. But, they all do at least some of it.)

Given that, I think moderators wading into the fact-checking waters is a very slippery slope. If moderators stopped the debate to fact check everything a candidate says that is not objectively and unquestionably true, they would be interjecting on nearly every answer.

Which would make the moderators the focus of the debate. And the arbiters of who won and who lost. Which is a bad thing.

With or without live fact-checking, which Cillizza obviously recognizes as misleading, there is a rule ubiquitous to political debates which turn them into spectacles with a premium on empty rhetoric and showmanship, a rule so unquestioned it practically takes on the status of law. TIME reports that when the moderators ask the candidates a question, he will be

allotted two minutes to respond. This will be followed by one-minute rebuttals and responses to the rebuttals. CBX News said that the moderators may at their discretion give the candidates an additional minute to continue a discussion. Lights will appear in front of the candidates to alert them to their remaining speaking time.

At the presidential debate in early September, Harris and Trump were allotted two minutes to answer a question, followed by "two minutes for rebuttals and one minute for follow-ups, clarifications or responses."

This is how it always goes, with a substantial period offered a candidate to respond to a question. In the case of the two debates this cycle, the period is two minutes. 

This is far two long, by approximately one-and-a-half minutes. It shouldn't take candidates more than 30 seconds to answer a question. Were they tempted to give a complete, thorough response, it would take longer.

But they are never so tempted, for fear it might enlighten voters and/or give an opening to their opponent.. Instead, at some point during the two minutes, they will address the issue posed in some broad manner., yet spend the remaining time saying nothing which reveals what they really believe. In the presidential debate, it was Donald Trump using most of the two minutes to ramble belligerently with a string of lies and other baseless claims, occasionally interrupted with a half-truth.   With Kamala Harris, it was a slick repetition of her talking points interspersed with a precious few moments of near-candor.

This sort of thing, which in some form or another will be repeated when Tim Walz and J.D. Vance square off against each other tonight, serves the interests of no one- except the politicians themselves.  And so Americans are subjected to 90 minutes in which the individuals compete in a contest to be the more cunning, deceptive candidate and thereby be declared the winner.

   

Share |