It seems like a lifetime ago that Republican National Committee chief
Reince Priebus brokered a meeting between the unexpected presidential
nominee Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan to try iron out their
differences. But it was just a little less than a year ago in a world
that seems more and more distant by the minute. They spoke of many
things, with Ryan desperately trying to convince Trump that he needed to
adopt the GOP agenda and Trump telling him he didn’t know what he was
talking about.
Bloomberg reported one particular exchange in the meeting that stuck in my mind:
According to a source in the room, Trump criticized Ryan’s proposed
entitlement cuts as unfair and politically foolish. “From a moral
standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump told Ryan. “But you also have to get
elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat
when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’
and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you
more.’”
Trump may not have realized it, but Republicans have never won the
presidency by explicitly saying they were going to make cuts to Social
Security. They have always used euphemisms, saying they were going to
“privatize it” or promising to “save it” from itself. The reason
Democrats continually win the day (if not the office they are vying for)
is because people don’t trust Republican double-talk on the subject and
for good reason. They have been trying to destroy Social Security since
it was enacted.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in “The Coming of the New Deal”
that President Franklin Roosevelt knew that creating a dedicated funding
stream gave workers the “legal, moral, and political right to collect
their pensions.” He said, “With those taxes in there, no damn politician
can ever scrap my social security program.” Schlesinger also noted that
Republicans and business leaders at the time were appalled, with one
warning that the program would “undermine our national life by
destroying initiative, discouraging thrift, and stifling individual
responsibility.”
Donald Trump’s comment in that meeting last year that he agreed with
Ryan on a “moral basis” indicated that he was on the same page as those
earlier plutocrats even if he sings a different tune in public. [...]
Charlie Murphy, Chappelle Show star and older brother of Eddie Murphy, has died, publicist Domenick Nati told The Hollywood Reporter. He was 57.
Murphy died from leukemia on Wednesday, Nati said.
Murphy became a household name through Dave Chappelle's Comedy Central skit show thanks to his amazing stories of interactions with other celebrities during the height of his brother's fame in the 1980's. The most popular short turned into a skit about Rick James.
Well folks, while not quite up to standards of some of the more chaotic
trips around the sun since the Marmalade Shartcannon took office, I hope
everyone invested in fertilizer manufacturers, because today was
another Bat Guano Nutty Day.
We all woke up and immediately checked in on that deleted scene from
V FOR VENDETTA where the guy gets bloodied in the process of being
dragged off an airplane by law enforcement for refusing to give up his
seat when the airline wanted to give it to an employee on an overbooked
flight after he'd already boarded.
Wait, what? That was real life? You're shitting me.
Anyhow, we all watched in awe as the brass at United took the, shall
we say "novel" approach of blaming the dude they had the cops beat the
shit out of for the ass-kicking they ordered to be administered to him.
In the background, maybe you saw some of the pieces that rounded up
the responses to a PRIVATE FUCKING CORPORATION ENLISTING TAXPAYER FUNDED
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BEAT THE FUCK OUT A PRIVATE CITIZEN BECAUSE THEY
APPARENTLY RESERVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TAKE BACK THE SEAT YOU PAID FOR AT
ANY POINT PROBABLY UP TO AND INCLUDING THIRTY THOUSAND FEET ABOVE THE
ROCKIES HOW THE FUCK DID WE LET IT COME TO THIS from supporters of the
man we all pay to golf and periodically sign executive orders, and,
surprise surprise, THEY TOOK THE AIRLINE'S SIDE. We didn't know just
how much hunger there was in this country for a strong, sadistic,
authoritarian state, did we? In related news, I'm launching a
kickstarter to fund a series of dominatrix parlors in the Rust Belt.
HILLBILLY ELEGY PART TWO, BITCHES.
Of course the same little Shartkins are apparently flocking to Bill
O'Reilly's show, actually BOOSTING his ratings in the midst of the
revelations that Fox has settled a number of sexual harassment suits
against an old man who very clearly has to pay for sex. I tell you,
folks, the Deplorable economy offers a number of unique opportunities.
It's like "Well, I'm looking for someone to redo the shingles on my
roof, but I'm hoping to hire somebody reprehensible. Do you have any
multiple rapists on staff?"
And we all had a laugh that the congressman who is famous for
screaming YOU LIE at President Obama going home to a town hall where a
bunch of his constituents screamed YOU LIE at him, which has a fun sense
of comeuppance to it. This congressman likely has a name, but I don't
give a flying fuck what it is.
We learned that the Shart may have bombed Syria (or at least some
useless gravel in Syria, since the Syrian military launched strikes from
the base we bombed less than 24 hours after we hit it, can't these
people even blow up a stationary target without fucking it up?) because
his daughter told him to, which is a totally normal thing that happens
in all developed countries with strong constitutional democracies. OR
IS IT? Maybe Ivanka will get equally upset at all the children who were
killed in the recent Mosul air strike or the botched Yemen raid, and
Dorito Mussolini will order a strike on the perpetrators, without
realizing exactly what he's done until the sandtrap on the 8th hole at
Marmalago gets an unplanned expansion.
The President's Loyal Huntin' Dawg Beauregard, our Yokel General,
was all over the news again today. A couple of days back, he made it
clear that he didn't want our Justice Department focusin' on no civil
rights, and today he ordered them to instead focus all available
energies on punishing brown-skinned people for the high crime of not
being white. Much was made of how his prepared remarks used the word
"filth" to describe his preferred targets, but how he declined to
actually call them "filth" in the delivering of the speech. Because
that's the state of the immigration debate in American today, right?
Whether or not we call our fellow human beings "filth." Anyhow,
Sessions got a good sturdy taint punt today when a federal judge struck
down Texas' super-racist voter ID law just for being ridiculously
super-racist. Because we still have to argue about poll taxes. In the
United States of America. In the 21st century. Sleep tight. By the
end of the day, Ol' Beauregard was assurin' the press that the cawngruss
would mos' happily make Americuhns pay for that big 'ol border wall,
because...well, because there's no reading test to run for the Senate in
Alabama, I guess. After giving his last interview, Sessions returned
to chewin' on an old shoe by the fireplace.
Rex Tillerson, who is our Secretary of State because he's a rich guy
who...(shit, man, I need Mad Libs to finish that sentence because I've
never found one halfway compelling reason this Oil Stooge was made our
top diplomat) made some headlines by wondering aloud "Why should U.S.
taxpayers be interested in Ukraine?" I'll tell ya, Rex, there are a lot
of reasons American taxpayers don't want to see the world on fire, at
the very least we should understand that we can't sell PAUL BLART: MALL
COP DVDs to residents of a war-torn wasteland. (This was probably the
moment the day tipped officially into madness for me. Just one year
ago, a mind-bogglingly asinine statement like this from our chief
diplomat would've been headline news, a major international scandal.
Today, you probably didn't even notice it. It was on page twelve. You
did the crossword, read your Garfield, and moved on.)
And then ALONG CAME SPICEY. Sean Spicer rode into the White House
Press Room on a steam shovel and declared "today I will dig myself into
the deepest hole in human history, and before the sun sets not even
Jules Verne will be able to find me," and Sweet Christ did he deliver.
The lead spokesman for the President of the greatest nation on Earth
stood in front of the assembled media of the world and engaged in some
light Holocaust denial ON FUCKING PASSOVER and for a minute we were all
like "Of course he did, this is just what life is like now," but after a
second we realized this was crazy shit even by our ever-plummeting
standards. And poor Spicey squirmed and shifted, issuing clarifications
that got edited every eleven seconds (no, I mean Hitler didn't kill his
own people, he just killed Jews, NO WAIT, I mean he didn't gas innocent
people NO WAIT I mean he gassed innocent people he just didn't drop gas
on them, he invited them to HOLOCAUST CENTERS and we all have to thank
him for introducing "Holocaust Center" to the culture lexicon, right?).
And we all laughed until he issued an apology which is what any normal
human being would do immediately, without hesitation, if they FUCKING
DENIED THE HOLOCAUST ON PASSOVER.
Just when the madness was starting to take over, right when you're
thinking about how you'd look with half a pound of pickled beets stapled
to your face, WaPo breaks the story that the FBI obtained a FISA
warrant to surveil Carter Page, a foreign policy advisor to Toupee
Fiasco's (That one's not mine, but it's good, isn't it?) campaign. And
then you noticed that WAIT HOLD ON WHAT DID YOU FUCKING SAY? A lot of
wacky terms have been thrown around over the last few months, like
"emoluments" and "Defending World Champion Chicago Cubs," but this is
what the poet would call a Big Fucking Deal. You have to demonstrate to
a FISA court that there is PROBABLE FUCKING CAUSE to believe that a
dude is acting as a FUCKING AGENT OF A FOREIGN FUCKING POWER to get one
of these things. And Carter Page, he of the Steele Dossier, he who was
cultivated as an unwitting asset by Russian intelligence not so long
ago, passed the test. Drip drip.
Before you even finished that article, you got your CNN push
notification (God bless this era in which our news outlets compete to
scoop one another with stories that undermine the Clowncar Full of
Assholes that governs us) for the story showing that Devin "Pigfucker"
Nunes essentially made his whole bullshit story up, between the fucking
of various pigs. The CNN story featured a few quotes from Sebastian
Gorka, which is surprising since his face melted off during the climax
of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.
By the end of the day, Bill O'Reilly announced that he was going on a
vacation for a spell, which was totally planned all along and has
nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that so many advertisers have
ditched him that he has to shorten his show and broadcast ads from
companies that convert your MP3 files into 8-track tapes and offer to
take care of your pets after you've been raptured. Anyway, Bill
O'Reilly's gonna go somewhere quiet and focus on just sexually harassing
Bill O'Reilly for awhile, know what I mean?
And then SCROTUS made some surprisingly negative comments about
Steve Bannon in an interview, downplaying his role in the campaign and
suggesting he might not be around much longer. My Shart House sources
tell me that upon hearing this news, Bannon shrieked and expelled ink on
several aides through previously-undisclosed orifices.
Meanwhile there was a special election in Kansas' Fourth
Congressional District to fill the seat vacated by Mike Pompeo, who left
it to join the Dick Tracy rogue's gallery known as our President's
cabinet. Despite being one of the safest GOP seats in the country, the
Democratic candidate threatened to pull off an upset. How red is this
district? Before Pompeo won the seat, Kansas' Fourth was represented
for seven terms by a VHS copy of BEDTIME FOR BONZO (look it up). Anyhow,
the republican won, but by a shockingly low margin, and folks, if a
Berniecrat can get within 8 of getting a house seat in Wichita, KS,
where it's illegal to make eye contact with a member of the opposite sex
without a permission slip signed by at least 9 apostles, then we need
to pour money into the upcoming special elections in Montana and
Georgia, and the midterms are gonna be Little Bighorn 2.0.
There's more. There's really more. They're still engaged in a
dick-measuring contest with North Korea, and trying to pass some version
of their Let's All Murder the Poor, excuse me "Health Care" bill, and
they're even fucking up the Easter Egg Roll (google it, seriously) but I
am now tired, you're on your own.
In the end...shit be cray, folks. Shit be cray.
This post was brought to you by Big Earl's Holocaust Center and
Water Park! Come on down to Big Earl's for all your Holocaust needs!
Ten dollars off with specially marked Pepsi cans.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is the most unpopular governor in the U.S., a new poll finds.
71 percent of New Jersey votes disapprove of Christie while just 25 percent approve, according to the Morning Consult poll released Tuesday.
Christie
edged out Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) as the nation's least popular.
Brownback had a 66 percent disapproval to 27 percent approval, the poll
found.
Christie's numbers decreased after he dropped out of last
year's GOP presidential primary and became a surrogate for
then-candidate Donald Trump, the poll said.
On the flip side,
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) was rated the most popular
governor, with 75 percent approval to 17 percent disapproval. Following
Baker on the list were Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) and North Dakota
Gov. Doug Burgum (R).
Morning Consult surveyed 85,000 registered
voters across the country from January 2017 through March 2017. The poll
asked voters about the job performance of their local politicians,
including the governor, two senators, and representative.
The results are emblematic of Christie's poor numbers in the last year.
A December poll found that
71 percent of New Jerseyans thought Christie should be a defendant in
the "Bridgegate" scandal that has plagued his governorship. Two of the
governor's aides were sentenced last month for arranging the 2013 lane
closure on the George Washington Bridge as political payback for a New
Jersey mayor who didn't endorse Christie in his re-election bid.
Christie's approval rating has continued to drop in various polls over the last year, reaching record lows.
CNN contributor Angela Rye on Tuesday pointed out that President
Donald Trump had been plagued with “many epic fails” during his first
100 days in office.
During a discussion on CNN, ardent Trump backer Jeffrey Lord asserted
that Trump’s critics could no longer suspect Donald Trump’s campaign of
colluding with Russia after the president ordered an attack on Syria
that reportedly angered Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“So much for the idea that Vladimir Putin was blamed to give Donald
Trump the presidency,” Lord quipped. “It is not possible that Vladimir
Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.”
Reflecting on the president’s first 100 days in office, Rye argued that the White House had a misguided view of success.
“Wins are determined by how they impact the American people,” she
explained, noting the disparity with President Barack Obama, who in his
first 100 days signed an equal pay law and a law to create jobs and
build infrastructure.
“And then I think you compare that to what I think I would
characterize as many epic fails by the Trump administration,” she
continued. “The Muslim ban and the various iterations of that. The
[border] wall, the fact that he said to taxpayers, ‘Okay, I’m just
kidding. Actually, you all will pay for the wall.’ The number of moments
where they’ve had to pivot.”
“I think the only real thing where Donald Trump has won… is golfing.
He is winning on golfing.
He’s 28 days out of 100 into golfing. And it’s
so funny because he was the critic-in-chief about Barack Obama’s golf
game.”
CNN host noted that Trump was on track to spend more on travel in his
first year in office than Obama had spent during his entire eight
years.
“Eh, I don’t think so,” Lord replied dismissively. “Did President
Obama donate his first month’s salary to the National Parks Service? I
don’t think so. Did he play golf on his own golf course? I don’t think
so.”
“Three million dollars per golf trip!” Rye shot back. “Melania
staying in New York City — a million dollars a day… I am so surprised
that you won’t even agree with me on this point. You’re talking about
wins for the American people. I would push back. Climate change is a
real thing.”
“You talk about me and my friends, tell your friends that there are
icebergs melting, okay! And your guy is dialing back regulations that
are harmful, not just to the American people, but globally.”
Watch the video below from CNN, broadcast April 11, 2017.
By Suman Varandani Displayed with permission from International Business Times
President Donald Trump may be considering to kill North Korean
leader Kim Jong Un as nuclear threats from the reclusive country
continues to be on the rise. According to recent reports,
U.S. National Security Council suggested Trump that either
assassinating Kim or deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea could help
end the potential war in the Korean Peninsula.
One option “is to target and kill North Korean leader Kim Jong Un
and other senior leaders in charge of the country’s missiles and nuclear
weapons and decision-making,” NBC news reported, quoting multiple top-ranking intelligence and military officials.
The report was followed by news that a U.S. aircraft carrier, which
was scheduled for a port call in Australia, has moved towards the
Korean Peninsula amid growing concerns of a nuclear threat from North
Korea.
A U.S. defense official said Saturday that the strike group will provide a show of presence in the region.
Moving the carrier strike group was a "prudent measure to maintain
readiness and presence in the Western Pacific," Dave Benham, a spokesman
for U.S. Pacific Command, reportedly said. "The number one threat in
the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless,
irresponsible, and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of
a nuclear weapons capability."
North Korea has continued its threat against the U.S. and South
Korea despite several warnings from the international community. In
March, North Korea carried out two ballistic missile
tests. The reclusive country has so far conducted five suspected
nuclear tests, including two last year. Analysts believe that a possible
sixth nuclear test is being planned by Pyongyang for April 15, which is
the 105th birthday of North Korea’s founding president.
On Saturday, Trump and South Korea's acting President Hwang
Kyo-Ahn spoke by phone, agreeing in close contact about North Korea and
other issues.
The National Association of Rail Passengers
denounced the budget outline released by the Trump Administration,
which slashes investment in transportation infrastructure. These cuts to
Amtrak, transit, and commuter rail programs, and even air service to
rural towns, would not only cost construction and manufacturing jobs,
but place a disproportionate amount of pain on rural and working class
communities.
“It’s ironic that President Trump’s first budget proposal undermines
the very communities whose economic hardship and sense of isolation from
the rest of the country helped propel him into office,” said NARP
President Jim Mathews. “These working class communities — many of them
located in the Midwest and the South — were tired of being treated like
‘flyover country.’ But by proposing the elimination of Amtrak’s long
distance trains, the Trump Administration does them one worse, cutting a
vital service that connects these small town economies to the rest of
the U.S. These hard working, small town Americans don’t have airports or
Uber to turn to; they depend on these trains.”
"What’s more, these proposed cuts come as President Trump continues
to promise that our tax dollars will be invested in rebuilding America's
infrastructure,” continued Mathews. “Instead, we have seen an all-out
assault on any project — public and private — that would advance
passenger rail. These cuts and delays are costing the U.S. thousands of
good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs in America's heartland
at this very moment."
Mathews was referring to the decision by
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to indefinitely suspend a grant
that would allow California to proceed with a commuter rail
electrification project.
Caltrain, the agency overseeing the project,
estimates the project would create 9,600 total direct and indirect jobs.
The delay also threatens the construction of a new railcar assembly
plant planned for Salt Lake City, which would generate sustainable,
family-wage jobs for 550 employees.
The White House budget would lead to a nightmare scenario for people
who depend on passenger rail, transit, commuter rail, and even regional
air service in the United States, from Wall Street to Main Street. The
proposal cuts $2.4 billion from transportation, a 13 percent reduction
of last year’s funding, and includes:
Elimination of all federal funding for Amtrak’s national network
trains, which provides the only national network service to 23 states,
and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans;
$499 million from the TIGER grant program, a highly successful
program that invests in passenger rail and transit projects of national
significance;
Elimination of $2.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration’s
“New Starts” Capital Investment Program, which is crucial to launching
new transit, commuter rail, and light-rail projects.
Long distance rail routes open up enormous economic development
opportunities, which the Administration’s proposal ignores or casts
aside. The plan threatens the following long distance routes:
Gulf Coast Restoration — In development
Silver Star — Daily service
Cardinal — 3 trains/week
Silver Meteor — Daily service
Empire Builder — Daily service
Capitol Limited — Daily service
California Zephyr — Daily service
Southwest Chief — Daily service
City of New Orleans — Daily service
Texas Eagle — Daily service
Sunset Limited — 3 trains/week
Coast Starlight — Daily service
Lake Shore Limited — Daily service
Palmetto — Daily service
Crescent — Daily service
Auto Train — Daily service
And, at a minimum, the proposed White House elimination of long
distance routes would result in the following 220 towns and cities
losing all Amtrak service:
Albuquerque, NM
Alderson, WV
Alliance, OH
Alpine, TX
Anniston, AL
Arcadia, MO
Arkadelphia, AR
Ashland, KY
Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Barstow, CA
Beaumont, TX
Benson, AZ
Bingen, WA
Birmingham, AL
Brookhaven, MS
Bryan, OH
Burlington, IA
Charleston, SC
Charleston, WV
Chemult, OR
Chico, CA
Cincinnati, OH
Cleburne, TX
Clemson, SC
Cleveland, OH
Clifton Forge, VA
Colfax, CA
Columbia, SC
Columbus, WI
Connellsville, PA
Creston, IA
Cumberland, MD
Cut Bank, MT
Dallas, TX
Danville, VA
Deerfield Beach, FL
Del Rio, TX
Deland, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Deming, NM
Denver, CO
Detroit Lakes, MN
Devils Lake, ND
Dillon, SC
Dodge City, KS
Dunsmuir, CA
East Glacier Park, MT
El Paso, TX
Elkhart, IN
Elko, NV
Elyria, OH
Ephrata, WA
Erie, PA
Essex, MT
Fargo, ND
Fayetteville, NC
Flagstaff, AZ
Florence, SC
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Fort Madison, IA
Fort Morgan, CO
Framingham, MA
Fulton, KY
Gainesville, GA
Gallup, NM
Garden City, KS
Gastonia, NC
Glasgow, MT
Glenwood Springs, CO
Granby, CO
Grand Forks, ND
Grand Junction, CO
Green River, UT
Greenville, SC
Greenwood, MS
Hamlet, NC
Hammond, LA
Harpers Ferry, WV
Hastings, NE
Hattiesburg, MS
Havre, MT
Hazlehurst, MS
Helper, UT
Hinton, WV
Holdrege, NE
Hollywood, FL
Hope, AR
Houston, TX
Huntington, WV
Hutchinson, KS
Jackson, MS
Jacksonville, FL
Jesup, GA
Kingman, AZ
Kingstree, SC
Kissimmee, FL
Klamath Falls, OR
La Crosse, WI
La Junta, CO
La Plata, MO
Lafayette, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Lakeland, FL
Lamar, CO
Lamy, NM
Las Vegas, NM
Laurel, MS
Lawrence, KS
Libby, MT
Lincoln, NE
Little Rock, AR
Longview, TX
Lordsburg, NM
Lorton, VA
Malta, MT
Malvern, AR
Maricopa, AZ
Marshall, TX
Martinsburg, WV
Maysville, KY
McComb, MS
McCook, NE
McGregor, TX
Memphis, TN
Meridian, MS
Miami, FL
Mineola, TX
Minot, ND
Montgomery, WV
Mount Pleasant, IA
Needles, CA
New Iberia, LA
New Orleans, LA
Newbern-Dyersburg, TN
Newton, KS
Okeechobee, FL
Omaha, NE
Ontario, CA
Orlando, FL
Osceola, IA
Ottumwa, IA
Palatka, FL
Palm Springs, CA
Pasco, WA
Paso Robles, CA
Picayune, MS
Pittsfield, MA
Pomona, CA
Poplar Bluff, MO
Portage, WI
Prince, WV
Provo, UT
Raton, NM
Red Wing, MN
Redding, CA
Reno, NV
Riverside, CA
Rockville, MD
Rugby, ND
Salinas, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Bernardino, CA
San Marcos, TX
Sanderson, TX
Sandpoint, ID
Sandusky, OH
Sanford, FL
Savannah, GA
Schriever, LA
Sebring, FL
Shelby, MT
Slidell, LA
South Bend, IN
South Portsmouth, KY
Southern Pines, NC
Spartanburg, SC
Spokane, WA
St. Cloud, MN
St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
Stanley, ND
Staples, MN
Staunton, VA
Tampa, FL
Taylor, TX
Temple, TX
Texarkana, AR
Thurmond, WV
Toccoa, GA
Toledo, OH
Tomah, WI
Topeka, KS
Trinidad, CO
Truckee, CA
Tucson, AZ
Tuscaloosa, AL
Victorville, CA
Walnut Ridge, AR
Waterloo, IN
Wenatchee, WA
West Glacier, MT
West Palm Beach, FL
White Sulphur Springs, WV
Whitefish, MT
Williams Jct., AZ
Williston, ND
Winnemucca, NV
Winona, MN
Winslow, AZ
Winter Haven, FL
Winter Park, FL
Winter Park-Fraser, CO
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Wishram, WA
Wolf Point, MT
Worcester, MA
Yazoo City, MS
Yemassee, SC
Yuma, AZ
“When the President proposed a $1 trillion infrastructure proposal,
voters expected that would mean more funding for projects like
long-distance rail and new subway and light rail construction. These are
the kinds of public works that spur private investment, create good
jobs, and lead to economic revitalization,” said Mathews. “This budget
does exactly the opposite.”
Trump owns stock in Raytheon, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile. When he fired them at Syria, Raytheon's stock rose.
Ever since Donald Trump the businessman engineered a hostile takeover of the United States government, he has been modeling the for-profit presidency of the future.
For example, by making the Tomahawk cruise missile his weapon of choice when he attacked Syria, whether intentionally or inadvertently, he made money off it.
How? A 2015 Business Insiderreport shows that in Donald Trump’s portfolio are shares in Raytheon (RTN), the defense contractor which makes all sorts of goodies for the military, including the Tomahawk missile.
We already know the missile strike, like Trump’s very presidency, was a publicity stunt. It’s unlikely Trump didn’t hear a “Ca-Ching!” when he issued the order to use Tomahawks for the job.
As Bill Palmer writes in The Palmer Report, “we’ve now reached the phase where Trump has ordered military action which has given direct financial benefit to a company that he owns stock in.”
And as Palmer explains, those missiles he fired were worth about $100 million and will now have to be replaced.
Moreover, they were a poor choice of weapon against an enemy airfield (the airfield was very quickly back in operation), leaving Palmer to argue therefore that Trump chose them only because he owns stock in the company. This adds a profit motive to the distraction from the Russia scandal the attack afforded.
Obviously, the United States cannot afford a president who makes war because he will profit from it personally.
We are used to the military-industrial complex profiting off wars and having a dangerous presence in the halls of power, but here is a president who can and will make foreign policy decisions based on the simple equation of “what’s in it for him.”
There is a reason why Donald Trump was called upon to divest. He has already shown that there is a conflict between what’s good for the U.S. and what’s good for Trump, he will choose Trump very time.
His whole family has shown that they see his election as an opportunity to “cash-in.” Trump himself is no different.
We have a draft dodger as president, who refused to put himself in the line of fire, who will put other young men and women in the line of fire all so he can make a few bucks. And that’s as scary as it is wrong.
No
longer able to ride on President Obama's coattails, Donald Trump was
given a dose of economic reality as only half as many jobs were created
in March as economists anticipated.
The Hill reported,
“Jobs were revised down by 38,000 for January and February based on
what was previously reported, but each month remained above 200,000. But
the last three months have averaged a solid 178,000 jobs each.
Economists had predicted that March jobs might slip after January and
February posted robust gains.”
To get a sense of who is getting hurt in the Trump economy, here is a
year to year contrast from the Center For American Progress as provided
to PoliticusUSA:
Job creation in February and March declined by 56.4% compared to the same period in 2016.
For women, job creation in February and March declined by 92.9% compared to the same period in 2016.
Black Americans saw absolutely no statistical decline in unemployment in March.
Employment in retail trade declined by 30,000 in March compared to an increase of more than 31,000 last March.
Employment on Wall Street trended up, with the financial industry adding 9,000 jobs in March.
Job growth is slowing because President Trump’s immigration policies
are hurting tourism and despite his rhetoric that cutting regulations
would create jobs, the reality is a policy of shifting wealth to the top
has resulted in fewer jobs being created.
The notion that Donald Trump was a jobs president is an example where the White House’s rhetoric has never matched the policy.
Trump promised to save manufacturing jobs, but companies like Boeing and Carrier continue to lay off workers.
The economy belongs to Donald Trump now, and these jobs numbers are
the first taste of what the Republican job killing ideology is going to
do to the US economy.
In 2013, President Barack Obama went to Congress to ask for an
authorization of force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — and he
was turned down, in large part thanks to opposition from Republicans in
Congress.
Here are the biggest Republican flip-flops in Syria that have happened over the last four years.
1.) Donald Trump. Trump is, of course, the
most notable person to change his mind on the merits of attacking
Syria. In 2012 and 2013, he regularly attacked Obama for his desire to
get involved with the Syrian conflict, and even suggested at one point
that Obama would go to war with Syria to boost his flagging poll
numbers.
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
2. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Although Ryan gave Trump
his approval for Thursday night’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said that
Obama’s proposed military strike “cannot achieve its stated objectives”
and could make things worse.
3. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). On Thursday evening,
Chaffetz sent out a tweet that read, “God bless the USA!” But in 2013,
he said he would oppose the use of force in Syria on the grounds that he
saw “no clear and present danger” to the United States that would
justify using force.
4. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Blackburn announced
in 2013 that she would oppose Obama’s Syrian airstrike after being
briefed. On Thursday evening, she approvingly re-tweeted President
Trump’s quote that “no child of God should ever suffer such horror.”
5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Although Rubio has been blanketing the airwaves praising Trump’s airstrikes, in 2013 he said
that “I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the
Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in
the conflict.”
6. Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT). Hatch gave Trump’s
actions an “amen” on Twitter Thursday evening, but in 2013 he said
that he had “strong reservations about authorizing the use of force
against Syria.”
7. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX). Olson cited his
experience as a Navy veteran as a reason for opposing the use of force
against Syria in 2013. Now, however, he is cheering on Trump by praising
the president for doing what Obama would not.
8. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). The congressman on
Thursday night gushed about Trump’s airstrike, but in 2013 he worried
that Obama had not done enough to seek a “diplomatic” solution to the
crisis.
9. Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN). In 2013, the
congressman opposed intervention in Syria on the grounds that he hadn’t
met a single person in his district “who believes we should fire
missiles into Syria.”
10. Sen. Corey Gardener (R-CO). In 2013, Gardener
expressed “skepticism” of striking Syria and argued that he didn’t see
“a compelling and vital” national interest in such an attack. On
Thursday evening, he called Trump’s strike against Syria a “long-overdue
action.”
Today's news was like if a Tom Clancy novel fucked the notebook
where Hunter S. Thompson kept the ideas he thought were "too weird" on
top of a big stack of Frank Miller comics. Not the good ones, the
recent, shitty, super-racist ones.
We started with news of Devin "Pigfucker" Nunes recusing himself
from the Russia investigation. Word is, he was forced out by Paul Ryan
and the Shart House, not for being a stooge, but for being an
exceptionally shitty stooge. Like so many of the shitbags caught up in
this mess, he got caught in a number of easily disproven lies,
apparently used by a handful of morons in the executive branch to "leak"
information...back to the executive branch. Don't look at me brother,
figuring out why these people do the things we do is like hosting trivia
night in Arkham Asylum.
Anyhow, Nunes released a feeble little statement blaming "left wing
activists" or some such nonsense, which fell apart about thirteen seconds
later when it was revealed he was under investigation by the ethics
office (the same one the House GOP tried to drown quietly in the
outhouse out back while nobody was looking, remember that?) for
revealing classified information, for the TOTAL BULLSHIT REASON
that...he appears to have revealed classified information. Devin Nunes
was not built for high-stakes politics, friends. He was built solely
for the fucking of pigs.
And we celebrated Nunes' downfall for a hot ten minutes before we
realized he was just going to be replaced with stooges who wouldn't be
so obvious/stupid about being stooges, i.e. are less likely to call
dumb fuck press conferences where they entrap themselves for no
discernible reason beyond incurable idiocy. The new chair of the
investigating committee is some doorknob who said some shit about how
watching a Mexican Soap Opera is basically the same thing as
collaborating with a hostile foreign power to influence the American
Presidential election, I don't remember his name, look it up your own
damn self. (He will be assisted in his abuse of power by Trey Gowdy
Doody, he of the Hundred Years War, excuse me, the Benghazi
investigation. I would love to rewarded similarly for a history of
failure. In that scenario, my 0-for-the-entire-fucking-season in little
league would land me a multi-million dollar contract with the Yankees.)
Meanwhile the Senate went Nuclear, which, calm down, doesn't mean
what you were hoping it did. There was much hemming and hawing about
the ugliness of partisan politics by men and women who spent the day
facilitating the ugliness of partisan politics. In the left-wing media,
there was a masochistic joy in trudging up past quotes from Death Lord Of All Tortoises Mitch McConnell as proof of his hypocrisy. As if
hypocrisy bothers Mitch McConnell one bit.
Let me tell y'all something very important about Mitch McConnell: he
doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. He will gleefully tell
you on Monday that eating sandwiches is sinful, and then when you catch
him eating a big fat fucking reuben on Tuesday, he will laugh in your
face as you triumphantly point out his hypocrisy.
Laugh in your face,
kick you in the junk, steal your wallet, use your money to take your mom
out to dinner* and fuck her in your childhood bed, and it won't bother
him one tiny little bit because his job isn't "being consistent," his
job is "winning" and he won this one and yeah, fuck him, but it sucks
and now we just have to send his terrapin ass back to the minority for
the rest of his life so he can flail helplessly on his back while we
replace Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy with Rachel Maddow maybe
Sarah Silverman.
*Where he orders another sandwich because fuck you that's why.
In the background there's another wave of stories about Shart House
infighting. People are screaming "CUCK" at each other, Bannon's down,
demoted from the National Security Council, and Kushner's up, apparently
single-handedly responsible for 87% of the executive branch's duties.
Why does a kid whose resume reads "got daddy's money when daddy went to
jail, bought a newspaper and wrecked it" get so much responsibility?
Well, because our idiot president has mad respect for the dude who gets
to do the one thing he's ever wanted that he can't do, (NUDGE NUDGE FUCK
HIS DAUGHTER) and therefore he's in charge of China and peace in the
Middle East and reforming the government and Veterans affairs and The
Vending Machines in the West Wing Don't Have Zagnuts Can We Get Some
Fucking Zagnuts in There Jared and god knows what else.
And we maybe breathe a sigh of relief that Bannon's role in the
administration is diminishing because this is a man who boos the ending
of Schindler's List, but then you realize that the GODDAMN PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED GODDAMN STATES is only swinging from white supremacy to
nepotism, and you wonder why he doesn't think, "Hey, maybe try somebody
with some relevant experience?" And you know that once Kushner makes a
mess of everything, Il Douche is just gonna turn to Gordon Ramsey or
that One Girl Who Yells at Baristas in Chicago to run the government for
him.
And at this point in the day, you're getting a bit overwhelmed, so
maybe you don't notice that the Yokel, I mean "Attorney" General, our
President's Loyal Huntin' Dawg Beauregard, has decided to take himself a
long leisurely look at all them police abuse settlements arrived at
under those colored folks who previously held his office. To Ol'
Beauregard, decades of rampant police abuse? Why, that ain't nuthin'
atawl, an' if an unarmed black fellah gets shot every couple weeks or so
in Baltimore, well, that's jus' the price of law and orduh, don' ya
see, and honestly, what's one more or less black fellah, am I right?
By now, the madness has started to settle in. You're seriously
thinking rubbing cake frosting all over your otherwise naked body and
running around downtown throwing poop and screaming. Maybe you catch a
few human interest stories. About Rachel Dolezal going to South Africa
to talk about "racial transitioning." About a shocking number of iPhone
users desiring a sexual relationship with Siri. About somebody making
beer that tastes like Cap'n Crunch. (All of this really happened, I
swear to you.)
And in the background you start to see more and more stories about
Dorito Mussolini thinking about maybe starting a War of His Very Own in
Syria.
And we learn that the Shart Administration is trying to force
twitter to reveal (ahem, UNMASK HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OH GOD THE IRONY) of
an anonymous user who has been criticizing them, which is a
not-at-all-terrifying police state move, oh wait. And we find our the
CIA was sounding alarm bells on the Russian interference/possible
collaboration LAST SUMMER but somehow James Comey only thought the
American people needed to know that Anthony Weiner's personal laptop
may've contained the name, location, favorite color and Most
Embarrassing High School Moment of every undercover agent in the world.
And we even had a quick laugh at Spraytan Zartan bragging about having
had the best first thirteen weeks in human history...eleven weeks into
his term.
And then things were quiet for a couple hours.
And then the missiles started flying.
Without seeking authorization from congress, without consulting
allies, without a strong/competent state department to give advice,
without civilian leadership in the defense department, without a single
voice in the executive branch any rational human being would consider
qualified to weigh in on a decision so large, a military strike on a
foreign government backed by Iran and Russia was ordered and executed.
And nobody seems to know what, precisely, is going on, what the
long-term plan might be (SPOILERZ, there totally isn't one.). McCain and
Graham are jubilant of course, nothing delights that duo quite so much
as other people's children dying. Some folks are talking about regime
change, but it doesn't seem like anybody thought making those kind of
decisions was important before pushing the button.
There's a lot we don't know right now. If there were significant
civilian casualties (a distressingly irrelevant factor to the military
under the Shart Administration), if more strikes are coming, if there
were Russian nationals on the base we hit. What happens next. And yes,
in the background you wonder how much of the decision was made to
distract the American populace from domestic scandals...nearly every
president of my lifetime has played that card.
I confess I'm worried. Our President, as we've learned, doesn't
know Shit about Shit, doesn't know what he doesn't know, doesn't care
that he doesn't know, and, importantly, is infinitely persuadable. He
blindly followed Bannon into the travel ban debacle, and Ryan into the
health care clusterfuck. Why? Because he doesn't know Shit about Shit,
and anybody who kisses his ass and tells him what a Big Boy With Big
Strong Hands he is can, we have seen time and again, manipulate him into
doing whatever they want him to do.
And when it comes to war? Wow. Bannon's an apocalyptic lunatic.
Tillerson is hopelessly out of his depth. Mattis seems well-intentioned
enough, but don't forget that there is a reason why we don't put
generals in charge of the defense department, and Mattis needed a waiver
to be confirmed in the first place. Priebus is sniveling toady with no
stature on this turf. Kushner also doesn't know shit about shit, and
early indications are that the brass is manipulating him, and like his
father-in-law I don't credit him with the brains to understand he's
being manipulated. The institutional GOP defers to McCain and Graham on
matters of war, and again those two sprinkle the blood of young men on
their breakfast cereal whenever the opportunity presents itself. And
Pence of course is a hairshirt-wearing religious fanatic who'll play the
role of Crusader with a crazed grin on his face.
Basically we have a bunch of malicious fools making these decisions.
I wish I could find a way to laugh at all this, but I can't. Heaven
help us all.
It was no
secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a
demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in
American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”
Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck.
Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new
president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people
around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst
instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome
responsibilities of office.
Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his
term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were
misplaced.
In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life
steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul
rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate
change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for
all.
His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received
healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of
wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment.
But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s
regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he
supposedly retreats from the global stage.
These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken
this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and
reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished
Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy
choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump
presidency.
What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so
unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard,
so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his
presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His
obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to
vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these
traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider
campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real
presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short
of disastrous.
Although his policies are, for the most part, variations on classic
Republican positions (many of which would have been undertaken by a
President Ted Cruz or a President Marco Rubio), they become far more
dangerous in the hands of this imprudent and erratic man. Many
Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher
response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall,
his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people
living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect
of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad
policy into an appalling one.
In the days ahead, The Times editorial board will look more closely
at the new president, with a special attention to three troubling
traits:
1 Trump’s shocking lack of respect
for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is
based. Since Jan. 20, he has repeatedly disparaged and challenged those
entities that have threatened his agenda, stoking public distrust of
essential institutions in a way that undermines faith in American
democracy. He has questioned the qualifications of judges and the
integrity of their decisions, rather than acknowledging that even the
president must submit to the rule of law. He has clashed with his own
intelligence agencies, demeaned government workers and questioned the
credibility of the electoral system and the Federal Reserve. He has
lashed out at journalists, declaring them “enemies of the people,”
rather than defending the importance of a critical, independent free
press. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government are
palpable.
2 His utter lack of regard for truth.
Whether it is the easily disprovable boasts about the size of his
inauguration crowd or his unsubstantiated assertion that Barack Obama
bugged Trump Tower, the new president regularly muddies the waters of
fact and fiction. It’s difficult to know whether he actually can’t
distinguish the real from the unreal — or whether he intentionally
conflates the two to befuddle voters, deflect criticism and undermine
the very idea of objective truth. Whatever the explanation, he is
encouraging Americans to reject facts, to disrespect science, documents,
nonpartisanship and the mainstream media — and instead to simply take
positions on the basis of ideology and preconceived notions. This is a
recipe for a divided country in which differences grow deeper and
rational compromise becomes impossible.
3 His scary willingness to repeat alt-right conspiracy theories,
racist memes and crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Again, it is
not clear whether he believes them or merely uses them. But to cling to
disproven “alternative” facts; to retweet racists; to make unverifiable
or false statements about rigged elections and fraudulent voters; to buy
into discredited conspiracy theories first floated on fringe websites
and in supermarket tabloids — these are all of a piece with the Barack
Obama birther claptrap that Trump was peddling years ago and which
brought him to political prominence. It is deeply alarming that a
president would lend the credibility of his office to ideas that have
been rightly rejected by politicians from both major political parties.
Where will this end? Will Trump moderate his crazier campaign
positions as time passes? Or will he provoke confrontation with Iran,
North Korea or China, or disobey a judge’s order or order a soldier to
violate the Constitution? Or, alternately, will the system itself — the
Constitution, the courts, the permanent bureaucracy, the Congress, the
Democrats, the marchers in the streets — protect us from him as he
alienates more and more allies at home and abroad, steps on his own
message and creates chaos at the expense of his ability to accomplish
his goals? Already, Trump’s job approval rating has been hovering in the
mid-30s, according to Gallup, a shockingly low level of support for a
new president. And that was before his former national security advisor,
Michael Flynn, offered to cooperate last week with congressional
investigators looking into the connection between the Russian government
and the Trump campaign.
On Inauguration Day, we wrote on this page
that it was not yet time to declare a state of “wholesale panic” or to
call for blanket “non-cooperation” with the Trump administration.
Despite plenty of dispiriting signals, that is still our view. The role
of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the
electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of
institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in
which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as
presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It
survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will
survive again.
But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless
and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise
their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress —
including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage
to stand up to Trump. Courts must safeguard the Constitution. State
legislators must pass laws to protect their citizens and their policies
from federal meddling. All of us who are in the business of holding
leaders accountable must redouble our efforts to defend the truth from
his cynical assaults.
The United States is not a perfect country, and it has a great
distance to go before it fully achieves its goals of liberty and
equality. But preserving what works and defending the rules and values
on which democracy depends are a shared responsibility. Everybody has a
role to play in this drama.
The Washington Post
detailed the House GOP’s fight over the ObamaCare repeal and
replacement plan this week, rounding up the dramatic details of
leadership’s fight to win support for the measure.
At one point, the paper said, House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.) got down on one knee to plead with Rep. Don Young of Alaska – the longest-serving Republican in Congress -- to support the bill. (He was unsuccessful.)
The
moments highlighted by the Post during the Republican conference
negotiations show what a tough battle Ryan and his deputies faced in
whipping the vote.
But they also show the fierce support some offered
to leadership - like freshman Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who lost both
legs in 2010 in Afghanistan and called on colleagues to unite behind
the bill as he and his Army colleagues had done on the battlefield.
At
another point, a Republican shouted, “Burn the ships” to Majority Whip
Steve Scalise, invoking the command a 16th century Spanish conquistador
gave his crew when they landed in Mexico.
The message was clear, the Post said –- the Republicans felt there was no turning back.
The
GOP was ultimately unable to coalesce around the party’s plan and Ryan
pulled the bill from the floor Friday, when it was clear it did not have
the votes to pass.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Sunday blamed the
American people for the decision of Senate Republicans not to grant
President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Judge Merrick Garland, a
hearing.
"The tradition had been not to confirm vacancies in the middle of a presidential [election] year," McConnell told Meet the Press
host Chuck Todd. "You'd have to go back 80 years to find the last time
it happened... Everyone knew, including President Obama's former White
House counsel, that if the shoe had been on the other foot, [Democrats]
wouldn't have filled a Republican president's vacancy in the middle of a
presidential election."
"That's a rationale to vote against his confirmation," Todd argued.
"Why not put him up for a vote? Any senator can have a rationale to not
to vote for a confirmation. Why not put Merrick Garland on the floor and
if the rationale is, 'You know what? Too close to an election,' then
vote no?"
McConnell laughed defensively.
"Look, we litigated that last year," the Majority Leader stuttered.
"The American people decided that they wanted Donald Trump to make the
nomination, not Hillary Clinton."
McConnell argued that Democrats should focus on the issue at hand, the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Trump's Supreme Court pick.
"There's no rational reason, no basis for voting against Neil Gorsuch," McConnell opined.
"You say it's been litigated, the Garland situation," Todd replied.
"For a lot of Senate Democrats, they're not done litigating this... What
was wrong with allowing Merrick Garland to have an up or down vote?"
"I already told you!" McConnell exclaimed. "You don't fill Supreme Court vacancies in the middle of a presidential election."
"Should that be the policy going forward?" Todd interrupted. "Are you
prepared to pass a resolution that says in election years any Supreme
Court vacancy [will not be filled] and let it be a sense of the Senate
resolution, that says no Supreme Court nominations will be considered in
any even numbered year? Is that where we're headed?"
"That's an absurd question," McConnell complained. "We were right in
the middle of a presidential election year. Every body knew that either
side -- had the shoe been on the other foot -- wouldn't have filled it.
But that has nothing to do with what we're voting on this year."
Thus far, in the scandal-plagued, chaotic presidency of Donald
Trump, the chief executive’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has enjoyed a kind
of unsinkable “privileged status.”
According to Politico,
however, resentment is growing against Kushner in an already
factionalized and strife-torn White House. Hardline conservatives see
the moderate-minded, 36 year old Kushner as an obstacle to their agenda
and worry that Kushner ally Gary Cohn — a Democrat — will pressure
Kushner to steer the administration toward the middle.
Thus far,
Pres. Trump has tasked his daughter’s husband — a government neophyte
with no previous policy or legislative experience — with solving the
crisis in the Middle East and overseeing the U.S. relationships with
China, Canada and Mexico. On top of that ambitious portfolio, Kushner
and Cohn this week established the White House Office of American
Innovation, an initiative to modernize and streamline the operations of
the federal government.
“But Kushner’s status as the big-issue
guru has stoked resentment among his colleagues, who question whether
Kushner is capable of following through on his various commitments,”
wrote Politico’s Josh Dawsey, Kenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt. “And
some colleagues complain that his dabbling in myriad issues and his
tendency to walk in and out of meetings have complicated efforts to
instill more order and organization into the chaotic administration.
These people also say Kushner can be a shrewd self promoter, knowing how
to take credit — and shirk blame — whenever it suits him.”
“He’s saving the government and the Middle East at the same time,” one administration official quipped to Politico.
Kushner
is arguably the president’s closest adviser — the last person to speak
to him each day and also the administration’s hatchet man. During the
2016 campaign, it fell to Kushner to fire campaign managers Corey
Lewandowski and Paul Manafort. It was also Kushner who axed New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie (R) from the Trump transition team.
Lewandowski
in particular is rumored to be pursuing a vendetta against Kushner,
planting anonymous stories about the president’s son-in-law with
conservative media outlets. Other campaign officials who didn’t get
hired by the administration are reportedly aligned with Lewandowski and
believe that Kushner is insufficiently conservative.
Far-right
radio host Mark Levin has attacked Kushner before, calling him “some
32-year-old, liberal Democrat kid out of New York.” Other
neoconservatives and Zionist Israel supporters said they had high hopes
for Kushner because he is an Orthodox Jew and the grandson of Holocaust
survivors, but thus far they say he has disappointed them.
A source told Politico that
“those hopes mostly have been supplanted by ‘deep concern that Jared is
not the person we thought he was — that this guy who is supposed to be
good at everything is totally out of his depth.’”
Kushner himself
remains breezily confident, telling associates not to fret over the
Russia investigation because it “isn’t going anywhere” and assuring
others that his father-in-law’s administration will get past its early
stumbles.
“But if it doesn’t,” Politico said, “allies and aides
say, one thing is clear: the president will surely find someone else to
take the blame. And Kushner will likely be delivering the bad news.”
Kushner
was the subject of Republican ire in the wake of the president’s failed
healthcare bill after he and the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump left Washington for
a ski-trip to Aspen, CO. This week it came out that the presidential
son-in-law is wanted for testimony in connection to an FBI investigation
of a bank implicated in Russian money laundering.
For
the past several decades, members of the GOP have mapped the
ideological range found within their party onto a fairly straightforward
spectrum—one that runs from “moderate” to “conservative.” The
formulation was simplistic, of course, but it provided a useful
shorthand in assessing politicians, and in explaining one’s own
political orientation.
A small-government culture warrior in
Arizona would be situated on the far-right end of the spectrum; a
pro-choice Chamber of Commerce type in Massachusetts might place himself
on the other end. And across the country, there were millions of
people—from officeholders to ordinary Republican voters—who identified
somewhere between those two poles.
But with the rise of Donald
Trump—and his spectrum-bending brand of populist nationalism—many
longtime Republicans are now struggling to figure out where they fit in
this fast-shifting philosophical landscape. In recent weeks, two
prominent Republicans have told me they are sincerely struggling to
explain where they fall on the ideological spectrum these days. It’s not
that they’ve changed their beliefs; it’s that the old taxonomy has
become incoherent.
For
example, does being an outspoken Trump critic make you a “moderate”
RINO? Does it matter whether you’re criticizing him for an overly
austere healthcare bill, or for reckless infrastructure spending plan?
And who owns the “far right” now—is it “constitutional conservatives”
like Ted Cruz, or “alt-right” white supremacists like Richard Spencer?
When
I raised these questions on a Twitter earlier this week, I was swamped
with hundreds of responses and dozens of emails from longtime
Republicans who described feeling like they are lost inside their own
homes.
Some, like Jordan Team from Washington, D.C., related how
their attempts at explaining their personal politics have devolved into a
kind of absurdist comedy:
I've always identified as a more moderate R - even "establishment
Republican", if you will. I usually always use "moderate" or
"Establishment" when saying I'm a Republican to separate myself from
more hard-line Tea Party Freedom Caucus conservatives.
These days, however, I feel like it requires even further explanation
to separate myself from the nationalism/populism that Trump & team
espouse, since they're all now technically Republicans. Usually it's
something super catchy & brief along the lines of: "I'm a moderate
Republican - or at least, have been one, not really sure that that means
anymore - but I don't support Trump or populism - I'm traditionally
conservative" And even that doesn't always get the point across. I
think the easiest when trying to have a conversation with someone is a
two step process. Step 1: "I'm a Republican but don't like Trump," and
then if the convo keeps going/they know politics/they're interested,
there's step 2: "I'm more moderate/establishment than Tea Party/Freedom
Caucus".
Other people, meanwhile, shared more tragic
testimonials. “I feel honestly like a part of my identity was stolen,”
wrote Alycia Kuehne, a conservative Christian from Dallas, Texas.But
virtually everyone who wrote to me shared a common complaint: The
traditional “Left ↔ Right” spectrum used to describe and categorize
Republicans has become obsolete in the age of Trump. The question now is
what to replace it with.
To provoke interesting answers, I asked
people who wrote to me to imagine the Republican voter who is furthest
from themselves—be it ideologically, philosophically, or
attitudinally—and then to answer the question: What is the most
meaningful difference between you and that person?
The proposed
spectrums that emerged from their responses—some of which I’ve included
below—are not meant to be peer-reviewed by political scientists. But
they offer new, and potentially more useful, ways to map the emerging
fault lines that now divide the American right.
LIBERTARIAN ↔ AUTHORITARIAN: One
of the most common responses I received from Republicans argued that
the party could be divided between authoritarians (who tend to gravitate
toward Trump) and libertarians (who are generally repelled by his
strong-man instincts). In an email that was typical of several I
received, Aaron L. M. Goodwin, from California, wrote:
I grew up in a pretty conservative household. We were home-schooled
Mormons. We listened to conservative talk radio. I was the only 10 year
old I knew of who loved to watch C-Span. These days I feel completely
alienated from the GOP. But, I don't feel like I'm the one who sold out.
So where does that leave me?
I believe the conservative/liberal spectrum has been overtaken by one
for democratic/authoritarian ... Most of the Republicans I still feel
some kinship with are from a multitude of ideologies, but they share an
ideology based on classical liberal democracy. We all share a
deep-seeded suspicion of rule by power, and I believe, are closer to the
original intent of our founding documents.
GRIEVANCE-MOTIVATED ↔ PHILOSOPHICALLY MOTIVATED: Liz
Mair, a libertarian-leaning GOP strategist, wrote that she’s been
convinced after “300 gazillion conversations with all sorts of
conservatives”—including a range of lawmakers, writers, pundits,
candidates, and grassroots-level activists—that the biggest division
within the party is one that separates Fox News-a-holics driven by
tribal grievance from people who have some kind of philosophically
rooted belief system:
I honestly think the split in
conservatism comes more down to philosophy versus identity politics than
anything. Are you opposed to things on philosophical or tribal grounds?
Are you a believer of a member of our clan? (Said in the Scottish
sense) ...
I bet if you polled Trump primary
voters and asked them what was the bigger problem—insufficiently limited
government or transgender Muslim feminists being celebrated at the
Oscars, a big majority would say the latter.
ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT ↔ ESTABLISHMENT: The
outsider/insider trope is well-worn in contemporary conservative
politics—so much so that you could argue the terms have lost their
meaning. But based on the emails I received, many Republicans (on both
ends of the spectrum) still view the party through that lens. On one end
are people who respect existing political institutions, and believe in
conforming to their norms and using the system to advance their agenda.
On other end of this spectrum are people who believe the establishment
is hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual, and that it should be
circumvented whenever possible. The
flaw in this formulation, it seems to me, is that virtually every
Republican who has entered Congress over the past eight years started
out on the anti-establishment end of the spectrum, and then
slid—involuntarily, perhaps, but inevitably—toward the establishment
end. That’s because, as Stephen Spiker from Virginia emailed, once you
run for office and win, you necessarily become a part of the system, an
insider:
I see many colleagues in the party taken in by the "establishment vs
anti-establishment" spectrum. Essentially populism, as the
anti-establishment folks are "burn it down" because they don't feel
represented and want a fighter. That lead to Dave Brat winning in 2014,
and Trump winning in 2016.
Now that its Trump vs Brat, you're going to see the inherent decay in
this school of thought: the anti-establishment crowd turning on their
former heroes like Dave Brat (as they turned on Cantor previously). He's
in Congress, he's an insider, he's standing in the way, etc.
It will eventually turn on Trump as well, as he falls short on goal
after goal. When it happens (as in, before or after Trump is out of
office) is always dependent on having the right person run at the right
time on the right message, but it will happen.
Most notable about the anti-establishment position is that there's no
consistent end game or policy goal. It exists for the sake of itself.
That's what frustrates folks who actually have firm ideological stances.
ABSOLUTISTS ↔ DEALMAKERS: Many of the
most high-profile intra-party battles in recent years have been fought
not over ideas, but tactics and a willingness to compromise. While
Republicans in Washington were essentially unanimous in their opposition
to President Obama’s agenda, they differed—at least at first—over
whether they should cut deals at the legislative bargaining table, or,
say, shut the government down until they got exactly what they wanted.
The absolutists largely won out during the Obama presidency—but what
about now?
On one end of this spectrum are people like the Freedom
Caucus purists from whom it is all but impossible to extract
concessions; on the other are the dealmakers who will compromise
virtually anything to get some kind of legislation passed. Several Republicans who wrote to me were, I think, circling this idea, which my colleague Conor Friedersdorf recently articulated:
Do populist Republicans want a federal government where politicians
stand on principle and refuse to compromise? Or do they want a
pragmatist to make fabulous deals?
… Is a GOP House member more likely to be punished in a primary for
thwarting a Donald Trump deal … or compromising to make a deal happen?
Were I the political consultant for an ambitious primary candidate in a
safe Republican district, I can imagine a successful challenge
regardless of what course the incumbent chose, voters having been primed
to respond to either critique.
OPEN/TOLERANT ↔ NATIVIST/RACIST: This
is the probably the most provocative construct that was proposed, but it
was also a popular one. For many Trump-averse Republicans, one of the
biggest perceived differences between themselves and hardcore Trump fans
is attitudes toward racial minorities and foreign immigrants. The
alt-right dominates one end of the spectrum—and they place themselves on
the polar opposite end.
Granted, this spectrum was not proposed
to me by any Trump supporters, and no doubt many of them would strongly
disagree with this categorization. But there’s no question it’s one of
the defining debates inside the party right now. Evan McMullin, a
conservative who ran for president last year under the #NeverTrump
banner, was quoted saying that racism is the single biggest problem with the party today.
* * *
This
is, of course, by no means a comprehensive list of the divisions within
the GOP. For example, one of the most talked-about conflicts to emerge
in the past year has been between “nationalism” and “globalism.” But
despite efforts by Steve Bannon and other Trump advisers to frame the
ideological debate that way, very few GOP voters—at least none who wrote
to me—identify as “globalists.” Instead, these new spectrums represent a
few of the ways in which Republicans—eager to escape the disorder and
confusion of the Trump era—are categorizing themselves and each other.
If it turns out that Donald Trump’s campaign did, indeed, work with
the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in last fall’s presidential
election, a majority of the country – 53 percent – thinks the president
should resign.
According to the explosive new poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP),
which debuted Wednesday night on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, the
American people said – by a 14-point margin – that Trump should step
down if there was collusion.
Another result revealed on Maddow’s program found that a plurality of
the country believes Trump’s campaign did, in fact, work with Russia to
swing the 2016 election in his favor.
If you’re keeping score at home: The American people think both that
Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia and that the president should
resign as a result.
While there is endless political polling released on a weekly basis
asking about hypothetical scenarios, what should be terrifying to the
White House is that the explosive Russia scandal is just one more
investigation or one more small piece of evidence away from making the
questions posed in the PPP survey a reality.
At that point, the president will have to face a country that doesn’t
just believe he isn’t doing a good job, as polls repeatedly suggest,
but also that he should no longer have the job at all.