Finally Friday Reads: Deadly Dysfunction

Posted: December 5, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: #We are so Fucked, Breaking News, Corruption and Criminal Insanity, Foreign Affairs, GOP Crimes Against Humanity, ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE raids, New Orleans, Venezuela | Tags: , , , , , | 12 Comments

“I’m not sure, but that Cabinet Meeting may have been the most entertaining one yet. Two hours of trump fighting off sleep, like the toddler he obviously is, while his minions heaped praise upon his barely coherent body.” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

And, hello again from Occupied New Orleans. We’ve had cold rainy weather for quite some time. Perhaps it will wash aways some of the dirty ICE terrorizing the city. The stories get more horrific and we’re barely into the first week of it. The complete idiocy with which this administration operates is ruining the country and a lot of it brings unnecessary death. I only wish we had a Congress that would function the way it was designed and a much better press. Let’s dig in while my tea is still hot.

The latest maneuvering of RFK jr’s death panels is once more directed to childhood vacinations. Where are all these supposedly pro-life people when something other than a fertilized egg is involved. No one cares about actually breathing children? This is from the Washington Post. “CDC panel makes most sweeping revision to child vaccine schedule under RFK Jr.. The panel voted to eliminate a long-standing recommendation for every newborn to receive a hepatitis B shot, excluding those born to mothers testing negative.”

An influential vaccine advisory panel on Friday voted to lift a long-standing recommendation that all newborns receive a vaccine for hepatitis B, marking the most significant change to the childhood immunization schedule under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices approved the change despite fierce objections from medical groups who said the recommendation had proved a successful public health strategy, nearly eradicating the dangerous virus among U.S. children.

The committee voted 8-3 to eliminate a recommendation, dating to 1991, for every child to receive a first dose of a hepatitis B vaccine shortly after birth. The panel said the newborn shot is no longer necessary for babies born to mothers who test negative for the virus. They suggested parents of those children delay the first dose for at least two months and consult with their doctors about whether or when to begin administering the three-dose series.

Supporters of the change said the universal recommendation regardless of risk was overly broad and undermined informed choice. Retsef Levi, an ACIP panelist who voted to change the language, said he believes the intention is to push parents to consider whether they want to give another vaccine to their child.

“It’s actually suggesting a fundamental change in their approach to this vaccine and maybe more broadly,” said Levi, a professor of operations management at MIT.

The recommendation from the group of outside government advisers goes to the acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for final approval.

Medical experts have argued that it’s important to vaccinate all newborns for hepatitis B, even if their mothers test negative, because babies are at risk of infection if their mothers receive a false negative or become infected after testing. Some of the dissenting panel members pushed back on the change — one called the revised guidance on hepatitis B unconscionable, while another said the move was rooted in “baseless skepticism.”

“We will see hepatitis B infections come back,” said panelist Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth. “The vaccine is so effective, it does not make sense in my mind to change the immunization schedule.”

Select lawmakers were around yesterday for a hearing about the lastest, criminal act by our country against Venezuelan boats. The stories offered up by the Department of War were quite different than the story told by the film. This is from CNN. “Exclusive: Survivors clinging to capsized boat didn’t radio for backup, admiral overseeing double-tap strike tells lawmakers.”

The two men killed as they floated holding onto their capsized boat in a secondary strike against a suspected drug vessel in early September did not appear to have radio or other communications devices, the top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers on Thursday, according to three sources with direct knowledge of his congressional briefings.

As far back as September, defense officials have been quietly pushing back on criticism that killing the two survivors amounted to a war crime by arguing, in part, that they were legitimate targets because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup — reinforcements that, if they had received it, could have theoretically allowed them to continue to traffic the drugs aboard their sinking ship.

Defense officials made that claim in at least one briefing in September for congressional staff, according to a source familiar with the session, and several media outlets cited officials repeating that justification in the last week.

But Thursday, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley acknowledged that the two survivors of the military’s initial strike were in no position to make a distress call in his briefings to lawmakers. Bradley was in charge of Joint Special Operations Command at the time of the strike and was the top military officer directing the attack.

The initial hit on the vessel, believed to be carrying cocaine, killed nine people immediately and split the boat in half, capsizing it and sending a massive smoke plume into the sky, the sources who viewed the video as part of the briefings said. Part of the surveillance video was a zoomed-in, higher-definition view of the two survivors clinging to a still-floating, capsized portion, they said.

For a little under an hour — 41 minutes, according to a separate US official — Bradley and the rest of the US military command center discussed what to do as they watched the men struggle to overturn what was left of their boat, the sources said

During that time, Bradley also consulted with the uniformed lawyer on duty during the operation, he told lawmakers, according to two of the sources. The JAG officer, or judge advocate general officer, assessed it would be legal to move forward with a second strike, the sources added.

Ultimately, Bradley told lawmakers, he ordered a second strike to destroy the remains of the vessel, killing the two survivors, on the grounds that it appeared that part of the vessel remained afloat because it still held cocaine, according to one of the sources. The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs, the logic went.

Another boat was targeted by the Pentagon in the Pacific.  This is from The Guardian. “Pentagon announces it has killed four men in another boat strike in Pacific. Strike comes amid congressional turmoil over legality of US attacks on suspected drug smugglers.”

The Pentagon announced on Thursday that the US military had conducted another deadly strike on a boat suspected of carrying illegal narcotics, killing four men in the eastern Pacific, as questions mount over the legality of the attacks.

Video of the new strike was posted on social media by the US southern command, based in Florida, with a statement saying that, at the direction of Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, “Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel in international waters operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization”.

“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was carrying illicit narcotics and transiting along a known narco-trafficking route in the Eastern Pacific. Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed,” the statement added.

The footage showed a large explosion suddenly overtaking a small boat as it moved through the water, followed by an image of a vessel in flames and dark smoke streaming overhead.

It is the 22nd strike the US military has carried out against boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, bringing the death toll of the campaign to at least 87 people since September, when the strikes began.

U.S Foreign and Military policy has become so incoherent, illegal, dangerous, and likely leaked to our country’s traditional enemies, that our European partners no longer trust us. This link was shared to me by BB this morning and comes from The Economist. “Donald Trump’s bleak, incoherent foreign-policy strategy. Allies may panic; despots will cheer.”

YOU MIGHT think that in Trumpworld a new National Security Strategy (NSS) would not count for all that much. John Bolton, a national security adviser in Donald Trump’s first term, frequently laments that his boss had no strategy at all. Instead, the president worked by impulse—and without the encumbrance of too many briefings. From one day to the next, he veered in opposing directions.

Despite that, the new NSS matters. Released, weirdly, in the dead of night on December 4th/5th, it will be pored over by soldiers, diplomats and advisers in America and around the world. It is the latest and fullest statement of what “America First” means in foreign policy. It sets the terms for a soon-expected review of military power, and lays out the priorities for all those trying to interpret the president’s wishes. And, for many of its readers, it will be profoundly alarming.

For the most part, the new NSS rejects the decades-old insight that a common set of values are what cement America’s alliances. It declares that it is “not grounded in traditional, political ideology” but is motivated by “what works for America”. Instead, it embraces what it calls “flexible realism”. That means being “pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist’, realistic without being ‘realist’, principled without being ‘idealistic’, muscular without being ‘hawkish’, and restrained without being ‘dovish’.”

If that sounds like a dog’s breakfast, that is because it is. Shorn of the enlightened values that have long anchored foreign policy, America First becomes a naked assertion of power that owes more to the 19th century than the world that America built after the second world war. And that leads to a document riven by contradictions.

In some parts of the world, in particular in Asia, Mr Trump expects countries to behave as willing allies. In most others they are to submit meekly to America’s economic and military will. In one place the NSS rejects the interventionist idea of urging countries to adopt “democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories”. That suits Russia, China and the monarchies of the Middle East. Yet in Europe, where MAGA worries about wokeism, migration and the dominance of liberal values, the NSS bluntly declares that “our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory.”

When the NSS applies this formula to the world, region by region, the full consequences of this shift start to become clear.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the section covering the western hemisphere. “We want to ensure that the western hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States,” it reads. Governments in the Americas will be enlisted to control migration and curb drug flows. They are expected to grant America control of key assets, resources and strategic locations, or at least a veto over “hostile foreign” ownership of them—a clear warning to refuse Chinese investments that offer a sway over ports or such assets as the Panama Canal. Where law enforcement has failed to halt drug smuggling, America will use armed forces, the NSS warns.

This swaggering right of intervention is called a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. That is a deliberate tribute to the “Roosevelt Corollary”, President Theodore Roosevelt’s assertion of  gendarme-like enforcement rights over the western hemisphere in 1904.

All this seems sure to provoke angry recollections of high-handed American interventions in the region in the 20th century, from military invasions and blockades to CIA-backed coups or security pacts that saw America arming and training autocracies guilty of extra-judicial murders and torture in the cold war. With its talk of conditioning aid and trade on co-operation from Latin American governments, the NSS signals a belief that resentment will not stop Latin Americans from doing as they are told.

In Asia, by contrast, allies will read the NSS with a mixture of immediate relief and long-term gloom. The passages on Taiwan could have been worse. The nightmare scenario for such allies as Japan, the Philippines and South Korea would have involved an NSS declaring that the fate of the democratically ruled island of Taiwan is not an existential interest for America.

Instead, the NSS restates America’s position that it “does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait”. True, there is nothing about Taiwan’s importance as a friendly, pro-Western democracy whose people overwhelmingly oppose coming under rule by China. But the strategy does make a cold-eyed realist case for Taiwan’s importance as a usefully-located redoubt in the middle of the “First Island Chain” that runs from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines, penning in China’s navies and air forces. In addition, the NSS nods to Taiwan’s importance as the largest source of advanced semiconductors.

Accordingly, America will sustain forces capable of deterring any attempt to take Taiwan or to control the sea lanes near that island, or in the South China Sea. Asian allies must also spend much more on their own defences and grant America more access to their ports and bases. In short, the NSS demands that Asian countries risk China’s wrath by helping America contain Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. But there is not a word of criticism for China’s (or indeed Russia’s) expansionist ambitions or their desire to overthrow the post-1945 legal and multilateral order.

The NSS spares its sharpest barbs for Europe. The old world, it says, is undergoing a profound crisis, and this is not so much about economic decline or military weakness as it is about the loss of national identity, leading to the “stark prospect of civilisational erasure”.

Warning that “it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European,” the NSS warns that “it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.” In other words, immigrants will corrupt the values of the societies they move to—a shocking assertion from a country that is itself built on immigration.

The NSS’s prescriptions for Europe flow from this assertion of Judeo-Christian nationalism. The NSS calls for “unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history”, encouraging the revival promoted by “patriotic European parties”. That is a reference to the populist right, including National Rally in France, Reform UK in Britain and Alternative for Germany, which the vice-president, J.D. Vance, embraced earlier this year when he spoke at a conference in Munich. If that is the Trump administration’s programme, how are the centrist governments in Europe, who see these parties as a grave threat, supposed to treat America as an ally?

When the NSS applies this rationale to Ukraine, it draws some devastating conclusions. Suggesting that most Europeans want peace even if it means surrendering to Vladimir Putin, and asserting that their governments are standing in the way, the strategy calls for a rapid end to the war in order to prevent escalation. It says that America should curb the sense in Europe that Russia is a threat and warns that NATO cannot be “a perpetually expanding alliance”. Alarmingly, it has nothing to say about the repeated aggression and hostility of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. To much of Europe, this sort of appeasement will only serve to set up the next conflict.

“In everything we do, we are putting America First,” reads the letter from Mr Trump to the American people that opens the NSS. But it is the preceding sentence that will be read by allies with gloom, and with glee by China and Russia, for it is hopelessly at odds with reality: “America is strong and respected again—and because of that, we are making peace all over the world.” Alas, that claim comes from an administration that is indeed feared, resented and obsessed over, but one that is less respected or trusted than any American government in decades.

If that doesn’t give you geopolitical goosebumps, I don’t know what will.  Meanwhile, we’ve been experiencing press coverage that’s not providing us the information we need. This article is from The Nation. “A New Roosevelt Institute Report Confronts the Roots of Our Media Crisis—and Calls for Breaking Up Corporate Media.” Today’s journalism crisis wasn’t inevitable, but it’s time to free journalism from the straitjacket of turning a democratic obligation into a profit-maximizing business model.”  Concentration in this market is dumbing up America big time.  This story is reported by Bilal Baydoun, Shahrzad Shams, and Victor Pickard

The desire to attack and ultimately control the media is a through line of modern authoritarian governance across the globe. President Donald Trump’s reign as the defining political figure of the last decade has demonstrated how quickly that tactic can take hold here. In courtrooms, agencies, and White House briefings, Trump and his allies have sought to punish and delegitimize journalists. In the second Trump term, the bully pulpit has been turned into a battering ram, with open or implied threats to withhold the broadcast licenses or block the media mergers of insufficiently loyal companies. But a singular focus on state meddling has, ironically, obfuscated how authoritarians come to wield such great power over the media system in the first place, and why a free press must be protected from both state and commercial coercion.

What we’re experiencing now is a dangerous convergence of the two.

The truth is that the administration’s threats have rippled across a media ecosystem buckling under the weight of commercial pressures—pressures that existed long before that fateful golden escalator ride more than a decade ago. It’s these longstanding commercial imperatives that Trump knows how to weaponize to manipulate media institutions. He understands that newsrooms accountable first and foremost to investors will sell out their accountability function to survive. Likewise, media conglomerates pursuing mergers cannot afford to anger the administration holding the regulatory pen. When journalism is trapped inside a commercial straitjacket, it can’t fight back.

In our oligarchic age, where billionaires can decide which fledgling outlets live or die for pennies on the dollar and even themselves command powerful roles in government, the line between state-run media and state-aligned media through private means becomes vanishingly thin. A press dependent on the whims of the ultra-wealthy cannot claim meaningful independence from the political forces its owners serve. And even though our Constitution protects the press for democratic reasons, our policy regime assumes that news organizations should behave like profit-maximizing firms.

How did we get here? As we show in our new Roosevelt Institute report, today’s media crisis wasn’t inevitable, but the consequence of policymakers embracing a corporate libertarian approach to media policy. This framework treats our information ecosystem as an ordinary market, rather than vital democratic infrastructure, resulting in a media system riddled with structural deficits. The result is a media environment that’s vulnerable to pressure from every direction, from the White House to the C-Suite.

The consequences of this policy failure have been catastrophic. Newsrooms have been gutted as advertising revenue collapsed. Local papers have closed or been absorbed by vulture capitalists whose short-term incentives are fundamentally at odds with journalism’s public mission. More than 1,000 counties now lack the equivalent of a single full-time journalist; the number of journalists per 100,000 residents has fallen 75 percent since the early 2000s. Platforms dominate news distribution, leaving publishers dependent on algorithmic systems designed to maximize engagement rather than inform the public. A handful of billionaires can bend the flow of information with the proverbial push of a button, and conglomerates continue conglomerating: Just earlier today, after a major bidding war, Netflix beat out Paramount Skydance and Comcast in a deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, resulting in a merger that will further concentrate cultural and informational power in fewer hands.

Today, most Americans, and even many policymakers, take these developments and the system that led to them for granted. As the late media scholar Robert McChesney argued, media policy has been rendered invisible, designed behind closed doors in the public’s name, but without the public’s consent—placing core questions related to our information ecosystem outside the purview of democratic contestation. This invisibility has given cover to a set of neoliberal assumptions that define the boundaries of what’s possible, empowering a small set of wealthy private actors to decide, for the rest of us, what our media system looks like, and whose interests it serves.

Such invisibility obscures how our media system’s design—and the many problems ailing it—is the result of policy decisions. Over the course of decades, policymakers diluted the meaning of the media’s public interest responsibilities, refashioning them into something more akin to consumer preferences. At the same time, the media market faced a series of re-regulatory structural moves that shifted power away from the public and into the hands of corporate actors. And well before Trump dismantled the CPB, Congress resisted meaningful public media investment. All these developments were in turn legitimized by a First Amendment media jurisprudence that prioritizes unbridled commercial speech over the public’s “right to know.” Combined, these constraints created a media system that treats commercial imperatives as natural law, and democratic obligations as optional.

I’ve probably over shared most of the excerpts and it will take you some time to get through them all.  BB also wrote yesterday on the many ways our country is run by idiots with an angend American’s do not approve of and in a way that is beyond incompetent.  Any of us in cities Occupied by the National Guard and Ice have horrors stories that sound more like NAZI Germany than your backyard. They have no incentive stop and they’re even ignoring court orders.  This article is the view point of my home city by the BBC. “New Orleans residents in fear as immigration crackdown descends on their city.” The BBC’s North American Correspondent, Tom Bateman, is here and reports the story.

Two labourers stand on the roof of a house in Kenner, outside New Orleans, as US Border Patrol agents clamber up a ladder, getting closer.

As the agents move in, trying to arrest them, the men step to the roof’s edge, poised in an apparent act of resistance – but it’s too high to jump.

On the ground in the mostly Latino neighbourhood, an officer trains his weapon towards the rooftop while a sniper moves into position. Now, neighbours, activists, and crews of local press are gathering at the scene, watching in bewilderment: US President Trump’s new front line on immigration enforcement has just arrived.

It is day one of “Catahoula Crunch”, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has labelled its operation, taking its name from an American leopard dog known for being well-muscled, powerful and territorial.

“These people came to work today to provide for their families and themselves,” said Zoe Higgins, an activist documenting the Border Patrol operation in New Orleans.

“That they could just be abducted, removed from all stability – I can’t imagine how terrifying that is,” she said, shortly after the agents coaxed the men down and detained them.

According to DHS, its agents were conducting immigration enforcement this week when “several illegal aliens climbed on the roof of a residential home and refused to comply with agent commands”.

An “illegal alien” was arrested, DHS officials told the BBC, but they did not answer questions about the immigration status of the labourers involved, nor whether agents had a warrant to access the property.

None of this sounds lawful.  I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, but I do know that everyone deserves their day in court. Disappearing people is criminal.

So, I’m going off today to see my doctor for just a normal check up. But my body tells me every day that it’s not coping well with any of this. I usually can drop my blood pressure by meditating. My skills are no longer up to this fight or fly response I feel continually. I just put my birth certificate in my purse. I still doing my whistle brigade thing.  This country is not going doing on my watch. This city and every one in it is not going to be given the No Quarter treatment here; especially when they’re not really a threat to any of us in any way.

What’s on your Reading. Action and Blogging list today?

Mostly Monday Reads: The Final Meltdown

Posted: September 30, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: 2024 Elections, 2024 presidential Campaign | Tags: , , , , , | 3 Comments

“The empathy just oozes from this one. Hurricane Helene was apparently wet.” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Morning, Sky Dancers!

The signs of the results of lousy decision-making based on greed and mythology are everywhere. Hurricanes are no longer coastal phenomena but can make their way 300 miles inland and hold a Cat 2 status.  You would think enough people in this country have critical thinking skills and conscience to vote the pols out who are doing this to us. It would help, of course, if the press were still on the side of democracy instead of creating clickbait to earn a buck for stockholders and top management. But, here we are deeper down the rat hole of  “The Medium is the Message published in 1964.”  McLuhan understood clickbait before just about anyone.

The title “The Medium Is the Massage” is a teaser—a way of getting attention. There’s a wonderful sign hanging in a Toronto junkyard which reads, ‘Help Beautify Junkyards. Throw Something Lovely Away Today.’ This is a very effective way of getting people to notice a lot of things. And so the title is intended to draw attention to the fact that a medium is not something neutral—it does something to people. It takes hold of them. It rubs them off, it massages them and bumps them around, chiropractically, as it were, and the general roughing up that any new society gets from a medium, especially a new medium, is what is intended in that title”

This is more true than ever. We have more than a few TV channels, newspapers, and radio to influence us these days. Most people treat their news and information more like boutique shopping, where they can find the look that suits them every time. Substack is one medium where I have seen public intellectuals.  I feel comfortable reading a lot of people there, and I must admit that it’s because they are a lot like me. They write about things that bug them about the institutions and country that house them and likely educated them.   However, they do bring reasoned thought and data with them. But anyway, enough of that rabbit hole. Let’s just say I’m not beyond shopping my own boutique. Also, the positive thing about the web is that you have access to authentic information and don’t have to spend days in dark, moldy library stacks to find it. The negative thing is that not all people want to be challenged.  They want to feel good about what they already think is real.

Margaret Sullivan’s Substack–aptly called American Crisis–has this headline today. “The three phases of normalizing Trump’s attack on Harris in Wisconsin. The media did what it always does, and it’s not good enough.”  Trump is so far off the sanity scale these days that it is indeed frightening.

  1. The use of neutral language. If you merely read about Donald Trump’s deeply offensive rally this weekend in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, you probably thought it was about immigration. And about Trump up to his usual tricks of disparaging his rivals.

Here the lead of the report from Axios, for example:

“Former President Trump, in a self-described ‘dark speech,’ told a rally in Wisconsin yesterday that his opponent, Vice President Harris, is “mentally impaired’ and “mentally disabled.’”

Axios, which favors bullet points and boldface help for the tuned-out, let us know “Why It Matters”: “Even for Trump, it was weird, nasty and nonsensical — when he needed to be swaying ‘national security moms’ and other undecideds.”

Or here’s the top paragraph of the Washington Post report: “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump criticized Vice President Harris’s mental capacity Saturday, falsely claiming she was born ‘mentally impaired’ and comparing her actions to that of a ‘mentally disabled person.’ The remarks prompted criticism from advocates for people with disabilities.”

Here’s the Associated Press’s headline: “Trump lists his grievances in a Wisconsin speech intended to link Harris to illegal immigration.”

But if you watched the speech, or even snippets of it, you saw something quite different — an absolutely ugly and brutal attack on Kamala Harris, full of lies and racist misogyny. In case you missed it, watch a bit of it here.

Sullivan has written two more of them and a lot of examples to follow. Please go read it.

  1. The lack of substantial followup. Once the outrageous rally was over, and the stories with their neutral language written, the political media was ready — more than ready — to move on. The media does know how to follow up, as you may recall from, for instance, President Biden’s bad debate this summer. But in the case of Trump’s unhinged and ugly attack on Harris’s intelligence, the spot-news coverage was about it. I did not see countless outraged opinion pieces; I did not see days of stories examining every aspect of this. It was just, cover the speech and let’s get out of here.
  2. The pivot to safety. Like waves rushing to the shore, the media relentlessly returns to the familiar. The thinking seems to go something like this: Whew, that was a pretty crazy rally, but let’s leave that behind and get back to what we’re good at. When in doubt, cover the horserace. One thing I did see after Saturday’s rally were many, many, many stories about polls. A New York Times headline Sunday rendered it this way: “Harris and Trump are Neck and Neck in Michigan and Wisconsin, Polls Find.” And that’s about as horserace-oriented as it gets.

This New Yorker’s The Lede, published three days ago, has similar warnings. It’s written by Clare Malone.  “Is There a Method to Donald Trump’s Madness? The former President’s appeal has always been his sui-generis persona and politics—take him as he is—but, this year, the campaign seems more devoted to fan service than anything else.”  Why try to make sense out of acts stemming from severe Personality Disorders and likely advanced dementia? Are the lessons from Journalism school to just blandly report the unspeakable?  Was there ever a method in madness?

Vance is now a historically unpopular Vice-Presidential nominee. Mainstream Republican contenders, such as Senator Marco Rubio or Governor Doug Burgum, might have appealed to the sort of Nikki Haley voters that can’t stand Trump. Rubio, who is Cuban American, might have been a good pick to attract Latino voters, who, polls showed, were less interested in voting Democratic this year. Instead, Trump’s selection of Vance and all that he brings with him emphasized a doubling-down on MAGA culture. It could end up being politically ill-advised, but it’s not without its logic. Trump’s team knows that America is a hyperpartisan country. Polls show that just four per cent of voters are undecided in this election, the smallest share of the electorate in any U.S. contest this century. For the Trump campaign, the theory goes: Why expend all your energy trying to convince people to vote for one of the most unpopular Presidents in American history? Work to amp up your base and find Trump fans who don’t usually vote and make sure they turn out on November 5th.

The Trump campaign calls these voters “low-propensity,” and they’re working to turn them out in swing states like Arizona, where a canvassing effort is being run by the conservative group Turning Point USA. An Elon Musk-backed PAC is doing the same in Nevada and Michigan. Some Republicans have expressed reservations about the strategy, but it’s not a new idea in Trumpworld. In 2016, when I was a reporter at FiveThirtyEight, I obtained a Trump campaign memo written during that year’s primaries that explained the unusual practice of targeting low-propensity voters. “Our candidate commands unheard amounts of earned media,” the memo read, calling the strategy “more akin to evangelization than persuasion.” The job, then, was to teach Trump fans how to become Trump voters. “These are people who may not know where to vote, whether or not they are eligible to participate, and what the hours are,” the memo read. “They may have to work on the actual election day and are unaware of early voting opportunities on Saturdays. Many of them may have simply never been asked for their vote.” Turning Point’s focus this year—one of its employees told Semafor—is on small groups of thirty thousand to forty thousand potential voters in swing states, a testament to the slim margins of 2024.

Trump’s appeal has always been his sui-generis persona and politics—take him as he is—but, this year, the campaign seems more devoted to fan service than anything else. Steven Cheung, Trump’s top spokesman, recently retweeted a three-minute tongue-in-cheek hard-rock music video titled “MAGA ENERGY,” which nicely captured the movement’s aesthetics. It features lyrics like “Our world is frightening / Globals want to burn it down,” images of American flags and Trump’s face overlaid on that of a lion, and a montage of the jiggling, mostly bare bottoms of women shooting automatic weapons. Trump, a marketer to his core, has also built a promotional flywheel that he hopes his voters will get stuck in: If you like Trump’s crazy persona, you might go to your first Trump rally. If you go to enough rallies, you might like Trump’s digital trading cards—collect enough and you’ll get a physical piece of the suit that he wore to his debate with Biden (really!). If you like the trading cards, maybe you’ll buy Melania’s new book (she stands by her nude photos). Somewhere in there, Trump and company are hoping their low-propensity supporters register to vote and do so early.

The purpose of Trump’s campaign is to bolster his ego and keep him out of jail.  Then, he’ll likely be replaced either by death or the 25th Amendment, and Vance will put the entire 2025 plan into play. Because all the players will be set up in the Federal Government.  Additionally, all the work of Pat Robertson and others from the Reagan administration to enslave us to White Christian Nationalism will come to fruition.

Yesterday, I read this article from Mother Jones where one of the so-called Christians in that movement finally realizes that what he was doing wasn’t very ‘Christ-like,’ has repented, and is now trying to reverse the hell they bring to the political system. The title is “Confessions of a (Former) Christian Nationalist. When religion is placed at the service of a political party, it corrupts both.” and it’s written by The Reverend Rob Schenck. Anyone who read the history of the Roman Empire and its use of Christianity to conquer Northern Europe should know this by now.  The story on how they captured SCOTUS is even more interesting than the narrative on capturing members of Congress.

Federal judges and especially Supreme Court justices, unlike politicians, never need to shake hands across a rope line. Accessing their world required creativity. I found it through the little-known Supreme Court Historical Society. Founded by the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, the independent nonprofit holds an annual dinner hosted by the chief justice and attended by most associate justices. Tickets are strictly controlled. By establishing a close relationship with the society’s staff, I managed to secure seats each year for several of my donors, whom I would coach on how to connect with the justices attending the event. As a result, two of my most active participants, Don and Gayle Wright of Dayton, Ohio, ingratiated themselves with the Alitos, Scalias, and Thomases.

When I trained my donors to interact with conservative justices on the court, I told them to reinforce for their powerful new friends how important their decisions were to the country’s future, and how critical Judeo-Christian values are to America’s success. I encouraged them to underscore how millions of citizens thanked God for their presence on the top court.

In a notable instance, the Wrights were tipped off about a pending decision before it was announced to the public. As I later told the House Judiciary Committee, “Gayle relayed that she had learned the outcome of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case while at the meal with the Alitos, that it was in Hobby Lobby’s favor, and that ‘Sam is writing it.’” The ruling would affirm that companies with religious objections were not required to provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance packages. I also told the House committee that Gayle had shared the news with me and that I told the president of Hobby Lobby, Steve Green—his parents were donors to my organization—that they had won the case. The Green family found themselves in the enviable position of using the advance notice to prep their spokespeople so they could be ready at the microphone outside the court following Alito’s reading of the majority opinion. They could shape the public narrative, a distinct advantage over their opponents.

When word of our campaign eventually broke in the New York Times, Justice Alito responded, “I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so.” He added, “I have no knowledge of any project that they allegedly undertook for ‘Faith and Action.’” Gayle Wright denied obtaining or passing along any such information. Steve Green declined to comment to the Times, and his mother told the paper he hadn’t been notified in advance. Let’s just say this is not how I remember what had happened.

It took years for the scales to fall from my eyes. A major turning point occurred when I took a leave of absence from Faith and Action to pursue a late-in-life doctorate. Part of my research involved the German Christian movement of the 1930s, which supported the Nazi Party. One of the most respected Bible scholars of that period, Paul Althaus, declared Hitler’s ascent to the chancellorship to be a “gift and miracle from God.” I began to suspect that we evangelicals were similarly allowing our faith to be co-opted for political purposes. Devastating consequences seemed inevitable for evangelicalism and for our country.

These fears were reinforced when I attended a tribute banquet for Pat Robertson around 2010. Virtually every evangelical luminary was there. When Robertson introduced his guest of honor, Donald J. Trump, I was shocked. In Bible college, my preaching instructor had suggested that the New York playboy was a perfect illustration for what it meant to not live as a Christian. I asked a friend of Pat’s why Trump was there. They both were “members of the billionaires’ club,” he explained. “Besides, he may make a good president someday.” Trump worked the room, filled with the biggest names on the religious right, garnering hearty applause.

The article is long and can make you angry, but it gives you more insight into that influential movement.  Know Thy Enemy.

The New York Times finally read the writing on the wall today and endorsed Kamala Harris for President. I’m using the Politico analysis rather than trying to get into the NYT again, so you can notice the subheading, which says a lot about Politoco as a source. “NYT endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president. The editorial board has not backed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.”  The analysis also says something about the New York Times.

The New York Times editorial board on Monday endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president” while painting a grim picture of a second term for former President Donald Trump.

Rather than praise for its preferred candidate, the board led its endorsement of Harris by listing off disqualifying arguments against Trump. “It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States,” the Times editorial board wrote.

“This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election,” the board, made up of 14 opinion journalists, wrote. “For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.”

The endorsement of Harris is unsurprising — the editorial board has not backed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 — though still important given the paper’s influence. In July, 10 days before President Joe Biden left the race (and after the board called on him to do so), the board published a five-part, scathing editorial against Trump that struck many of the same chords as Monday’s story.

Okay, enough of that.  Trump has become utterly void of self-censoring, even when it’s something that would behoove him to hide. This is from MSNBC and Steven Benen. “On overtime pay, Trump slips up by accidentally telling the truth. Donald Trump admitted that he concocted a private-sector scheme to avoid paying his employees overtime compensation. So much for his “pro-worker” pitch.”

Five of the most interesting words in Donald Trump’s rhetorical repertoire are, “I shouldn’t say this, but…” While it’s obviously impossible to read the former president’s mind, whenever the Republican uses the phrase, it’s an apparent acknowledgement that he knows the rest of the sentence will be politically problematic, but he’s simply unable to help himself.

As his first year in the White House came to an end, for example, Trump declared, “I shouldn’t say this, but we essentially repealed Obamacare.” He was, of course, lying, but the comments served as a reminder of his anti-health care vision. About a year later, campaigning in Montana, the then-president publicly praised Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte for physically assaulting a journalist who asked a question the governor didn’t like.

“I shouldn’t say this [but] there’s nothing to be embarrassed about,” Trump said in reference to the violence.

Six years later, the Republican is still stumbling into inadvertent moments of candor. HuffPost reported:

Former president and current GOP nominee Donald Trump on Sunday admitted he ‘hated’ to pay his staff overtime and would instead replace them with other workers to avoid doing so. Trump’s confession came during a campaign rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, after promising to deliver ‘gigantic tax cuts’ via his pledge to end tax on tips, on overtime and on social security benefits for seniors.”

“I know a lot about overtime,” the Republican candidate boasted. “I hated to give overtime. I hated it. I’d get other people, I shouldn’t say this, but I’d get other people in. I wouldn’t pay.”

The public comments stood out for a few reasons.

Right off the bat, there are still some political observers who like to pretend that the former president is some kind of ally to working-class Americans. It’s against that backdrop that Trump thought it’d be a good idea to admit that he, as a boss, deliberately took steps to deny his own employees overtime compensation to which they were entitled.

Meanwhile, the DonOld Cult is up to more domestic terrorism. This is from Raw Story.  “Trump-supporting Ohio businessman gets MAGA death threats for defending Haitian workers.”  This analysis is by Brad Reed.

A Trump-supporting Ohio businessman is getting major blowback from fellow Trump supporters after he publicly defended the honor of the Haitian immigrants he has hired to work for him.

The New York Times reports that Jamie McGregor, a lifelong Republican who twice voted for former President Donald Trump and owner of the McGregor Metal manufacturing shop, has been hit with “death threats, a lockdown at his company and posters around town branding him a traitor” because he praised the Haitian immigrants who work at his company.

In fact, McGregor says the situation as gotten so scary that he’s arming both himself and his family members to defend against would-be MAGA assailants.

“I have struggled with the fact that now we’re going to have firearms in our house — like, what the hell?” he told the Times. “And now we’re taking classes, we’re going to shooting ranges, we’re being fitted for handguns.”

McGregor decided to hire newly arrived Haitian immigrants in recent years because he had trouble finding dependable workers, and he has praised them for having a strong work ethic that has benefitted his business.

McGregor’s home city of Springfield, Ohio has become the focus of MAGA anger in recent weeks after former President Donald Trump made false claims about Haitian immigrants there eating locals’ dogs and cats.

When confronted with evidence debunking this claim, Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), have doubled down on attacking the Haitian immigrant community.

It’s beginning to feel like Lord of the Flies in Trumplandia. I wonder if said businessman will vote for Trump again? Has that book been banned yet in Florida?

Oh, and now we get to speak of The Purge. They filmed the TV series at the Abandoned Navy Base down the block from me, which was weird enough. I didn’t see the movie or the series, but I know enough of the franchise to recognize it in Donald’s speech.  This is from Politico. “Trump says ‘violent day’ of policing will end crime. The remarks at a campaign rally Sunday did not amount to a policy proposal allowing police retaliation, the former president’s campaign said.”  Adam Wren reports the story.

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday called for “one real rough, nasty” and “violent day” of police retaliation in order to eradicate crime “immediately.”

The remarks — delivered by Trump at a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, just 36 days before the election — did not amount to a new policy proposal, according to a Trump campaign official.

Asked whether the former president’s idea amounted to a new proposal and how such an operation would work, a campaign official said Trump was “clearly just floating it in jest.”

“President Trump has always been the law and order President and he continues to reiterate the importance of enforcing existing laws,” Steven Cheung, the campaign’s communications director, wrote in a statement to POLITICO. “Otherwise it’s all-out anarchy, which is what Kamala Harris has created in some of these communities across America, especially during her time as [California] Attorney General when she emboldened criminals.

The best analysis of what’s ahead and what’s happened is by Marcy at EmptyWheel. “As Kamala Harris Passes the Two-Thirds Mark, Trump Adopts Apocalyptic Language.”

Back on August 17, I laid out six things that could destabilize the race. We’ve gotten versions of four of those, though without yet serious impact on the race.

  • There were no mass protests at the DNC. Neither, however, was there someone speaking for Palestinian people from the Convention podium.
  • With the assassination last week of Hassan Nasrallah and Israel’s expanding operations against Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen, we have seen unforeseen escalation in the Middle East. Joe Biden seems incapable of understanding that Bibi Netanyahu was never a good faith negotiator. On top of the instability this will bring (and the ongoing threat of Iranian violence targeted at Trump), I worry that Harris’ choice to prioritize Republican endorsements over Palestinian speakers could harm her in Michigan (as Elissa Slotkin issues warnings about Michigan).
  • We did get a superseding indictment in Trump’s January 6 case (though without any new charges), but Trump succeded in delaying sentencing in his NY case. We may find out this week whether we’re going to get to see a redacted version of Jack Smith’s argument that Trump is not immune; indeed, given how Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a deadline for noon tomorrow, we may even see the argument itself this week. If we do, Trump’s attacks on Mike Pence will be at the center of the argument. Remember: Trump’s increasing fascistic language over the weekend has come after he got a first look at Smith’s argument, and his lawyers seem terrified of some of the claims made by witnesses that could get unsealed.
  • Kamala Harris did have a historically successful debate, but it has done little more than bump polling, slightly. That said, her campaign continues to goad Trump to make him look weak, most recently in a national ad and plane advertisement at the Alabama-Georgia game yesterday. Whether or not Harris pushes him to accept a second debate, the continued goading seems to keep him unbalanced. In recent campaign appearances, Trump has denied he fell into her trap at the debate, directly addressed rally-goers who were leaving (denying they were leaving), and freaked out about a fly.
  • Whatever the cause, Trump is increasingly unhinged in public appearances, though much of the press continues to sanewash his coverage. More and more, his rants adopt fascist language, such as yesterday when he either endorsed The Purge or Kristallnacht. Donald Trump looks weak and Donald Trump looks violent, but that is not yet a persistent news coverage theme (indeed, in his polling update, Nate Silver claims there’s nothing “like Joe Biden’s deteriorating public performances” that might be affecting the race in ways polling is not accounting for). If the press does begin to capture Trump’s weakness and violence, it may impact the race — but I’m not holding my breath.
  • Trump’s right wing running mate has drummed up terrorist threats against his own constituents in Springfield, OH, and more recently drummed up threats against a beloved Pittsburgh restaurant (while trying to tamp them down). We have not yet gotten right wing violence, neither localized nor mass. But understand that the far right Christian nationalists that Trump has been cultivating, most notably with JD Vance’s appearance with Lance Wallnau, have been an absolutely central factor in past political violence, including January 6. When Donald Trump mobilizes Christian imagery, he does so not because he believes in any of it, but because he believes in power, and he knows he can get people who mistake him for the Messiah to go to war for him. (An Evangelicals for Harris group just rolled out an ad interspersing Billy Graham warnings of the anti-Christ with clips of Trump.) We have not yet seen political violence against marginalized groups, but Trump is doing everything that has fostered it in the past. Nevertheless, most horserace journalists are ignoring that, just like they and their colleagues dismissed the risk of political violence in advance of January 6.

In my earlier post, I said we should be unsurprised by a Black Swan event (I suggested all-out war was one possibility, and given the escalation in the Middle East, it remains one).

The floods caused by Helene could be another. Right wingers are already trying to ensure this works like Katrina did for George W Bush. And whatever else, the flooding disproportionately affected the rural areas that Trump needs to win North Carolina (though North Carolina voters can forego voter ID requirements under an emergency exception). That said, the Helene response may also highlight two things — FEMA and NOAA — that Project 2025 aims to defund. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee’s attempt to forgo federal help may provide a contrast that shows how Federal help can make a difference in a catastrophe. And a whole bunch of conservative people just got bowled over by the impact of climate change, hundreds of miles from the nearest coast. If the Feds can respond to the damage on I-40 like they did to the I-95 or the Francis Scott Key Bridge disaster, it may convince people in North Carolina that the government can too do something good.

As for the flood, Biden promises the Federal Government will stay until the work is done.  This is from USA. Today.”Biden on Helene disaster: ‘We’re not leaving until the job is done.'”  Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy reports the story.

President Joe Biden assured communities reeling from Hurricane Helene that the “nation has your back,” and that help was on the way in a speech Monday from the White House.

“We’ll continue to serve resources including food, water, communications, and lifesaving equipment will be there,” Biden said. “I mean it − as long as it takes to finish this job.”

He also said he’s committed to travel later this week to affected communities.

“I’ve been told that it would be disruptive if I did it right now,” he said.

Authorities are dealing with the storm’s aftermath, which saw caused widespread devastation and power outages across the Southeast and killed at least 100. Biden, who said he’s been in touch with governors, mayors and local leaders, said 600 people were still unaccounted for.

I remember Hurricane Katrina all too well and while I loved spending time with Anderson Cooper et al, I’d rather no one have to live through that again.  So, why don’t we keep going with renewable energy, develop a workable immigration plan, and continue to fund a government that works for the people? I’m tired of seeing billionaires and grifting politicians get the goodies.

Cheer up folks!  Coach Tim debates J Dank Vance tomorrow night!!

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Labor Day Reads: Game of Radical Flip-Flopping

Posted: September 2, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: 2024 presidential Campaign, abortion rights | Tags: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

“This is Based on a rough I drew months ago and was waiting to clean up and finish when Donold’s Truth Social Stock dipped below $20. Seems rather symbolic in many more ways today.” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good  Day, Sky Dancers!  Happy Labor Day!!!

Just when I thought all the Olympiad festivities were over, DonOld finds some new activities to entertain us.  Lisa Needham of Public Notice describes his performance thusly: “Trump’s weekend of radical flip-flopping.  It’s hard to say you’re against abortion bans when you’re literally voting for them.” His performance in pandering took on some new lows, too. My guess is there will be only the medals he produces and sells. No authentic ones.

Watching Donald Trump trying to have it both ways on abortion would be hilarious if the prospect of his election didn’t signal the end of democracy in America (and if the media wasn’t simultaneously trying to make a big fuss out of Kamala Harris moving to the center on some issues).

As it is, watching Trump change his mind three times in 24 hours about one of the central issues of the race is simply grim. But that’s exactly what played out last week, with Trump being unable to clearly state how he would vote on Florida’s Amendment 4, which would provide constitutional protections for abortions in the state.

Trump’s problem is the same as the one the GOP writ large faces: the party wildly miscalculated what would happen after they succeeded in their decades-long goal of reversing Roe v. Wade, destroying the constitutional right to abortion. Due to the echo chamber that is the hallmark of the modern right, they got high on their own supply and convinced themselves the nation wanted Roe gone as badly as they did.

That’s never been true. Abortion rights are resoundingly, durably popular. Pew Research has surveyed Americans on the issue since 1995, and support for abortion being legal in all or most cases has fallen below 50 percent just once, back in 2009. Pew’s most recent research shows that 63 percent of Americans — including 41 percent of Republicans — believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The Associated Press found that in June 2021, before Roe’s demise, roughly half of Americans thought abortion should be legal for any reason. That jumped to approximately 60 percent in the last two years.

Now, heading into the home stretch of the 2024 election, abortion is becoming the top issue for more voters, especially women. A New York Times poll conducted last month found that women under 45 report that abortion is now the most critical issue to them, eclipsing even the economy.

A functioning political party led by someone with actual policy goals might consider recalibrating their stance on this issue in order to find a more electable middle ground. Or, a functioning political party could simply dig in, fully embracing the anti-choice side and hoping that the party base would turn out in ample enough numbers. But this is the GOP, and Trump is Trump, so they’ve instead settled on a mishmash of lies and backtracking and are hoping that carries the day.

However, he’s doing so well in the Fascist Ass-Licking event to the point that even Team Republican officials are horrified.  (Not that they’ll do anything.) This is from Politico.”Former GOP officials sound the alarm over Trump’s Orbán embrace. Groups seeking the former president’s favor have highlighted pro-Russian Hungarian leaders and talking points.” Heidi Przybyla and Nicholas Vinocur share the lede.

The Conservative Partnership Institute, a nerve center for incubating policies for a second Trump administration, co-sponsored a discussion in October 2022 about how to bring “peace in Ukraine” featuring Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter Szijjarto.

Audience members included conservative policy and national security officials and GOP strategists, according to a person familiar with the meeting. Once seated, they were given pamphlets pushing unabashedly pro-Russia talking points.

“Russia has the will, strength, and patience to continue war,” warned the document, which was given to POLITICO by a participant. “U.S aid to Ukraine must be severely constricted and Ukrainian President Zelensky should be encouraged by U.S. leadership to seek armistice and concede Ukraine as a neutral country.”

We finally have a new view on what passes as “conservative” in this century.

CPI itself is a major arm of Trump’s MAGA movement raising significant sums of money. Its roster includes some of Trump’s most ardent loyalists, such as Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.The Heritage Foundation, whose president, Kevin Roberts, calls Orbán’s leadership a “model for conservative governance,” has openly lobbied for influence in a future Trump administration through its Project 2025 andplayed a lead role in lobbying Congress to end congressional funding to Ukraine.

“They [Orbán allies] say things people want to hear about issues they care about. It’s ‘woke this and woke that,’ and then they pressure them with what they really want,” which is to end the Ukraine war on Putin’s terms, said a person familiar with the meetings who still works in government and asked for anonymity to speak freely about the situation.

That person isamong many members of the more hawkish Republican foreign-policy establishment who said they were concerned about how Orbán is manipulating MAGA themes to achieve Orbán’s pro-Russian aims.

The pamphlet distributed at the “peace in Ukraine” conference illustrates how “corrupt authoritarians are accessing and abusing our system to undermine U.S. national security,” said Kristofer Harrison, who was a Defense and State Department adviser during the George W. Bush administration.

Ian Brzezinski, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO policy under Bush, said of the pamphlet: “It looks like it was written by the Kremlin.”

Never fear; DonOld is lapping up all the Hungarian attention he can get.

Orbán Political Director Balazs Orbán said in an emailed statement that he does not wish to participate in granting “legitimacy” to this story by answering questions about whether Hungarian think tanks are advancing the interests of Russia through collaborations with U.S. think tanks. But Orban the prime minister is publicly confident about his influence over Trump.

Late last month, Viktor Orbán claimed in a speech that Hungary has “deep involvement” in the “programme-writing system of President Donald Trump’s team.” He opened by warning that if Europe does not change its policy of “supporting the war” by financially backing Ukraine, then “after Trump’s victory it will have to do so while admitting defeat, covered in shame.”

Harrison, the former Bush administration adviser, suggested that the Hungarian government is leveraging its role as a global intermediary for practical reasons more than a commitment to global conservatism.

“Orbán carries water for Russia because they’re the highest bidder,” said Harrison. “Same with China,” he said, referring to billions that China is investing in Hungary.

These are just a few snippets, but the bottom line is pretty shocking.

Of any foreign leader, Trump is arguably closest to Orbán. He calls Orbán his “friend” and a “great man.” In accepting the GOP nomination in Milwaukee, Trump singled out Orbán as a “very tough man” and noted that Orbán credits him for keeping world peace because everybody “was afraid” of Trump.

The admiration is mutual. Hungary, which recently assumed the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, is using as its slogan “Make Europe Great Again.”

If you can get through the Rolling Stone Wall, there’s more on this, as reported by Peter Wade.  “Trump Praises Authoritarian Viktor Orbán and Even Republicans Are ConcernedThe Hungarian prime minister has visited Trump in Florida twice this year and boasted that he has influence over Trump’s policy proposals.”  It discusses the Trump interview with Fox News that aired Saturday night.

“Viktor Orbán… I mean he’s strong. They consider him strong. It’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Runs a strong country,” Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired Saturday night.

Given their shared ideology, including affinity for Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin and opposition to arming Ukraine, it’s no surprise that Trump is cozying up to Orbán, whose country currently occupies the rotating role of European Union president. As EU president, Orbán adapted Trump’s campaign phrase, promoting an agenda to “Make Europe Great Again.”

But as Politico reports, some Republicans are worried about Trump and Orbán’s deepening relationship. Orbán has visited Trump twice this year in Florida, and the prime minister has spent billions of dollars funding Hungarian conservative foundations and paying U.S. journalist “influencers,” hoping they will influence policy in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. In 2022, Hungary partnered with the Conservative Partnership Institute and distributed materials with clearly pro-Russian talking points.

“Russia has the will, strength, and patience to continue war,” a document obtained by a participant who shared it with Politico. “U.S aid to Ukraine must be severely constricted and Ukrainian President Zelensky should be encouraged by U.S. leadership to seek armistice and concede Ukraine as a neutral country.”

In July, Orbán bragged that he was involved in writing Trump’s policy proposals.

“They [Orbán allies] say things people want to hear about issues they care about. It’s ‘woke this and woke that,’ and then they pressure them with what they really want,” a source in government told Politico. And what they really want is the end the war in Ukraine with a victory for Putin. The source added that many in GOP foreign-policy circles are worried that Orbán is using the MAGA ethos to achieve pro-Russia goals.

Orbán has boasted about his influence on Trump, saying in a speech last month that Hungary has “deep involvement” in the “programme-writing system of President Donald Trump’s team.”

This is certainly enough to indicate that DonOld is not on Team America. We’ve always known he’s out for himself and cozies up to the guys who control their countries by undemocratic means.  He’s also doing well in the questionable event of Rally Holding in the Most SunDown Towns.   Newsweek National Correspondent Khaleda Rahman got this tip from TikTok.  “Former President Donald Trump is facing backlash for holding rallies in places described as “sundown towns.”

A TikTok user pointed out a “troubling pattern” in the locations of Trump’s recent rallies in a video that has gone viral on social media. It was also shared on X, formerly Twitter, where it amassed millions of views.

“Howell, Michigan; La Crosse, Wisconsin; Johnstown, Pennsylvania,” the man said in the video. “What do these places have in common? They’re all sundown towns.”

He added: “This is where Donald Trump is choosing to hold his rallies… You got a presidential candidate for the GOP doing a sundown town tour around the country, not looking for political gain. He’s f****** rallying the troops.”

The term “sundown towns” dates back to the segregation era, referring to communities with a wholly white population where Black people were considered unsafe after nightfall. Black people were prevented from living in those communities through discriminatory policies or intimidation and violence. Today, many of these communities with racist histories remain predominantly white.

The Trump campaign has been contacted for comment via email.

On social media, many shared their belief that the locations of Trump’s recent rallies could not be a coincidence.

Trump’s campaign “is intentionally visiting ‘sundown towns’ which violated federal law to be ‘whites only,'” journalist Jim Stewartson wrote on X.

“This isn’t a dogwhistle, it’s a KKK hood over every single person who supports Donald Trump or the GOP. ENOUGH.”

Marcy at emptywheel takes on the Washington Post for an editorial today.  It purports what they believe is a strategy for Harris to win the debate by covering her policies because Trump has none.  Marcy calls this “The Soft Bigotry of No Expectations on Trump.”

Trump has been running for 21 months; his campaign is more than 90% over. The Vice President has been running 43 days; her campaign still has almost 60% to go.

And yet they’re putting demands on the woman in the race, making no such demand on the white male former President.

The press has gone 21 months without throwing this kind of tantrum with Donald Trump. Given that, this column says more about the failures of journalists to hold Trump accountable than it does any shortcoming on Kamala’s part.

At some point, the traditional media needs to explain why it is so much more rabid about getting policy from Kamala than Trump.

Journalists need to come to grips, publicly, with why they apply this soft bigotry of no expectations to Donald Trump. Is it because they know he’ll deny them access if they make similar demands on him? Is it a (justifiable) fear he’ll sic a violent supporter on them, as he did the other night in Johnstown, with Trump observing, “beautiful, that’s beautiful, that’s alright, that’s okay, no, he’s on our side. We get a little itchy, David, don’t we? No, no, he’s on our side,” as the man was tased? Is it a resignation to the fact that Trump will just lie anyway?

Whatever the explanation for why the press applies so much lower expectations on the former President, who has been running for 21 months, than it does on Kamala Harris, just over a month into her campaign, the explanation is a far, far more important story to tell voters than precisely how the Vice President plans to restore the Child Tax Credit.

The only thing this comparison has done is make visible WaPo’s — and the press corp’s, generally — soft bigotry with Donald Trump, the double standard they are applying in their expectations for Kamala Harris as compared to none for Trump.

The lesson of this editorial, contrary to WaPo’s preferred punchline, is that the press is misdirecting where their attention should be focused.

We see this in all the legacy media. They no longer try to provide a public service but just find other ways of enriching and centralizing power to those who don’t need anymore. The people in power profit from clicks and reads and not by ensuring their reporters report in a way that shows people what’s happening.  And in that spirit, how about this headline from The Hill’s Miranda Nazzaro.  “Trump says he had ‘every right’ to interfere in election.”  Bad Old DonOld always blurts the quiet part out for everyone to hear but few to report on.  Notice that he’s describing what they’re trying to do in every swing state in the country.

Former President Trump in an interview broadcast late Sunday argued he had “every right” to interfere with the 2020 election while repeating his claim the criminal election interference cases against him are politically motivated.

“It’s so crazy, that my poll numbers go up. Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up. When people get indicted your pull numbers go down,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News’s “Life, Liberty and Levin.”

Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, was responding to a suggestion from host and lawyer Mark Levin that President Biden or Vice President Harris could have told the attorney general to “knock it off,” in reference to the federal election interference case.

The former president faces federal charges in Washington for his alleged actions to subvert the 2020 election results. He is separately charged in Georgia with racketeering and other state counts over an alleged scheme to overturn the state’s election results.

“Well, this is the worst case of election interference that anyone’s ever seen, certainly in our country,” Trump said during the Fox News interview. “They do this in Third World countries, they have some of it in South America, they don’t do it a lot, believe it or not. But they do it.”

“And it’s such a bad precedent because people are going to think about it differently, and they’re going to think about it differently. And it’s very sad, actually,” he added.

He went on to argue those prosecuting the cases against him are politically biased against him.

“They put people in the DA’s office,” Trump said. “This was all coming out of the Department of Justice in order to get their political opponent — me.”

You can read more of the insane things he said at the link.

I hope you’re having a good Labor Day Weekend.  We have Southern Decadence down here, so the Quarter is hopping with costumes and parades.  The Black Man of Labor Parade is also today.   It crosses the St. Claude Bridge over the Canal from the Lower 9th to the Upper 9th Ward.  That’s about 5 blocks up towards the Lake from my little kathouse and always a treat. I’m sure there are many Labor Day Parades near you and around the country as we celebrate the gains we have made and bring attention to the changes we need to ensure all working people get their share of the benefits of their hard work.  President Biden’s legacy and our next President Harris’s policy support the working class and an economy offering opportunities for all Americans.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?