Perth Zoo is celebrating the birth of the first Binturong cubs in the Zoo’s 119-year history.
Two cubs, a male and a female, were born September 6 to mother, Selasa, and father, Rabu. The parents arrived at the Zoo from Singapore Zoological Gardens, in 2016, to establish a Perth Zoo Binturong family.
Perth Zoo Keeper, Marty Boland, said, “It’s very exciting to welcome two rare Binturong cubs, less than 12 months after their parent’s arrival in Australia.”
“Binturongs are capable of delaying their pregnancy after mating until they feel the environmental conditions are favourable. So, it’s great to see that Selasa is feeling secure and content here in WA!”
“She is a first time Mum, but has been lovingly tending to her offspring in the nest box and also allowing us to photograph the cubs’ progression. She’s even trusted us to handle her cubs to quickly weigh them.”
“They tip the scales just over one kilogram, a good weight for Binturong infants,” said Marty.
The new arrivals recently opened their eyes, and they are beginning to take in the world around them. Zoo Keepers expect they will start exploring their exhibit in coming weeks and become more visible to the public.
Marty continued, “Visitors who are unsure of where to catch a glimpse of the Binturong family may smell them first. They are famous for their strong odor, which is often likened to popcorn!”
The Binturong (Arctictis binturong), also known as a Bearcat, is a viverrid that is native to South and Southeast Asia.
Binturongs are omnivorous, feeding on small mammals, birds, fish, earthworms, insects and fruits.
The estrous period of the Binturong is 81 days, with a gestation of 91 days. The average age of sexual maturation is 30.4 months for females and 27.7 months for males. The Binturong is one of approximately 100 species of mammal believed by many experts to be capable of embryonic diapause, or delayed implantation, which allows the female of the species to time parturition to coincide with favorable environmental conditions. Typical litters consist of two offspring, but up to six may occur.
It is uncommon in much of its range, and has been assessed and classified as “Vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List due to a declining population trend that is estimated at more than 30% over the last three decades. The main threat to the species is severe destruction of habitats in their native parts of the world.
Those wanting to help save Binturong from extinction are encouraged to “adopt” one of Perth Zoo’s cubs. Zoo adoption packages ensure more funds are poured into giving wildlife a chance of survival. More information can be found at: www.perthzoo.com.au
Politico says that we should all enjoy November because December is going to be a living hell:
DECEMBER is going to be really, really, really brutal. Spending caps deal. Government funding. Potential legislation to deal with the expiration of DACA. Action to prop up the health care law. And now, we hear that THE DEBT CEILING could be part of the mix in the final month of the year, as well. Treasury says Congress has until January to lift the debt limit, but some say if Congress is going to slap together a big package, the debt limit might as well be included. No one really wants to raise the debt limit in an election year, anyway. But the negotiations have to be going really well for the debt limit to be included. It's not a must-pass at the end of the year, and it could just as easily slip to 2018. In other words, Republicans tell us they won't let the debt limit be a bargaining chip for Democrats who are trying to get a DACA deal.
WE ALSO HEAR Congress will pass a short-term government funding bill in time for the Dec. 8 deadline, kicking the deadline toward the end of the month in time for a large spending deal. OH YEAH -- THE WHITE HOUSE has made it clear they want tax reform done in December as well. Whoever wins the Alabama Senate race will join the chamber toward the end of December, too. THIS COULD EASILY BE the most consequential legislative month in years.
And that's just the legislative stuff. We've also got Roy Moore and whatever freakshow Donald Trump puts on on a daily basis.
Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, was aware of a “Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite” but failed to provide that information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the leaders of that committee said in a letter Thursday to Kushner’s lawyer. The reported overture is one of multiple revelations about Trump campaign contacts with Russia that Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disclosed in their letter accusing Kushner of improperly withholding information about the communications.
The letter marks the resumption of a joint Russia investigation led by Grassley and Feinstein. The two senators had stopped cooperating last month due to a disagreement about the scope of the probe.
The senators said they know Kushner withheld the information because people questioned separately by the committee disclosed emails detailing contacts with Russia on which Kushner was copied. “Other parties have produced documents concerning a ‘Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite’ that Kushner forwarded to others,” the senators wrote. Kushner is one of several Trump associates who reportedly had multiple contacts with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign and subsequent transition period. Those include a November 16, 2016, meeting in which Kushner reportedly requested Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s help in setting up back-channel communications between Trump and the Kremlin. Kushner claims that he was responding to Kislyak’s request to set up a secure line to convey sensitive information on Syria. It is not clear if that meeting represented the “overture and dinner invite” the senators cited or if the overture is a newly disclosed contact between the Trump camp and Russia
Grassley and Feinstein also said that their committee has obtained communications, on which Kushner was copied, with Sergey Millian, a Belarusian-American businessman with multiple ties to Trump and his campaign. Millian, the president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce in the United States and the owner of a translation service, once described himself as the Trump Organization’s “exclusive broker” helping Russians buying apartments in Trump buildings. Millian is also reportedly one of the key sources whose claims about Russian attempts to cultivate Trump were cited in the set of memos compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. The Washington Post has reported that Millian last year told associates he was in touch with George Papadopolous, the Trump campaign foreign policy adviser who has pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russians. Papadopolous and Millian were Facebook friends, the Post noted.
No civilization where this happens can be expected to survive. It's people are just too stupid:
A man accidentally shot himself and his wife at an East Tennessee church on Thursday while he was showing off his gun during a discussion on recent church shootings, police said.
Elder members of First United Methodist Church in Tellico Plains were cleaning up about 1 p.m. after enjoying a luncheon held to celebrate Thanksgiving. They began talking about guns in churches, according to Tellico Plains Police Chief Russ Parks.
A man in his 80s pulled out a .380 caliber Ruger handgun and said, "I carry my handgun everywhere," according to Parks.
He removed the magazine, cleared the chamber, and showed the gun to some of the men in the church. He put the magazine back in, apparently loaded a round in the chamber, and returned the gun to its holster, Parks said.
"Somebody else walked up and said, 'Can I see it?' " Parks said. "He pulled it back out and said, 'With this loaded indicator, I can tell that it’s not loaded.' "
He pulled the trigger.
"Evidently he just forgot that he re-chambered the weapon," Parks said.
The gun was lying on its side on a table. The bullet sliced the palm of the man's upward-facing hand, then entered the left side of his wife's abdomen and exited the right side, Parks said.
Both the husband and wife, who is also in her 80s, were flown to the University of Tennessee Medical Center with injuries that police said didn't appear to be life-threatening. Their names had not been released as of Thursday evening.
Charges will not be filed, Parks said.
It's hard to believe a bullet in the abdomen isn't life-threatening to a woman in her 80s but that's good news.
Meanwhile, it great that this man will be allowed to keep his guns. What could go wrong?
Sherrod Brown really upset Orrin Hatch last night when he correctly described the tax plan as a giveaway to the rich. Hatch, a millionaire, says that he comes from "the poor" and he resents the implication.
Late last night, just before the Finance Committee passed the Senate’s version of the tax bill slashing taxes on corporations and the rich, a remarkable moment unfolded that perfectly captured the GOP’s whole handling of the tax debate — in all its dishonesty, misdirection and bottomless bad faith.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) engaged in extended sparring with committee chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) over who would benefit from the Senate bill, with Brown insisting that it fundamentally represents a tax cut for the rich and not the middle class. This drew an enraged response from Hatch, even though Brown’s argument was 100 percent correct:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) had a tense exchange during a markup of the GOP tax bill on Nov. 16. (Senate Finance Committee)
Brown’s reference to an amendment offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) at the beginning of the exchange is crucial to what transpired. That amendment would undo the tax cuts on corporations if wages don’t grow. The Senate bill would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent — permanently — and one of President Trump’s and the GOP’s chief stated rationales is that the move will unleash massive wage growth. The amendment called the GOP’s bluff for messaging purposes.
And it worked. Indeed, Brown’s questioning of this Republican argument is exactly what ticked Hatch off. Brown claimed that “this tax cut really is not for the middle class, it’s for the rich,” and that the GOP argument about tax cuts on corporations leading to higher wages is just a “good selling point.” Brown pointed out: “Companies don’t just give away higher wages just because they have more money. Corporations are sitting on a lot of money now. They’re sitting on a lot of profits now. I don’t see wages going up. Just spare us the bank shots.”
All this made Hatch angry. “I come from the poor people,” Hatch said. “And I’ve been here working my whole stinkin’ career for people who don’t have a chance. And I really resent anybody saying that I’m just doing this for the rich. Give me a break. I think you guys overplay that all the time, and it gets old. And frankly, you ought to quit it.” When Brown pushed back by suggesting that previous tax cuts for the rich haven’t produced the results Republicans are once again predicting, Hatch silenced him.
Now, Hatch was probably angered by the questioning of his motive — the idea that Republicans are disingenuously packaging a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations as a tax cut for the middle class. But whatever is in Hatch’s heart, this is exactly what the Senate bill does. It front-loads the benefits for non-wealthy people by making its various tax preferences and its cuts to individual income tax rates temporary and subject to expiration while making the corporate rate cuts permanent. It also ties tax brackets to an alternative inflation measure in a way that will result in out-year tax increases for everyone but the top 1 percent. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded that in 2027, most poor and working-class people will see a tax hike, while upper-income earners (who benefit from corporate tax cuts) continue to pay less.
Hatch, as other Republicans, claims to have “no intention” of raising taxes on lower-income people, meaning Congress will renew their tax cuts later. The suggestion otherwise got Hatch angry. But there is zero guarantee that this will happen, and indeed, this claim actually ratifies the objections of Brown and Democrats. It reveals in a backdoor way that the whole reason for making all these provisions temporary is to pay for permanent tax cuts on corporations, which is necessary to comply with the procedural need to avoid raising the deficit later. Indeed, the bill’s repeal of the individual mandate is also designed to cut health spending on less-fortunate people precisely to fund those corporate tax cuts — which shows, as Brian Beutler points out, that this bill partly represents another version of the massively regressive Obamacare repeal efforts that have already been defeated, this one just in a new packaging of grift.
As it happens, there is good reason to doubt Hatch’s motives — or, at least, those of the GOP more broadly. Multiple Republicans have admitted on the record that if Republicans don’t pass these tax cuts, their donors will stop giving them money. If Republicans wanted to cut taxes for the middle class, they could cut taxes for the middle class and remain within deficit and procedural constraints by limiting the bill’s massive giveaway to their corporate donors, which would not necessitate hiking middle-class taxes later. Yet Republicans aren’t doing that. Hatch claimed that pointing this out “gets old.” But this week’s Quinnipiac poll finds that Americans say by 59 percent to 33 percent that the GOP plan favors the rich at the expense of the middle class, which means they are on to the GOP game.
Click over to read the rest. This bill is an atrocity. The donors want it and the people hate it.
It had been reported all week that President Trump wasn't going to comment personally on the underage dating and sexual assault scandal whirling around Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he knew it would raise the issue of his own sordid history. Trump refused to take questions about it from reporters and let his press secretary say only that the White House found the complaints "troubling" but planned to let the people of Alabama decide what to do about it.
But obviously he was watching Sean Hannity late at night, as he is wont to do, and his uncontrollable, juvenile compulsions finally won out. The need to insult Sen. Al Franken was too overwhelming and he had to take to Twitter to let it out:
The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....
Trump may not realize that the Alabama election isn't for another four weeks and he's likely to be grilled about his own "issues" every time he faces the press. And he has another little problem that he may not have counted on. The team at Breitbart News is not happy with the fact that the first daughter said that there was "a special place in hell" for people who do what Moore is accused of doing. This was Breitbart editor Alex Marlow on a talk radio program:
Caller: Well, when Donald was being accused of these things where there was definitely more proof and more opportunity, where was she then? But now she's all outraged by Roy Moore. I don't know why she just doesn't keep quiet.
Marlow: Right, especially when there's been so many allegations against President Trump, I don't know why the daughter of President Trump who has been accused by [attorney] Gloria Allred and some dozen, maybe two dozen, women over the years doing something inappropriate, and nothing's ever come of that. So why does Ivanka want to continue to pile on? I don't know. I think that she just loves getting her name out there in the headline and they can put more photos up. So that's her M.O.
Roy Moore is of course being backed by Breitbart's executive editor, the former Trump campaign manager and senior policy adviser Steve Bannon.
Has Bannon decided that MAGA belongs to him now? According to this fascinating piece in the New Yorker by Susan B. Glasser, Bannon's battle against the establishment is very personal and is not entirely motivated by his apocalyptic vision of impending chaos but something much more prosaic: a need to defeat the man who held his position in the previous Republican administration, Karl Rove.
I was unaware that Bannon was so competitive with Rove but according to Glasser's article there's so much bad blood there that Bannon decided to take on an incumbent Republican congressman in North Carolina solely because Rove knew the guy and gave a speech on his behalf. It's the only House race in which Bannon has endorsed a primary challenger.
Breitbart published a story in which it called the incumbent, Rep. Robert Pittenger, a tool of the “Karl Rove-backed elites” who had “sold out his district.” But Pittenger is actually a hardcore Trump supporter who's voted with the president 96 percent of the time. He told Glasser, “I’ve never met Steve Bannon, but it seems to be a game. There’s all kinds of games up there in Washington.” Pittenger and Rove both said that they'd known each other for a long time and that Rove was simply doing a solid for a friend.
One can understand why Bannon wouldn't like Rove, who has been very critical of both Bannon and Trump in his Wall Street Journal columns and told Glasser that they knew nothing about electoral strategy and had no idea how to win races around the country, much less upend the establishment, as Bannon has vowed to do. Rove is probably right about that. The Trump operation, both inside and outside the White House, is a mess.
Until 2016, Steve Bannon was running his upstart web site, and that no doubt burns Rove, a political junkie who has spent a lifetime studying political history and the minutiae of electoral strategy, and worked in the political trenches for decades before he made it to the White House. Of course, that's exactly what Bannon loathes about Rove, believing that he's a dinosaur with nothing to offer the revolutionary new politics he and Donald Trump have created.
It's interesting, however, how much the two men actually have in common. Both are autodidacts who think of themselves as strategic and tactical geniuses. Rove may seem like a staid elder statesman compared to Bannon, a self-styled "Leninist" and agent of chaos, but Rove was just as grandiose in his thinking when he came to Washington 17 years ago. He believes in realignment theory and thought that Bush's hanging-chad victory in the 2000 election was the beginning of a major shift, led by him, to GOP dominance for the foreseeable future.
Bannon believes in a bizarre prophecy of "four turnings," in which world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Under this nutbar theory, it's been 80 years since fall came, in the form of the Great Depression and World War II, and now winter is upon us.
Both of these guys have way too much faith in their own insights and abilities. This article by Joshua Green in the Atlantic about Rove at the end of Bush's second term should serve as a cautionary tale for Bannon. The arrogant, "go-it-alone" strategy in which the White House and its allies don't bother with politics and simply depend on dominance didn't work for Bush, who ended his disastrous reign having diminished the Republican Party to such a degree that it enabled the man whom he holds in total contempt to become its leader. All the mistakes that Trump and Bannon are making today were first made, if in less crude and obvious fashion, by the Bush administration.
Rove should be a bit more humble and Bannon should be a bit less smug. Neither one of them is nearly as smart as they think they are. And both of the men who employed them are even worse. Bush left the Middle East in ruins and presided over an epic financial crisis. Trump is busy finishing the job in the rest of the world and is turning the United States into a banana republic. Spare us any more of these "geniuses." They're killing us.
From Media Matters we find the editor of Breitbart slagging Ivanka for calling out Roy Moore --- because of her father:
ALEX MARLOW: Ivanka [Trump] made a very strange statement because she came out, with guns ablazing saying there's a special place in hell for child predators and that she believes the accusers. But she also -- she didn't say that Roy Moore needs to step aside. So, she didn't do that, because President Trump hasn't called for that. So, I'm guessing she's going to take some heat from the left also. So again, were we really dying for Ivanka's opinion on this? Can we not get Ivanka's opinion on some of these things? Can she just go work on her tax thing that she's working on and just leave us alone? But Mike, go ahead.
CALLER: Well, when Donald was being accused of these things where there was definitely more proof and more opportunity, where was she then? But now she's all outraged by Roy Moore. I don't know why she just doesn't keep quiet.
MARLOW: Right, especially when there's been so many allegations against President Trump, I don't know why the daughter of President Trump who has been accused by [attorney] Gloria Allred and some dozen, maybe two dozen, women over the years doing something inappropriate, and nothing's ever come of that. So why does Ivanka want to continue to pile on? I don't know. I think that she just loves getting her name out there in the headline and they can put more photos up. So that's her ammo.
"Testosterone poisoning" has been a joke for some time now. But it's no joke to women harmed by it. This summer, Roger Ailes got the boot at Fox News for a lengthy history of sexual harassment. Then the Harvey Weinstein story broke in October and #MeToo became a phenomenon. With stories of Roy Moore and teenage girls threatening his Senate bid and shaking up the GOP caucus in Washington, it seems we are on the cusp of a cultural shift a long time in coming. Women feel empowered, finally, to bring their stories out of the shadows in the way cell phone videos made visible police violence against black Americans. So many skeletons.
But the cultural moment has had that knife-edge quality that hinted it might tip from healthy reckoning to moral panic. Erin Gloria Ryan writes at Daily Beast that radio host Leeann Tweeden's story about Al Franken (and his public apology) feels like the first, while a second allegation agsinst Franken worries her for different reasons.
Former KSFO conservative talk host Melanie Morgan now alleges she was "stalked and harassed" by Franken who, she says, called her several times to continue a policy debate they'd begun on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect.”
Even giving Morgan the extremely generous benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to pretend what she alleges Franken did is the same thing as what Tweeden’s picture shows Franken actually doing. Nor is what Tweeden’s picture shows, horrible as it is, the same as what somebody like Roger Ailes or Bill Clinton did.
Which gets to a problem. Right now, the court of public opinion is faced with the awkward task of assigning degrees of severity to sexual misconduct, because, while they all cause harm, they don’t all cause the same amount of harm and thus don’t merit the same punishment. Furthermore, punishment varies by the power the offender wields. A senator, for example, should have a much higher moral threshold than, say, a comedian. Writing in The New Yorker this week, Masha Gessen treads lightly in making this point, warning that the #MeToo moment could devolve into “sex panic” if we’re not careful. “The distinctions between rape and coercion are meaningful, in the way it is meaningful to distinguish between, say, murder and battery,” Gessen writes.
It's just that Morgan's account "reeks of naked political opportunism, of weaponizing victimhood in a way that is so morally bankrupt that it threatens to derail the entire #MeToo conversation," Ryan writes. Brian Beutler, she adds, days ago expressed similar reservations about how the “believe Women” movement might get derailed by Breitbart, which has already dispatched journalist/hit men to Alabama to discredit Moore's accusers:
Unfolding against the backdrop of the post-Weinstein revolution, the Moore scandal exposes the conservative propaganda machine in the ugliest and most discrediting possible fashion. But these cultural changes are all but destined to collide with one another in the opposite direction, in a way that exploits both the beneficence of the “believe women” campaign, and the even-handedness of the mainstream media. It is a collision we as a political culture are not equipped to handle, the consequences of which are almost too awful to contemplate.
That's why this all seems so perilous. We are on the cusp of a cultural shift that revanchist forces would just as soon kill. Skeletons love their closets.
Fox News on Wednesday banned Kiss frontman Gene Simmons from its building and network for life for behaving like Gene Simmons, so there's that.
* * * * * * * *
Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.
The last two weeks have seen some significant movement in Democrats favor. First, there were the impressive results from last Tuesday's elections. This week, we’ve seen two polls — one by Quinnipiac and one by Marist — that show Democrats with a congressional ballot advantage of +13 to +15. Three other recent polls — ABC/Washington Post, Fox, and NBC/Wall Street Journal — show Democrats with an advantage of anywhere from +7 to +15.
But, is it realistic to think that Democrats could retain this kind of advantage into 2018? Moreover, given the Republican structural advantage — gerrymandered seats plus Democrats’ self-sorting into urban areas — is that kind of margin even big enough to net 24 seats?
My colleague David Wasserman has been digging into the question of just how big of a wave Democrats need to get in order to surf into the majority. The short answer: they need to see a generic ballot advantage of +8 or more, which roughly translates to getting at least 54 percent or more of the national House vote in 2018.
The last time Democrats enjoyed a margin of +8 or more in a mid-term year was 2006. That year, Democrats won the House vote by 8.5 percent. The last time that Democrats got into the double digits was 2008 when they carried the House vote by D+11. This has led to a lots of talk that Democrats can only hit significant margins of victory in presidential elections when their base is more engaged and involved. It also helped to have a transformational candidate - Barack Obama - at the top of the ticket. Something they obviously don't have in 2018. But, there is precedent for Democrats winning the House vote by double digits in mid-term years. In the post-Watergate midterm of 1974, Democrats won by a whopping 17 points. In Ronald Reagan’s first midterm of 1982, Democrats won the House vote by 12 points.
Democratic House Vote Margin in Midterm Elections
Of course our country is more polarized than it was in the 20th Century. And, redistricting/gerrymandering has gotten more sophisticated. As everyone knows by heart right now, just 23 Republicans sit in seats carried by Hillary Clinton.
I don't dismiss those realities. However, I am having a nagging sense of deja vu - a feeling like I've been here and heard these same arguments before. Way back in 2006, my boss Charlie Cook was warning that the year was shaping up to be a wave year. I argued that unlike the last wave election of 1994, the party holding the White House was much better prepared. Republicans in 2006 had significant financial advantages. They had structural advantages. And, Democrats couldn’t sneak up on Republicans as Republicans had to Democrats in 1994. Obviously, my theory was wrong and Charlie was right.
Lots has changed over the course of those years — the rise of SuperPACs, digital targeting, data analytics. But, there has been one important, overarching constant: a candidate can control for many things, but he/she can’t change the political mood. If it is with you, you get an extra advantage you may or may not deserve. When it is against you, even the best, most prepared candidates can lose. This was true in 1994. It was true in 2006. It was true in 2010.
Getting a tax bill across the finish line isn’t going to be enough to change the mood of the country. It is going to take something much more significant to do that. A good economy is helpful to the GOP as it can cut down on some of the headwinds coming at them right now. But, it’s not clear to me that it’s enough to fundamentally alter the way voters see Congress, the GOP and the President.
In 2016 we made the mistake of rationalizing away the prospect of a Trump victory. He was too unorthodox. He couldn't possibly sustain momentum through the grueling primary campaign. We should not make same mistake in 2018. Sure, a lot can change between now and next November. And, Democrats have a narrow path to 24 seats - even with a big wave or tailwind. But, do not ignore what’s right in front of us. A wave is building. If I were a Republican running for Congress, I’d be taking that more seriously than ever.
President Trump did not need to send a memo or telephone his attorney general to make his desires known. He broadcast them for all the world to see on Twitter. The instruction was clear: The Justice Department should investigate his defeated opponent from last year’s campaign.
However they were delivered, Mr. Trump’s demands have ricocheted through the halls of the Justice Department, where Attorney General Jeff Sessions has now ordered senior prosecutors to evaluate various accusations against Hillary Clinton and report back on whether a special counsel should be appointed.
Mr. Sessions has made no decision, and in soliciting the assessment of department lawyers, he may be seeking a way out of the bind his boss has put him in. At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, he pushed back against Republicans impatient for a special counsel. But if he or his deputy ultimately does authorize a new investigation of Mrs. Clinton, it would shatter post-Watergate norms intended to prevent presidents from using law enforcement agencies against political rivals.
The request alone was enough to incite a political backlash, as critics of Mr. Trump quickly denounced what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic nations where election losers are jailed by winners.
“You can be disappointed, but don’t be surprised,” said Karen Dunn, a former prosecutor and White House lawyer under President Barack Obama who advised Mrs. Clinton during her campaign. “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.”
Democrats vividly recall Mr. Trump on the campaign trail vowing to prosecute Mrs. Clinton if he won. “It was alarming enough to chant ‘lock her up’ at a campaign rally,” said Brian Fallon, who was Mrs. Clinton’s campaign spokesman. “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”
The hatred for her is irrational. But it exists. All those people in Kimmel's man on the street videoclearly don't follow politics closely. But they know they are supposed to hate "that woman."
Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls on Wednesday created a social media firestorm with a Facebook post threatening to bring disorderly conduct charges against the driver of a truck displaying a profane anti-Trump message on its rear window.
Nehls told the Houston Chronicle that he had received calls, texts and emails in recent days from people who took offense at the language in bold, white lettering: "F--- TRUMP AND F--- YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM."
The sheriff, a Republican who is weighing a bid for Congress shared a photo on his official Facebook page in hopes that it would help to identify the truck owner. The license plate is not visible in the image.
Update: The photo has now been taken down. The sheriff's office released this statement on Thursday afternoon:
"The Sheriff made the post on his Personal page. The objective of the post was to find the owner/driver of the truck and have a conversation with them in order to prevent a potential altercation between the truck driver and those offended by the message. Since the owner of the truck has been identified, the Sheriff took down the post. Due to the hate messages he has been receiving towards his wife and children, the Sheriff will not be commenting on the matter further."
Turns out, a woman who identified herself as the driver said she used to work for Nehls in the county jail.
Karen Fonseca said the truck belongs to her husband but that she often drives it. They had the sticker made and added it to the window after the billionaire real estate magnate and reality TV star was sworn into office.
The sticker has attracted attention many times before, Fonseca said. People shake their head. They take photos of it. Officers have pulled her over but failed to find a reason for writing a ticket.
Now the sheriff is taking it on, but Fonseca did not plan to contact him.
"It's not to cause hate or animosity," said Fonseca, 46. "It's just our freedom of speech and we're exercising it."
Concerned that the language could incite a confrontation on county roadways, Nehls said he wanted to have a conversation with the truck owner.
A woman biking by a presidential motorcade near a Trump golf course in Virginia was photographed recently with her middle finger raised; she was then fired from her job at a government contracting firm after identifying herself as the cyclist.
"I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 359," Nehls wrote in his original post. "If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you."
Nehls wrote on Facebook that a county prosecutor had agreed to accept disorderly conduct charges — an opinion that District Attorney John Healey disputes, as does the ACLU of Texas.
"Many families have called that have seen that truck on our county roadways and are very offended by the language on the truck," Nehls said. "I think they're walking a fine line."
Healey, a Republican not seeking re-election next year, said he wished the sheriff's office had contacted him earlier about the incendiary issue. He said he did not receive a call until around the same time the comments were posted. In disagreeing with his own prosecutor, Healey noted that his office lacked any information about how the public was reacting to the truck.
"I did not believe it was a prosecutable case based on the definition of disorderly conduct," Healey said.
So, Al Franken is accused of forcibly kissing a woman named Leeann Tweeden. There's a picture of him making a juvenile gesture of squeezing her breasts (it's unclear whether he actually touched her) while she slept on an airplane. It's damning and it's probably not the only thing that will come out about Franken. He was a comedian during the 70s and 80s and I can only imagine the gross behavior he probably participated in and I would be shocked if nothing more turns up. The stories from SNL during that period are legion although I have no knowledge of anything he did personally. I always thought that past would be a deal breaker for higher office.
Tweeden is a well known radio personality here in LA and has been a guest many times on Sean Hannity's show. She's a strong supporter of the military and has done tours and charities for the troops for many years. It would be easy to dismiss her because of her political affiliations but that picture tells the story and Franken admitted to doing it. It will, however, be intresting to see how Hannity handles the story since he's vociferously defended Roy Moore .... and Donald Trump who was accused by 20 women of doing what Franken is accused of doing. He's even on tape saying that he carries tic-tacs just in case he gets the opportunity to forcibly kiss a woman he likes the looks of.
I suspect Franken will end up resigning from the Senate. The Governor of Minnesota is a Democrat who will appoint his replacement and I would hope that whoever that person is will be thoroughly investigated for any such behavior before he decides who it should be.
More than 150,000 Russian-language Twitter accounts posted tens of thousands of messages in English urging Britain to leave the European Union in the days before last year’s referendum on the issue, a team of researchers disclosed on Wednesday.
More than 400 of the accounts that Twitter has already identified to congressional investigators as tools of the Kremlin, other researchers said, also posted divisive messages about Britain’s decision on withdrawing from the bloc, or Brexit, both before and after the vote.
Most of the messages sought to inflame fears about Muslims and immigrants to help drive the vote, suggesting parallels to the strategy that Russian propagandists employed in the United States in the 2016 election to try to intensify the polarization of the electorate.
The separate findings amount to the strongest evidence yet of a Russian attempt to use social media to manipulate British politics in the same way the Kremlin has done in the United States, France and elsewhere.
The disclosures came just two days after Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain delivered a speech accusing Russia of using cyberattacks and online propaganda to “undermine free societies” and “sow discord in the West.”
On Tuesday, the chief of the National Cyber Security Center released a summary of a prepared speech asserting that in the past 12 months, Russian hackers had unleashed cyberattacks on the British energy grid and the telecommunications and media industries.
Taken together, the flurry of reports and accusations adds to growing pressure on Twitter, Facebook and other social media companies to disclose more of their internal records about advertising payments and account registrations, information essential to illuminating the extent of Russian meddling in the referendum on Brexit.
Any evidence that Moscow did, however, may also complicate the already vexed politics surrounding the issue.
I guess this could all be made up just like the interference in the American election could all be made up. So could all the other evidence be made up. But it's not looking as though this is just a big, crazy conspiracy theory.
Now people will have to grapple with whether such propaganda is effective. I don't know that anyone will ever be able to conclusively prove it is. But I suspect that one should be a little bit suspicious that the Russian government seems to think it's worth expending so much effort.
It seems like a million years ago that the political world was convinced that the most formidable Republican in all the land was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. He was the ultimate mainstream Tea Party "reformer" of the Obama era, slashing taxes and regulations and defeating his state's Democratic machine up and down the ballot. He was what I called the Great White-Bread Hope, a nice young conservative Christian Midwestern governor with appeal across all factions of the Republican Party. For many months he led in the early polling, and political pundits considered him to be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016.
Walker first vaulted to political superstardom back in 2012, when he faced a recall election during his first two years as Governor and managed to survive. Why this was considered to be sign of his tactical genius was always a mystery, since facing a recall in the first place would normally suggest that an elected official has done something wrong. But that made Walker's name as a politician destined for greatness. As the New Republic swooned back in 2014:
Scott Walker, the battle-hardened governor of Wisconsin, is the candidate that the factional candidates should fear. Not only does he seem poised to run — he released a book last week — but he possesses the tools and positions necessary to unite the traditional Republican coalition and marginalize its discontents.
The bloom began to come off the rose just a little when Walker was hit with corruption scandals that dented his "reformer" image, including charges that he illegally colluded with some big-money national conservative groups, including the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity. Three of Walker's close aides were indicted for felony embezzlement, and charges were brought against a major campaign donor along with one of his appointees. It was a mess that had the Walker boosters at the Wall Street Journal editorial page screeching about suppression of free speech and warning him that he'd better not settle the case or he'd risk losing his luster as a right-wing hero. (He settled it and they forgave him.)
Walker was a gaffe machine, churning out memorable lines such as his response to a question about what he would do about ISIS: “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.” He once said that Ronald Reagan's greatest foreign policy achievement had been taking on the air traffic controller's union. Nonetheless, Walker was widely assumed to be the choice of the Koch brothers, the right-wing bogeymen of the Tea Party era. They had talked him up for years, and their PAC had backed him to the hilt in Wisconsin.
But Walker made an aggressive move in the spring of 2015 that apparently alienated the Kochs and many members of the Republican mainstream -- he consulted with then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and adopted an extremely hard line on immigration. At the time, it seemed to be an appalling lurch rightward into Ann Coulter territory, but it turned out Walker was actually prescient about where the 2016 race, and the Republican Party, were heading.
Walker abruptly dropped out of the race in September 2015, surprising everyone by being the first casualty of the primaries. Then he shocked the political world with the revelation that he'd burned through vast sums of money during his short run. According to The Washington Post:
[M]oney went toward a payroll of more than 80, generous paychecks for top staffers, dozens of consultants and vendors who were paid tens of thousands of dollars, and elaborately staged campaign events. For a candidate who bragged on the campaign trail about finding deals at Kohl's and packing sack lunches to save money, the reports show that the campaign spent lavishly even as fundraising dollars began to disappear.
Recall that Walker had risen to fame as a fiscal conservative who drastically cut services and government jobs as governor. After that spectacular crash and burn, national office did not seem to be in his future.
Well, it looks as though he may be planning a comeback. The Washington Post reported that Walker is running for a third term as Wisconsin governor, and he seems to be dazzling Beltway journalists, just like in the good old days. He may have spent like a Saudi prince during his presidential campaign but once again reporters are taken with his "regular Joe" ways, talking about how he doesn't have any money of his own and charmingly eats homemade ham and cheese sandwiches for lunch every day, which he charmingly tweets on his charmingly homespun Twitter feed.
Walker went back to Wisconsin after his fall from grace, where his approval rating was mired at 37 percent, and then traveled the state on a "listening tour." He's now in the mid-40s and believes he can win again, despite his unpopularity, because he "gets things done," unlike those losers in Washington. He's counting on his enthusiastic endorsement of Donald Trump and his close relationship with Vice President Mike Pence to put him over the top.
Well, so what is Walker's assessment of the president today?
His actions speak louder than words. A lot of people get hung up on his words or his tweets. If you look at the actions from where I sit in Wisconsin, this is a solid administration with a good Cabinet.
Walker hopes to put together the "Trump coalition" for the Wisconsin governor's race, which essentially means running up huge numbers in rural ares and suppressing the vote in the cities. He's raising tons of money already, with the Koch brothers back on the team. Walker is a Trump man through and through, which means he's happy to wallow in the swamp while pretending to be a populist. Republicans seem to like that.
But by affiliating himself so closely with President Trump in what has always been a purple state, which Trump won by the narrowest of margins, Walker is taking a huge risk. There are a number of Democrats already running, and the hope is that one of them will finally be able to take down Walker in the "big blue wave" that everyone prays will continue to swell into 2018. Clearly, Walker still has presidential hopes. and if Trump is not on the ballot in 2020 -- which remains a possibility -- it's unlikely that any Republican who backed him so fervently will be chosen to replace him.
Still, Walker has some things going for him. For obscure reasons, the media can't get enough of this guy and rich people just love to throw millions his way. He's still very young by political standards -- he will only be 59 years old in 2024. If the Democrats are smart and focused, they'll be sure to put a stake in his zombie career so they don't have to face him later when he's regained full strength.
In homage to the late Adam West, the supervillains in the next "caped crusader" installment will be just as dim as in Batman's 1960s incarnation. Note the counterfeit one-dollar bills.
Nicholas Kristof writes at the New York Times how tough life is these days for supervillains:
The investment income on, say, a $4 billion fortune is a mere $1 million a day, which makes it tough to scrounge by with today’s rising prices. Why, some wealthy folks don’t even have a home in the Caribbean and on vacation are stuck brooding in hotel suites: They’re practically homeless!
Needing an infusion of cash to keep their private planes aloft, our bilious billionaires have found willing henchmen in the U.S. Congress. (What's a good Batman villain without dimwitted henchmen?) The GOP-led Congress aims to give them windfall tax cuts to finance their next schemes. Not without harming the citizenry, of course, Kristof observes. They plan to gut Obamacare in the process:
Perhaps that sounds harsh. But the blunt reality is that we risk soul-sucking dependency if we’re always setting kids’ broken arms. Maybe that’s why congressional Republicans haven’t bothered to renew funding for CHIP, the child health insurance program serving almost nine million American kids. Ditto for the maternal and home visiting programs that are the gold standard for breaking cycles of poverty and that also haven’t been renewed. We mustn’t coddle American toddlers.
Special guest villains are phoning their congressional lackeys to warn them if they don't deliver they won't get a piece of the action, writes Jonathan Chait:
If tax reform fails, Senator Lindsey Graham recently warned, “the financial contributions will stop.” Representative Chris Collins reported, “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’ ”
Believe it or not, the administration's fellow billionaires are not buying the rationale behind the tax-cutting scheme. Oh, they'll take the money. Just don't ask them to swallow the same trickle-down nonsense the GOP has been peddling since the Reagan years. They may be greedy, but they're not stupid. They especially don't want to look Gary Cohn stupid.
Cohn, the president’s chief economic advisor, was out stumping for the "job-producing, wage-boosting dynamo" of a plan at the Wall Street Journal's annual CEO Council. Why, cutting taxes for big business will give tycoons more to invest in their businesses and extra pocket money for raising salaries for the little people. Having a roomful of tycoons handy, the Journal asked if the tax bill passes how many thought they would do just that:
People were asked to raise their hand.
When few hands were raised, Cohn, the White House Economic Council director, asked: "Why aren't the other hands up?"
Greedy, but not stupid.
* * * * * * * *
Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.
Trump's threat to lock up a political enemy puts him in the company of authoritarian leaders around the world. That picture above is Paul Manafort's old boss, former Ukrainian president Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych. The woman is former prime minisiter Yulia Tymoshenko, a heroine of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, who Yanukovych jailed after she was convicted in 2009 over a gas deal she struck with Russia that was seen as “criminally exceeding her powers.” She served three years of her seven-year sentence.
That is what they do in places like Ukraine. And soon, maybe here too.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, right, and his wife Louise Linton, left, react as Mnuchin holds up a sheet of new $1 bills, the first currency notes bearing his and U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza’s signatures, Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2017, at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington. The Mnuchin-Carranza notes, which are a new series of 2017, 50-subject $1 notes, will be sent to the Federal Reserve to issue into circulation. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) No word yet on who she's wearing this time but I'm sure someone will tell us soon. That get up is obviously very expensive.
Democrats added another win in the deep-red Oklahoma Legislature on Tuesday, continuing the minority party's string of success and chipping away at the Republican Party's hold on state government.
The previously GOP-held House seat and two Senate seats on the ballot were all in mostly Republican districts around Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
But Democrat Allison Ikley-Freeman, a therapist at a nonprofit mental health agency, eked out a win in Senate District 17 over Republican Brian O'Hara, a former Jenks city councilor and district director for U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine. The seat that represents parts of Sand Springs, Jenks and west Tulsa.
Oklahoma is among the most conservative states in the U.S. and there are nearly twice as many registered Republicans as Democrats in the areas where voters headed to the polls Tuesday. Oklahoma Democrats had already won three GOP-held seats in special elections this year and they nearly won a fourth in a heavily Republican district in Seminole County.
Democrats wrested control of New Mexico's largest city from the GOP on Tuesday as Democratic New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller easily won a race to become Albuquerque's next mayor.
According to unofficial results, Keller beat Republican Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis with 62 percent of the vote compared to 38 percent – results CBS Albuquerque affiliate KRQE called "a blowout" -- in a race that centered on the city's raising crime rates and its struggling economy.
The election came a week after Democrats won governorships and legislative seats in Virginia and New Jersey and took mayoral seats in places such as Helena, Montana.
Keller told a packed room at Albuquerque's historic Andaluz Hotel his victory was a rejection of fear and "language that divided us" - a veiled jab at President Trump.
Keep your fingers crossed that this energy stays high enough to take back at least one house of congress. It remains vitally important that the American people repudiate Trumpism or we are well and truly screwed.
Trey Gowdy says he doesn't think there should be a special counsel investigating Hillary Clinton:
“You can investigate something without special counsel,” Gowdy said on Fox News. “There is a threshold that has to be met, and I don’t think it has been met.”
During a House Judiciary hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Attorney General Jeff Sessions about what it would take to get a special counsel investigation into the so-called Trump dossier and various Clinton-related accusations.
Sessions on Tuesday pushed back, and told Jordan that there must be a “factual basis” to appoint a special counsel.
“‘Looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel,” Sessions said. “You can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard that requires a special counsel.”
Gowdy said he did not sign a letter Republican lawmakers sent Sessions asking for a special counsel’s appointment to investigate those matters.
“Jim Jordan is a great friend. I have tremendous respect for him. I didn’t sign the letter, because I don’t think the threshold has been met for an appointment of special counsel,” he said. “To say we’re not going to appoint special counsel is not to say we aren’t going to look into anything.
Of course they're going to "investigate."What they don't want is anyone "investigating" who might shut down the big show they need to put on to keep their bloodthirsty deplorables engaged.
Trump wants to "lock her up" and he's pressuring the DOJ to go after her. They don't need a special counsel to do that. His followers would love to see her dragged off in chains for whatever sick psycho-sexual reasons they have. But what they really want is a big show trial. Like this:
That is what Trump means when he says he would "love" to get involved in the Justice Department. It's what his pal Vlad has the freedom to do in his country. And, most importantly, it is what would make his followers swoon with delight. They are authoritarians and they want the state to punish people they do not like on their behalf.
I don't know if Gowdy is ready to go this far but he would clearly love to run Benghazi II, The Show Trial. It worked out well for them last time. They won the whole enchilada, after all.
That's Roy Moore's lawyer. The man who repeatedly called Don Lemon "Easy Peazy Lemon Squeezy" the other night. Who wrote this bizarre letter, described by Slate as "utterly incoherent, full of typos, and incomprehensibly written." and reminds us that Roy Moore is also the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
I wrote about the unhappy ICE officers who think that Trump has gone soft by failing to fire anyone who won't let them do anything they want:
It may seem to most of us that the Trump administration is even more authoritarian than we expected. The president has embraced strongmen all over the globe and recently admitted that he would "love" to order the Justice Department to prosecute his former political opponent. Trump has taken an extremely hard line on immigration, with travel bans and wall prototypes and daily reports of border patrol agents clamping down hard on people who follow the procedures they have followed for years and suddenly find they are being deported.
It's hard to imagine that any hardcore "law and order" person would be disappointed in Trump's performance so far. But apparently the fine public servants at Immigration and Customs Enforcement believe he has let them down, bigly.
Recall that when Trump took office, ICE officers and the Border Patrol were ecstatic. The new president went to the CPAC conference and declared, "As we speak today, immigration officers are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country. And we will not let them back in. They're not coming back in, folks. They do; they're going to have bigger problems than they ever dreamt of." The New York Times reported in a story headlined "Immigration Agents Discover New Freedom to Deport Under Trump" that immigration officers were finally able to have "fun" on the job since the president had "taken the shackles off":
[F]or those with ICE badges, perhaps the biggest change was the erasing of the Obama administration’s hierarchy of priorities, which forced agents to concentrate on deporting gang members and other violent and serious criminals, and mostly leave everyone else alone . . .
The article described agents as excited that they would be given the discretion and power to deport all undocumented workers. While there were some who anonymously dissented on practical and moral grounds, it was clear this was a federal police force that believed it had been given authority to fulfill its mission without any constraints from above. “The discretion has come back to us; it’s up to us to make decisions in the field,” a 15-year veteran in California said. “We’re trusted again.”
All of this happened under John Kelly's watch at Homeland Security, before he was moved up to the White House as chief of staff. He made it clear that he believed deporting undocumented workers in large numbers was "protecting" the nation. But word filtered out that veterans of the agency were not so happy with the cowboy attitude they were seeing. The New Yorker quoted one longtime agent saying, “I like predictability. I like being able to go into work and have faith in my senior managers and the Administration, and to know that, regardless of their political views, at the end of the day they’re going to do something that’s appropriate. I don’t feel that way anymore.”
Now the cowboys are upset too and they have created a website devoted to whining about how the agency has supposedly tied their hands and demanding that Trump remove Obama-era appointees they say are holding them back. The site is run by the National ICE Council, which represents some ICE officers and enthusiastically endorsed the president in 2016. It features hysterical stories from across the country with complaints that agents are having to follow rules which they believe hinder their ability to round up and deport immigrants.
According to the website, “ICE Officers grudgingly admit that the only President they ever endorsed hasn’t kept his word, and many officers now feel betrayed.” The leader of the Council, Chris Crain, wrote an open letter to the president, telling him that the members feel they've been "stabbed in the back."
It's four single-spaced pages of complaints (which is a mistake since we know that Trump does not read long reports) about various minutiae, including a long discussion about some ICE managers who "publicly shamed an ICE officer in the public parking lot of the sheriff's office where he worked." Crain requests that the president "issue a zero-tolerance policy that includes the immediate termination of any ICE supervisor who engages in a public shaming of ICE officers."
He complains about everything from vacation time to lack of tasers to one manager sending pictures of his genitals to a female employee. He claims to have spoken to Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller about all these issues, but now he expects the president to personally deal with them and requests to meet with him personally. It is quite a document.
Trump nominated the acting director of ICE, Tom Homan to be the permanent director. This is not going to go over well with Chris Crain, who repeatedly insults him in the open letter and whom the agents apparently hold responsible for giving Obama's "managers" authority that they apparently believe should belong to the field agents.
This website is bizarre, and the "open letter" to the president is downright nutty. But if it's true that the rank and file ICE officials are rebelling against their bosses, it's probably a good idea to take it seriously. Law enforcement agents always wield tremendous power and these deal with very vulnerable populations.
If there is a law enforcement agency that needs strong supervision, it's this one. The worried agent who spoke to The New Yorker pointed out, “We’re putting more people into that overburdened system just because we can. There’s just this school of thought that, well, we can do what we want.” Unfortunately, our president is the last person upon whom we can depend for sober, mature leadership in a situation like this. Let's hope no one ever prints out this letter or points him toward the website. He can only make things worse.
Let's recap. Ten months into our reality show administration, the chief executive is still campaigning against the woman he defeated a year ago. The Attorney General is a walking senior moment. Values voters want a gun-toting, law-defying, child-molester representing Alabama in the Senate. Sean Hannity's fans spent the weekend smashing their Keurig coffee machines. A thankful Hannity gave away 500 more.
The main argument for scrapping the insurance requirement as part of the tax bill is to solve a math problem. As currently written, the Senate bill costs the government too much money and couldn’t pass under the budget reconciliation rules Republicans are using to skirt a Democratic filibuster. While repealing the mandate technically reduces taxes on Americans who choose to pay a penalty rather than buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that zeroing out the penalty would actually boost federal revenues by $338 billion over a decade. That would help Republicans pay for their tax cuts—a point made by Trump in a tweet touting the move on Monday.
There are other objectionable items in the Republican plan, but with the public focused on whose pants Roy Moore had his hands in, there seems to be little opposition to stopping the bill headed for a Thursday vote in the House. Jim Newell at Slate writes:
Democrats and aligned grass-roots groups are trying everything to mobilize the same kind of opposition that repeatedly blocked Obamacare repeal earlier this year. But they’re not having much luck.
“If you look at the big picture, there’s not the same intensity in the response,” Angel Padilla, the policy director for the liberal grass-roots group Indivisible, told me.
“I think that’s pretty understandable,” he added. “[When] we’re talking about people’s health care, it was a visceral response” from people “who really felt like their health care was at risk.” Taxes, meanwhile, are confusing and complicated, with so many provisions flying around that many don’t know if they’ll come ahead winners or losers. He said that nevertheless, they have seen people activate once the contents of the bill really sink in with them, and that Indivisible groups held over 120 events in the previous week.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against the Obamacare repeal earlier in the year and feels killing the mandate "complicates" the tax effort. Sens. Murkowski (R-Alaska) and McCain (R-Ariz.) declined to comment on the change.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicts opposition will pick up once the public gets wind that health care is on the line in the tax bill. But, Newell writes, "relying on health care politics to kill a tax bill implicitly acknowledges the underlying problem: It’s hard to get the public riled up about tax reform on its own terms."
Indeed. Especially when women across the country are more emboldened to take on millennia of sexual predation by men, and prominent men are wondering which of them is next. Tax policy doesn't focus the mind the same way.
* * * * * * * *
Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.
Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the GOP’s most prominent megadonor, is publicly breaking with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon over his efforts to oust Republican incumbents in 2018.
“The Adelsons will not be supporting Steve Bannon’s efforts,” said Andy Abboud, an Adelson spokesman. “They are supporting Mitch McConnell 100 percent. For anyone to infer anything otherwise is wrong.”
The public pronouncement comes about a month after Adelson met with Bannon in Washington.
Bannon has been huddling with major Republican contributors across the country in hopes of building a war chest to take on party lawmakers. Bannon aides said they were not surprised by the news, given that Adelson has a long track record of generously backing establishment causes. They said they never expected Adelson’s financial support.
The former White House chief strategist appeared before the Zionist Organization of America's annual dinner on Sunday night. ZOA is heavily funded by Adelson.
This was always a heavy lift for Bannon what with him running the platform for the blatantly anti-Semitic "alt-right." Adelson doesn't seem like a good bet to join up with guys who do Hitler salutes and march with torches shouting "Jews will not replace us." It's kind of amazing that Bannon showed up at this event at all and the fact that they didn't kick him out is puzzling.
Today it's reported that Bannon and his boys are considering abandoning their Christian right mascot, Roy Moore due to all the negative publicity stemming from all that stalking and assaulting of women under age girls. That's not confirmed though. They might just stick with him. After all Bannon is the one who told Trump to hang in after he was caught on tape saying he grabbed women by the pussy and nearly a dozen came forward to say he'd done it to them. And he's the president today...