#Robert B.Hubbell

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

Defying the odds, Trump steals spotlight from JD Vance (and not in a good way)

August 1, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump's interview at the National Association of Black Journalists convention was an unmitigated disaster of campaign-altering dimensions. The only person in the US happy with Trump's miserable performance was JD Vance—who will enjoy a few minutes out of the spotlight.

It is easy to mock Trump for his calamitous interview—and we should. Taking Trump down a few notches by making clear that he is a cringe-worthy, awkward, bloviating narcissist is a good development. But he is also filled with rage, prejudice, and hate, as his answers make clear. Both aspects of Trump's 32-minute interview deserve to be highlighted—because both demonstrate that he is unfit for office (or even for polite company).

Aaron Rupar has compiled a ten-minute “super-cut” of the interview that is worth watching in its entirety. See YouTube, Trump self-immolates at National Association Black Journalists convention: a supercut.

Rachel Scott of ABC began the interview by asking Trump a tough question about Trump's prior statements about minorities, which sent Trump into a black hole of rage. Scott asked,

You have pushed false claims about people like President Barack Obama, saying he was not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four congresswomen, women of color who were American citizens, to go back to where they came from. You have used words like ‘animal’ to describe Black district attorneys. You've attacked Black journalists, calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are quote, ‘stupid and racist.’ You've had dinner with a white supremacist at Mar-a-Lago. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?

Trump never recovered from that question, immediately pivoting to attacking Rachel Scott as “rude,” “nasty,” and “horrible,” saying that she worked for “fake news ABC.”

Among the many horrible things Trump said during the interview was to question Kamala Harris’s identification as a Black woman and an Indian woman. Mother Jones covered Trump's challenge to Kamala Harris’s identity with this headline: White Man Tells Black Journalists His Black Opponent Is Not Black. Trump said,

She was always of Indian heritage. She was only promoting Indian heritage, I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?

After offending Black Americans, Indian Americans, and all multi-racial Americans, Trump doubled-down on his insensitive comments by posting on Truth Social the following statement:

Crazy Kamala is saying she's Indian, not Black. This is a big deal. Stone cold phony. She uses everybody, including her racial identity!

Racial identity is a sensitive and personal issue. Trump not only failed to show any sensitivity or understanding, but he also tried to shame Kamala Harris for her identity as a daughter of a Black father and an Indian mother. Based on social media posts and statements by Trump surrogates, it is clear the campaign believes that focusing on Kamala Harris’s racial identity is a winning strategy. Only a white billionaire living in a bubble of sycophants would believe that strategy will increase his chances of election.

Trump also said he would pardon January 6 insurrectionists convicted of beating police officers and that he would give immunity to police officers charged with killing citizens.

None of the above captures Trump's boorish, insulting, aggressive behavior toward the three Black female journalists who attempted to interview him. You should watch the video to see that behavior. At one point, Trump reached over to take the bottle of water belonging to Rachel Scott, appearing to screw the lid tightly—apparently to make it difficult for Scott to open the bottle (?). Whatever the reason, it was a weird, aggressive way to act out Trump's anger toward Scott.

Most importantly, the event reminded us of the daily chaos and ugly confrontations that typified life during the Trump administration. The Harris campaign issued a statement that made that point:

Statement on Donald Trump Showing Exactly Who He Is at NABJ

The hostility Donald Trump showed on stage today is the same hostility he has shown throughout his life, throughout his term in office, and throughout his campaign for president as he seeks to regain power and inflict his harmful Project 2025 agenda on the American people. Trump lobbed personal attacks and insults at Black journalists the same way he did throughout his presidency-while he failed Black families and left the entire country digging out of the ditch he left us in. Donald Trump has already proven he cannot unite America, so he attempts to divide us. Today's tirade is simply a taste of the chaos and division that has been a hallmark of Trump's MAGA rallies this entire campaign. It's also exactly what the American people will see from across the debate stage as Vice President Harris offers a vision of opportunity and freedom for all Americans. All Donald Trump needs to do is stop playing games and actually show up to the debate on September 10.

Trump and Vance are both stumbling as Kamala Harris projects confidence and inspires enthusiasm. That does not guarantee that we will win, but it certainly places Democrats in a strong position for the last 97 days of the campaign.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Gigantic Jets over Himalayan Mountains: Yes, but can your thunderstorm do this? Pictured here are gigantic jets shooting up from a thunderstorm last week toward the Himalayan Mountains in China and Bhutan. The composite image captured four long jets that occurred only minutes apart. Gigantic jets, documented only in this century, are a type of lightning discharge that occurs between some thunderstorms and the Earth's ionosphere high above them. They are an unusual type of lightning that is much different from regular cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning. The bottoms of gigantic jets appear similar to a cloud-to-above strike called blue jets, while the tops appear similar to upper-atmosphere red sprites. Although the mechanism and trigger that cause gigantic jets remains a topic of research, it is clear that the jets reduce charge imbalance between different parts of Earth's atmosphere. A good way to look for gigantic jets is to watch a powerful but distant thunderstorm from a clear location. Image Credit & Copyright: Li Xuanhua 

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

* * * *

“Magic… in its perhaps most primordial sense, is the experience of existing in a world made up of multiple intelligences, the intuition that every form one perceives — from the swallow swooping overhead to the fly on a blade of grass, and indeed the blade of grass itself — is an experiencing form, an entity with its own predilections and sensations, albeit sensations that are very different from our own.”

David Abram

[alive on all channels]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

don't piss off cat people

* * * *

Biden-Harris promote Supreme Court reform!

July 30, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

At long last! President Biden announced proposals for significant reforms to the Supreme Court, and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris immediately endorsed those reforms! President Biden has also proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. US that granted extra-constitutional immunity to presidents after they leave office.

Although passing these reforms depends on the outcome of the 2024 election and the successful defense of the proposed laws in the courts, President Biden and V.P. Harris have changed the framework for discussing the Supreme Court. The question is now, “When?,” not “If?”

It has been a long and uncertain road to this point, but the Supreme Court’s stream of lawless decisions issued by a conflicted and hyper-partisan bench has proved too much for the American people. In proposing the reforms and constitutional amendment now, President Biden has ensured that the Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

President Biden authored an op-ed in the Washington Post that explains his proposals. See Opinion  Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law. (This article is accessible to all.) I hope you will take the time to read the entire op-ed.

President Biden places the ethics scandals at the Court front-and-center in his proposal:

[T] he court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. [¶] What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

President Biden has proposed three reforms:

1.    A constitutional amendment that would provide that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office 2.    A binding code of ethics 3.    Eighteen-year term limits (A president would appoint a new justice every two years, who would serve for 18 years).

Some commentators welcomed the proposals as a “practical way forward” that could garner support for passage after the 2024 election. See Politico, Democrats May Have a Real Chance to Reform the Supreme Court. President Biden’s proposal omitted enlarging the Court, a proposal that the Politico article described as an unpopular outlier not likely to gain legislative support.

Each proposal faces difficulties in gaining passage.

As to the constitutional amendment abolishing presidential immunity, Ian Millhiser in Vox reviewed the historical challenges faced by earlier proposed amendments, including the ERA and a proposal to ban child labor. (To date, neither has passed.) An amendment requires approval by a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states (38 states). That is a tall order, indeed. But it won’t happen if we don’t try. And Republican states may be more supportive of such an amendment if they perceive that a Democratic president—like Kamala Harris—is too powerful.

The binding ethics code is plainly constitutional because the Constitution grants Congress the authority to create “exceptions” and impose “regulations” on the Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction. But the plain words of the Constitution haven’t prevented Justice Alito from taking the position that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from imposing regulations on the Court. Alito should lose, but it will be a fight.

As to the term limits, there will be a fight over whether the Constitution’s grant of life tenure to judges—subject to good behavior—permits term limits. Some constitutional scholars (including Professor Laurence Tribe) believe that term limits are permissible in the absence of a constitutional amendment, while others disagree. The Supreme Court would likely decide this issue.

One reform not suggested by President Biden is enlarging the Court. That path would not be subject to constitutional challenge and would require only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress (and a carve-out to the filibuster, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate). But for reasons that escape me, many politicians and observers view the least legally objectionable pathway as the most radical. Nonetheless, Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has proposed legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court to thirteen justices. See  Democracy Docket, ‘We Must Expand the Court:’ Sen. Markey, Advocates Call for Adding 4 SCOTUS Seats.

Oddly, in an interview with Laura Ingraham on Monday, Trump criticized President Biden’s proposal, claiming that Biden “wants to pack the Court.” Laura Ingraham responded, “That’s not in Biden’s proposal.”

Regardless of the way forward, reforming the Supreme Court is now on the table with the support of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and leading Democrats in Congress. It will happen—if only because the current reactionary majority will continue to curtail the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is only a matter of time—and it is up to us. We must all vote as if Supreme Court reform is on the ballot in 2024—because it is!

Kamala Harris continues to challenge Trump / Vance directly and vigorously

On Monday, an Iowa six-week abortion ban went into effect. At a campaign rally, V.P. Kamala Harris repeatedly referred to legislation restricting reproductive liberty in the states as “Trump abortion bans.” See WSJ, Harris Puts Abortion, a Weakness for Trump, at Center of Campaign. As noted in the WSJ article, President Biden was reluctant to say the word “abortion,” while Kamala Harris is a “fighter” on the issue who is willing to urge voters to “stop Donald Trump’s extreme abortion bans.”

V.P. Harris also posted a video on YouTube condemning the Iowa abortion ban and promising to sign legislation to protect the right to abortion nationally. See YouTube, Vice President Harris on Trump's Abortion Ban in Iowa | Harris 2024.

Some (most?) women sensed President Biden’s discomfort on the issue and are responding positively to Kamala Harris’s strong support for access to abortions and reproductive healthcare for all women in the US. Harris’s approach resonates with many women in America who felt that President Biden was a reluctant advocate for abortion rights, even though President Biden and Kamala Harris support the same policies.

The Harris Campaign continues to go after Trump and Vance with lightning speed and full force. Within hours of JD Vance removing his absolutist abortion stance from his website, the Harris HQ Twitter feed posted Vance’s now-deleted position with the comment, “Weird that Vance just deleted this from his website.”

The Harris campaign also posted a quick reply to Trump's claim on Monday that the Biden-Harris record on crime was “terrible.” The Harris campaign posted the following:

Our opponent Donald Trump is a criminal.

• Migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under the Biden-Harris administration. • As president, Donald Trump oversaw the largest single-year spike in the murder rate in more than a century. • As president, Trump proposed a $400 million cut to local law enforcement funding. • Trump has demanded the defunding of federal law enforcement, while proposing using the FBI and Justice Department to go after his political enemies. • JD Vance said, "I hate the police."

The Harris Campaign is also amplifying a clip from Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham that included this exchange:

Ingraham: Why not debate Kamala Harris? Trump: Because everyone already knows everything Ingraham: They’re saying you’re afraid of debating her Trump: I’m leading in the polls

Can you smell the fear? It is not true that Trump is leading in the polls. The race has tightened considerably, with Kamala Harris making up persistent deficits posted by President Biden. The race remains close, within the margin of error in many polls, but the trends all favor Kamala Harris. She has the momentum, and Trump and Vance are on the defensive.

So, if you are feeling good about Kamala Harris’s candidacy, you should be. After a whole week as the presumptive nominee, she continues to have the Trump campaign on its back foot. And the first three days of this week will feature massive online fundraisers and strategy meetings with hundreds of thousands of volunteers!

I invite readers who attend(ed) any of the online meetings to post your observations in the Comment section.

While we have reason to be hopeful, we have no reason to be complacent. We must beat Trump by a wide margin to remove all doubt and opportunity for election interference by Trump or the Supreme Court. (See Concluding Thoughts.)

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Why I remain hopeful about 2024

July 11, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

I remain hopeful about Democratic prospects up and down the ballot in 2024—including retaining the presidency under Joe Biden. I explain my reasons, below.

One of the unexpected blessings of writing this daily newsletter is the opportunity to meet with grassroots groups and Democratic candidates running for office. The meetings are almost always Zoom presentations designed to explain and promote the work of grassroots groups and raise money for candidates. On Wednesday, I hosted a fundraiser for Kari Lerner, who is challenging MAGA extremist Byron Donalds in Florida’s 19th congressional district and co-hosted a fundraiser for Blue CD2 New Mexico, a PAC devoted to re-electing Rep. Gabe Vasquez in New Mexico’s 2nd congressional district.

Like you, I have been weighed down by the relentless media attacks on Joe Biden and the “next-shoe-to-drop” statements by an increasingly long line of Democratic officials, pundits, and celebrities. It has been unsettling and dispiriting, even for me.

But after the two meetings today, I felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I was reminded once again of the Democratic Party's secret weapon: the millions of grassroots volunteers who began as members of “the resistance” in 2017 and have matured into a seasoned, professional, battle-tested citizen army ready to defend democracy.

I meet with grassroots groups a few times a week. There are usually a hundred or so volunteers on each call. Multiply those meetings and attendees by thousands of similar groups, and you will be looking at hundreds of thousands (or millions) of motivated volunteers. None of those volunteers were politically engaged before the 2016 election.

The sophistication and planning of the grassroots groups are impressive. They are data-focused, message-centric, and mission-driven. The grassroots groups are why political pollsters repeatedly missed predictions in the 2022 midterms and special elections in 2023 and 2024. As pollsters and pundits scratched their heads trying to figure out why they were wrong, the answer was staring them in the face: The under-appreciated, under-reported, and frequently disrespected grassroots movement.

Professional consultants and advisors often resent and fear grassroots groups because the groups do for free what the consultants and advisors get paid a fortune to do (often not as well as the grassroots groups).

There is nothing like viewing screenfuls of faces of dedicated volunteers who haven’t given up and aren’t buying the B.S. the media is selling. While I am frequently asked to provide inspirational and motivating remarks to the groups, I take inspiration and motivation from them every time I meet with a group.

What is so gratifying and confidence-inspiring is that the volunteers remain focused on the grinding work of neighborhood-level get-out-the-vote efforts despite the firestorm in the media over Joe Biden. Such efforts are the secret sauce and secret weapon of the unexpected Democratic success since 2022.

There is one more aspect to the grassroots movement that must be acknowledged. It is the 90% Rule. Like other constants in nature—the speed of light (c) and the gravitational constant (g)—the 90% Rule applies across all grassroots organizations. The 90% Rule describes the fact that on every call, in every meeting, in every action, women constitute 90% of the grassroots volunteer movement.

Women have been the backbone of “the resistance” and the pro-democracy movement since the Women’s March unleashed their collective power in 2017. And Black women have been at the center of the women’s resistance movement.

The overwhelming presence of women in the grassroots movement gives me great hope. It gives me hope because they understand and live the pain of being demoted to second-class citizens by the Dobbs decision. They are denied basic healthcare because gynecologists and obstetricians are fleeing hostile jurisdictions or refusing to practice their specialty for fear of prosecution or civil penalties. They feel most acutely the pain and trauma of LGBTQ children struggling to navigate an increasingly anti-LGBTQ world. They are the caregivers for elderly parents reliant on Medicare and Social Security to maintain their health and dignity in retirement.

If grassroots groups are the secret weapon of democracy, women are the not-so-secret weapon of grassroots groups. They feel the suffering and pain of our nation in a way that others do not. An attendee at the Blue CD2 New Mexico meeting today posted this saying by Coretta Scott King:

Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul.

Women in the grassroots movement have become the soul of the nation. While I hope and believe that Democrats will show up in overwhelming numbers in November, women will be motivated more than any other group to protect their liberty, their children, and their parents.

The volunteers on the two calls I attended today aren’t giving up. They continue in their effort to win the 2024 election one voter at a time. They are anxious and worried like the rest of us, but they act while many in the political world dither.

Action is the antidote to anxiety. And action in community is a sacred act that is uplifting and affirming. If you are not a member of a grassroots group, join one ASAP! You will feel more optimistic, and you will increase the chances of Democratic success up and down the ballot in November.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

New York Times publishes op-ed claiming that Donald Trump's popularity is due to fact that he is a moderate.

What happened. On Monday, the NYTimes published a guest editorial by Matthew Schmitz entitled, “The Secret of Trump’s Appeal Isn’t Authoritarianism.” (The article is behind a paywall and I am not wasting one of my gift subscriptions to make it available.)

Mr. Schmitz's thesis is “Mr. Trump enjoys enduring support because he is perceived by many voters — often with good reason — as a pragmatic if unpredictable kind of moderate.”

Schmitz then attempts to normalize Trump's hate speech, racism, calls for violence, and erratic behavior as something we should expect from a lovable old uncle who doesn’t know when to stop saying stupid things.

Why it matters.  Democrats rightfully feel that the media is sleepwalking into a fascist regime by normalizing Trump with false equivalencies, reckless “both siderisms,” and inane “whataboutisms.” They do so in the pursuit of alleged “fairness” that obscures and denies the truth. While the media rises to the challenge on occasion, they relinquish any progress—and credibility—they achieve by pandering to the likes of Matthew Schmitz.

As I was preparing to explain why the NYTimes is acting recklessly by publishing Schmitz’s laundering of Trump's Nazi rhetoric, a reader sent me a piece by Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark that does a better job than I ever could. See Jonathan V. Last, The Bulwark, The New York Times Is Part of the Effing Problem.

I urge you to read Last’s essay, start to finish. But if you don’t, the following gives the gist of his criticism of the Times:

The piece is filled with both euphemism and the passive voice, all in an attempt to obscure reality from readers and present a sympathetic case for Trump.

Look at this passage:

“To be sure, Mr. Trump’s wild rhetoric, indifference to protocol, and willingness to challenge expertise have been profoundly unsettling to people of both political parties. His term in office was frequently chaotic, and the chaos seemed to culminate in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021.”

This might be the most misleading passage ever published in the paper of record.

It was not Trump’s “indifference to protocol” which was “unsettling” to people. And the “chaos” of Trump’s term did not “seem” to culminate in a “riot” at the U.S. Capitol.

If you came down from Mars and simply read today’s NYT op-ed, you would have absolutely no idea that [January 6 was a violent insurrection]. Instead, you’d think that Trump was some kind of a ne’er-do-well or scamp. [¶]

But you gotta have both sides? I guess?

The Times does this a lot—running cover for authoritarians by publishing outrageously misleading “opinion” pieces in the name of airing “both sides” of the debate.

I won’t catalog the many ways that Schmitz attempts to excuse, minimize, and normalize Trump's hate speech—Jonathan Last does that ably in his article.

So, should you cancel your subscription to the NYTimes? As I suggested yesterday, the better strategy is to write to the Times to let the editors know what you think about their decision to normalize Trump immediately after he invoked Hitler’s “poisoning the blood of our nation” speech.

Many readers have asked how they can reach the journalists and editors at leading newspapers. Please see the helpful links posted in the Comment section by readers in response to yesterday’s newsletter: Comments - Help shape the narrative! - by Robert B. Hubbell (substack.com).

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Dave Whamond]

* * * *

Senators Durbin and Whitehouse call for meeting with Chief Justice Roberts to discuss Alito’s displays of insurrectionist flags

Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote to Chief Justice Roberts on Friday, demanding a meeting to discuss Justice Alito’s display of insurrectionist flags. The letter is here: Letter to Chief Justice Roberts (Senate.gov).

We urge you to immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that Justice Alito will recuse himself in any cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol, including the question of former President Trump’s immunity from prosecution for his role in the events of January 6th in Trump v. United States. We also renew our call for the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct for justices. And we request a meeting with you as soon as possible, in your capacity as Chief Justice and as presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, to discuss additional steps to address the Supreme Court’s ethics crisis.

According to the Washington Post, Justice Roberts has not responded to a request for comment.

Neither Roberts nor Alito will respond positively (or at all) to the demands for a meeting, recusal, and adoption of a binding ethics code. But the letter is the first sign of life from Dick Durbin regarding the crisis enveloping the Supreme Court. Let’s hope there is more to come.

P.S.—Alden Hackmann has created a website that will walk you through the process of filing a complaint with the Supreme Court regarding Justice Alito. Check it out here: Home (dumpalito.com)

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Ed Wexler, Congressional Quarterly

+

High-level overview of the proceedings:

The Sandoval hearing—deciding what evidence can be used to cross-examine Trump.

On Monday, Judge Merchan held the “Sandoval hearing” to determine what topics are allowable areas of cross-examination if Trump chooses to testify. See Joyce Vance, Civil Discourse, The Results of the Sandoval Hearing: Cross-Examining Trump? (substack.com).

For details, read Joyce Vance summary. In short, Judge Merchan allowed a half-dozen areas of cross-examination that highlight Trump's compulsive lying and falsification of documents. It would be foolish for Trump to take the stand. As Joyce Vance writes,

Here’s a rare prediction from me: If Trump takes the witness stand it will be gory. And it will end with a quick vote to convict from the jury. I don’t think he will, but with Trump, one can never be certain.

The prosecution’s opening statement.

The prosecution’s opening statement was tight, organized, factual, and strong. The theme was “election interference” rather than “hush money.”

At the core of the election interference claim is the allegation that Trump “reimbursed” Michael Cohen for making a payment to Stormy Daniels for maintaining her silence.

Trump claims that the payments were for legal fees.

The prosecution has strong, difficult to refute documentary evidence that the payment from Trump to Cohen was “reimbursement” for the payment to Stormy Daniels rather than payment of legal fees.

For example, a note in Allen Weisselberg’s handwriting shows that the payment to Cohen was “grossed up” to cover Cohen’s income tax liability for the payment. But clients do not “gross up” fees to cover their lawyer’s income.

It was a strong, professional opening statement that is a good sign for the remainder of the prosecution’s case.

The defendant’s opening statement.

Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, offered an opening statement that was error-filled, objectionable, and promised evidence that can only be offered through testimony from Donald Trump—who cannot possibly take the stand without inflicting irremediable prejudice to his defense.

Blanche repeatedly made objectionable statements. Judge Merchan upheld the prosecution’s objections on numerous occasions, including references to reliance on counsel, claims of extortions by Stormy Daniels, claims that Michael Cohen perjured himself in other proceedings. It is never a good look when a judge sustains objections to an opening statement.

Blanche promised to offer evidence that he cannot produce in the absence of testimony from Trump, including the following:

Trump is innocent (a huge mistake; Trump isn’t required to prove his innocence);

Stormy Daniels is lying about her sexual encounter with Trump; and

The payment to Michael Cohen was not a reimbursement but was for legal fees.

Gag order hearing set for Tuesday morning

Trump continues to violate the existing gag order. On Monday evening, he attacked the impartiality of the sitting jurors by claiming they were Democrats who would not be fair. He said,

That jury was picked so fast. 95% are Democrats. The area is mostly all Democrat. You think of it as a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation that I can tell you.

See Trump Violates His Gag Order by Calling Jurors 'Democrats' – LA Magazine.

Judge Merchan must do something to stop further attacks on the jurors. Merchan will likely find Trump in contempt, impose monetary fines, and warn Trump of increasingly severe fines for future violations. While that outcome may not be satisfactory to many, Trump's disregard for the judicial system will be another strike against him with persuadable independents.

David Pecker’s testimony

The prosecution called David Pecker as its first witness. Pecker testified only briefly about the National Enquirer’s “checkbook journalism” business model. He acknowledged that he had final editorial authority over the stories. A tantalizing beginning.

Trump's supporters stayed away in droves

Trump issued a plea before the trial, asking his supporters to “Rally behind MAGA” at the park across the street from the courthouse. Depending the source, it appears that less than a dozen supporters responded to Trump's call. See NYTimes, The Circus Trump Wanted Outside His Trial Hasn’t Arrived.

Major takeaways from first day of trial

The prosecution has a strong case with multiple corroborating witnesses. Trump has overpromised in his opening statement and cannot possibly deliver on the evidence he claims to possess. The first day of trial reflected the lopsided imbalance in the prosecution and defense case. Although Trump has otherwise competent defense counsel, he is forcing them to make mistakes. The first day was a promising start for the prosecution. But reserve judgment until the defense has had the opportunity to test the prosecution’s witnesses.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

An eventful coming week.

November 13, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

          Current funding for the government will expire on Friday, November 17 at midnight. Speaker Mike Johnson proposed a “laddered continuing resolution” on Saturday that was met by deafening silence. Well, almost. The White House called it “unserious.” But there was little evidence of legislative activity over the weekend with only five days before shutdown.

          A “laddered continuing resolution” has rightly been called “gimmicky.” It has never been used before. It probably won’t be used now. But since we will hear the phrase “laddered CR” for the next 72 hours straight, let’s take a look at the context and meaning of the proposed “laddered CR.”

          When Congress fails to pass a budget, it frequently passes a “continuing resolution” that keeps the government operating at existing funding levels until Congress can do its job. But Mike Johnson couldn’t pass a regular “continuing resolution” if his job depended on it. So, he has proposed a hybrid resolution that amounts to “kicking two cans down the road” at the same time. Let’s take a look at the possible options to see where Mike Johnson’s hybrid solution fits in:

Congress passes a budget on time (which requires twelve appropriations bills to pass). That is a good outcome but nothing to write home about. Passing a budget on time is, after all, one of the primary duties assigned to Congress in the Constitution. Republicans gave up on this option about six months ago.

Congress passes some appropriation bills but not all twelve. A partial shutdown results. This happened in 2018-19. Republicans gave up on this option about three months ago.

Congress passes no appropriations bills but agrees to a “clean” continuing resolution that funds the government at current levels for a set period. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy agreed to such a continuing resolution in September and lost his job as a result. Mike Johnson floated this idea last week in a Republican conference meeting, but it was shot down before ever making it out of the GOP conference closed-door meeting.

Congress proposes a “laddered” continuing resolution that funds parts of the government for different time periods (here, through January 19 and February 2, 2024) at current levels.  This is what Johnson has proposed. The “laddered” continuing resolution does not include funding for Israel or Ukraine. Nor does it include cuts from current spending levels—a demand made by the most radical members of the House Freedom Caucus. See below.

Congress can’t pass a regular continuing resolution or a laddered CR, so it proposes a continuing resolution that cuts spending from current levels. This proposal was championed by the Freedom Caucus under McCarthy (but ultimately rejected). The proposal for “continuing resolution with cuts” may make a return under Johnson if he can’t get support for his “laddered CR.”

          The relative calm (and silence) over the weekend is disquieting. Either the chaos is so bad that no one knows what to do or everyone is confident that Congress will pass a “clean” continuing resolution. After all, what politician wants to be responsible for US troops not being paid during the Thanksgiving holiday?

          This story will dominate the news next week. Apart from the drama of “Will there be shut down or not,” the real story is that Republicans are simply incapable of governing. We need to get that story out to friends, family, neighbors, acquaintances, and complete strangers.

Trump's statements on Veteran’s Day weekend echo Hitler and Mussolini.

          This next story may be upsetting for some readers, so let’s start with a shortened version, followed by a more detailed version. In short, Trump's unhinged statements over Veteran’s Day weekend became even more unhinged as he began to use epithets reminiscent of the hate speech of Hitler and Mussolini. Bottom line: Defeating Trump is a matter of national urgency and human decency. Do not relent in your efforts.

          The longer story is this: In statements at a campaign rally and on his vanity social media platform, Trump used words and phrases favored by Hitler and Mussolini as they attacked their enemies in the run-up to World War II. He said, in part,

We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections. They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream. [T] he threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.

          See Washington Post, Trump calls political enemies ‘vermin,’ echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini. (This article is accessible to all.) The headline writers at The New York Times did not see the need to raise alarm about the historical antecedent to Trump's speech, writing blandly, “In Veterans Day Speech, Trump Promises to ‘Root Out’ the Left | New York Times.

          As usual, the rest of the Republican Party pretended not to notice that Trump had descended into Hitlerisms in his speech. Republican National Chair Ronna McDaniel dodged questions about Trump's speech by saying (a) she hadn’t read the speech and (b) wouldn’t comment on a Republican candidate involved in a presidential primary for the GOP nomination. See The Hill, RNC chairwoman dodges questions over Trump’s Veterans Day post. Coward!

          Comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini should not be made lightly, but they are appropriate here. For a superb (and unsettling) historical comparison, read Lucian Truscott’s Newsletter, This is how it begins - by Lucian K. Truscott.

          For those whose parents, grandparents, and family members suffered and died under Hitler and Mussolini, Trump's deliberate effort to model his language on theirs is unsettling, even traumatizing. Every American should be alarmed and concerned by this dark turn in the hate speech of a man known for his hate speech.

          Trump must not be normalized. He is not merely a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination—as he is frequently portrayed by major media. His plans are anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and despotic. Despite that fact, in a series of polls over the last three weeks, he has been presented as merely “another horse in the race” to become president—a characterization that is morally and intellectually dishonest. For Jennifer Rubin’s take on the normalization of Trump through polling, read on!

The threat to democracy posed by “normalization of Trump through polling.”

          Jennifer Rubin hits the nail on the head as she takes down the NYTimes poll last week that dominated three days of front-page coverage by the Times. See Jennifer Rubin in WaPo, Opinion  A wasteland: Political coverage ignores the threat to democracy. (Accessible to all.)

          Although Rubin covers themes I addressed last week, she brings her own style and clarity to the problem of normalizing Trump by reducing everything to the “lowest common denominator” in polling.

          Rubin writes,

Last week demonstrated the sorry state of political coverage in this country. The fixation on early, non-predictive polling and endless speculation that President Biden might step away from the 2024 race (contrary to all evidence) created an endless cycle of frenzied coverage, none of it informative about democracy, the issues or the threat of an authoritarian regime in a second Trump presidency.

          After discussing the yawning deficiencies in the Times’ poll (which are substantial) and reviewing the true state of the race, she indicts her colleagues in the news media for ignoring the threat to democracy and focusing on the horse race:

Many media outlets after Jan. 6, 2021, vowed to focus more on threats to democracy. (Occasionally, they do; but it doesn’t dominate coverage, as polling does). However, most are stuck in overhyped horse-race coverage and endless chatter over meaningless Republican debates. Americans deserve better. Our democracy needs better.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Steve Brodner

* * * *

Clarence Thomas’s corruption deepens.

         Pro Publica published another blockbuster report that reveals billionaire Harlan Crow purchased from Justice Clarence Thomas two vacant lots and Thomas’s family home. Thomas’s mother continues to live in the home—rent-free?—while Harlan Crow pays for improvements and real estate taxes.

         Thomas should have disclosed the property transfer in his annual filing with the Court. His failure to do so concealed Harlan Crow’s payment of tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas. See Pro Publica, Clarence Thomas Didn’t Disclose Harlan Crow Real Estate Deal.

         As noted by a reader, the failure to disclose the financial transaction does not merely present an ethics violation. Thomas filed his annual disclosures under 5 USC Appendix 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports. That provision provides civil and criminal penalties for anyone who “knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section.”

         In short, this violation is unambiguous and subjects Thomas to criminal penalties. The fact that Thomas felt emboldened to ignore such a blatant violation of his disclosure obligation is a disturbing insight into the mindset of some Supreme Court Justices.

         If John Roberts had any leadership skills or concern for the integrity of the Court, he would open an independent investigation—or invite the Attorney General to do so.

         In his last report on the state of the Court (2022), Roberts did not mention the call for an enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court Justices. But in 2011, Roberts wrote the following:

Some observers have recently questioned whether the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct for United States Judges should apply to the Supreme Court. I would like to use my annual report this year to address this issue

All Members of the Court do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations. [¶]

Every Justice seeks to follow high ethical standards, and the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct provides a current and uniform source of guidance designed with specific reference to the needs and obligations of the federal judiciary. [¶]

For [the above reasons], the Court has had no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.

         Roberts has failed the Court—and the American public—by portraying Supreme Court justices as preternatural beings floating above the temptations and conflicts of mere mortals. The only question is whether Roberts will continue his decade-long abdication of duty—or whether he will, at long last, act to protect the legitimacy of the Court.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Billboard project

* * * *

One for the history books!

September 12, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

After delivering one of the best debate performances in American political history, Kamala Harris is receiving begrudging and stinting praise from many in the media and commentary class. But 67 million people saw Kamala Harris demonstrate she is made of presidential timber. They witnessed a masterful performance that revealed a penetrating intellect tempered by decency and humanity. On the substance and execution, she should have earned the support of all voters and unqualified praise from the media and political commentators.

Trump's performance was vile and disqualifying. It was worse than Joe Biden’s widely panned debate by far. While Joe Biden turned in a horrible debate performance as measured by the artificial rules of made-for-tv spectacles, Donald Trump made dozens of statements that were objectively depraved, racist, antidemocratic, delusional, and deceitful.

Trump transcended the debate format and devolved into fascist demagoguery that should have resulted in universal condemnation by all voters, the media, and political commentators. If Joe Biden was driven from the presidential race because of his poor debate performance, Trump should be banished from politics, expelled from his party, and relegated to a place of dishonor in the annals of American history.

Talking about the debate is difficult because of the urge to focus on Kamala Harris’s brilliantly executed strategy of baiting Trump into ranting about his insecurities and the horror of Trump's worst-in-the-history-of-the-nation performance on substance.

I get it. Harris’s ninja debating moves and Trump's racist deer-in-the-headlights stare made for riveting television. But we focus on those aspects of the debate to the detriment of the substance of Kamala Harris’s message. She spent a substantial portion of the debate discussing her policies and her plan to help heal the divisions that beset America.

It is disappointing to see so many stories and commentators describe the debate as “fierce” or “contentious.” I heard one commentator on MSNBC bemoan the fact that neither candidate seemed interested in bridging the divide in America. That is false. Kamala Harris promised to be a president for all Americans and to focus on the needs of the people, not the needs and wants of the president. She said, in part,

And I think the American people want better than that. Want better than this. Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other. I meet with people all the time who tell me "Can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the American people?" [¶��] I've only had one client. The people. And I'll tell you, as a prosecutor I never asked a victim or a witness are you a Republican or a Democrat. The only thing I ever asked them, are you okay? And that's the kind of president we need right now. Someone who cares about you and is not putting themselves first. I intend to be a president for all Americans and focus on what we can do over the next 10 and 20 years to build back up our country by investing right now in you the American people.

Kamala Harris repeatedly offered her policy vision for America, including tax breaks for business startups; subsidizing downpayments for first-time home purchases; incentivizing the construction of starter homes; granting tax credits for families with newborns; investing in American chip technology, quantum computing, and AI; supporting worker’s rights; reducing reliance on fossil fuels; granting tax cuts for the middle class; requiring the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes; and protecting the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. She also promised to protect reproductive liberty, LGBTQ equality, and voting rights of all Americans.

The media has hounded Kamala Harris for weeks about the alleged absence of policies in her campaign. On Tuesday, she talked about dozens of specific policies—and the media is not saying a word about those policies after the debate.

Not. A. Word.

It’s almost as if the media didn’t really care about Kamala Harris’s policies but were only interested in a talking point they could use to criticize her. Hypocrites!

So, before talking about how well Kamala Harris executed her strategy of baiting Trump and how abhorrent Trump's performance and positions were, let’s give Kamala Harris her due on the substance: She gave a presidential-level discourse on policies that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. The fact that Trump and the moderators ignored those policies does not diminish the respect she showed for the American people by clearly setting forth her policies if elected as president.

Among the many insipid criticisms of Kamala Harris was that she used facial expressions to convey her disapproval, amusement, and disbelief over Trump's utterances. This was an effective use of her non-speaking time and allowed her to diminish Trump without saying a word.

Dahlia Lithwick demolishes the critics who faulted Kamala’s facial expressions—a criticism that would only be leveled against a woman. See Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, Harris–Trump debate: Kamala Harris’ face on Tuesday was the stuff of legend. (slate.com). Lithwick writes,

It must be beyond maddening for a political actor to be summoned into a “debate” that is not really a debate, pitted against some frothing amalgam of WWE reenactor and Tasmanian devil, warned that your microphone will be muted while he is speaking, cautioned that he will be allowed to talk over you and the moderators, then be criticized for … blinking? [¶¶] Harris’ face roamed free and far on Tuesday, and it was thoroughly warranted and frequently enjoyable. I think of her mobile, legible face as a satisfying call-and-response to Trump’s lifelong preference for female adulation and Botox. Women have faces. Their faces have expressions. If that was upsetting to you during Tuesday’s debate, you might be dismayed to learn that deep beneath our expressive faces lie thoughts, dreams, frustrations, and other markers of human agency. If a woman smiling freaks you out, imagine what happens when a woman votes.

While talking about Kamala Harris’s facial expressions may seem superficial, it is not. One of Harris’s most significant accomplishments was her ability to show herself to be a likable, relatable human being. She did so by using the medium of television to her advantage. Were the expressive facial reactions real or practiced? It doesn’t matter; they were successful. People liked Kamala Harris. For a candidate who has been on the national scene since 2018, the percentage of voters who still say they don’t “know” her is shocking. But she went some distance in the debate to introduce herself to those voters in a positive way.

Among Harris’s many pointed and powerful answers on Tuesday, none were better than her response to Trump's gloating over the demise of Roe v. Wade. Harris said,

In over 20 states there are Trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. In one state it provides prison for life. Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. Which—understand what that means. A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral. And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree: The government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. You want to talk about, this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail, and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn’t want that. Her husband didn’t want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don’t want that. Understand in his Project 2025, there would be a national abortion—a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages.

There is more room to praise Kamala Harris’s performance in the debate, but we must turn to Trump's horrific statements during the debate. So, let’s get Trump’s “debate performance” out of the way: It was the worst debate performance (in terms of style) in the history of political debates. See The Guardian, Republicans dismayed by Trump’s ‘bad’ and ‘unprepared’ debate performance. Brit Hume of Fox News said, “Let’s make no mistake. Trump had a bad night. We just heard so many of the old grievances that we all know aren’t winners politically.” Coming from a Fox commentator, that is as bad as it gets for Trump.

There were many disgraceful, disqualifying statements during the debate by Trump: Refusing to say that he hoped Ukraine would defeat the Russian invasion; refusing to acknowledge that he lost in 2020; refusing to express any regret for his actions on January 6; claiming that “every Democrat” wanted to “get rid of” Roe v. Wade.; and repeatedly saying that execution of babies after a full-term delivery was permissible under existing law.

To state the obvious, if Kamala Harris had uttered a single statement that was one-tenth as egregious as any of the above, the major media would be calling for her withdrawal from the race.

But Trump's worst statement was the race-baiting claim that Haitian immigrants are capturing domestic pets in Springfield, Ohio and eating them. That trope was originally directed at immigrants from other countries but has been repurposed by Trump to slander Haitian immigrants who are legally in the US.

The claim is false and started as triple-hearsay thrice-removed:

On Sept. 6, a post surfaced on X that shared what looked like a screengrab of a social media post apparently out of Springfield. The retweeted post talked about the person’s “neighbor’s daughter’s friend” seeing a cat hanging from a tree to be butchered and eaten, claiming without evidence that Haitians lived at the house.

So, a “screenshot” of a retweet (three levels removed from personal knowledge) talked about a “neighbor’s daughter’s friend” (three more levels removed from personal knowledge). In short, the claim is the worst sort of internet rumor—intentionally unverifiable. Repeating such a rumor is beneath a candidate for the presidency.

But the crassness of repeating the rumor is the least of the offense. Trump did not repeat a rumor—he asserted the rumor as “fact” for the purpose of stirring racial hatred against Haitian immigrants. The false rumor has been circulating for weeks among right-wing websites that attack Haitian immigrants as the cause of an increase in crime in Springfield. See WaPo, Anatomy of a racist smear: How false claims of pet-eating immigrants caught on.

Trump then leveraged the cat-eating Haitian claim to smear all immigrants as law-breaking, violent, less-than-human invaders whom he would deport en masse from the US. The entire episode was an appeal to the most racist, xenophobic backwaters of American society. It was shameful and divisive. It may lead to violence against immigrants—just as past statements by Trump have led to violence against immigrants in Texas. See NBC (8/5/2019), Trump's anti-immigrant 'invasion' rhetoric was echoed by the El Paso shooter for a reason.

No modern presidential candidate has appealed to racial animus during a presidential debate. Trump's attack on the Haitian community should have been the end of his candidacy. As should his statements about Ukraine, the 2020 election, January 6, and abortion—and that list excludes his dozens of other falsehoods.

In short, the debate should move the needle in favor of Kamala Harris. Whether it will do so is a different question—one that will be determined, in part, by whether the media maintains the same intense focus on Trump's  debate performance that it maintained on Biden’s debate performance in July. On the substance, Trump's debate performance was objectively worse, by far. Let’s hope the media doesn’t get distracted by the less consequential matters.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Dave Whammond

* * * *

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV. Double Standard.

July 8, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JUL 08, 2024

The mainstream media continues its whisper campaign against President Biden, as they report that anonymous “senior leaders” talk “in private” about approaching Joe Biden to urge him to drop out. At least Adam Schiff had the guts to express his qualms in public respectfully, even though I strongly disagree with his views (on this subject).

One evolving narrative among the press is that the Biden administration “concealed” the truth of Biden’s cognitive state—which supposedly justifies their righteous anger. Bull****. This is another example of a double standard applied by a media that is intent on driving Joe Biden out of the race—damn the facts!

Joe Biden has been transparent with the American people about his health—which cannot be said about Trump.

Remember Trump's unexplained visit to Walter Reed for a treatment that remains secret to this day? Or showing up to a debate in 2020 knowing he had tested positive for Covid but concealed that fact from Joe Biden, the debate moderators, and the American public?

Or having a doctor release a statement about Trump's health that was dictated by Trump? Or when the White House physician provided false information about Trump's vital statistics—like his weight—and said that Trump might be the first president to live to be 200?

Amid all the calls for “cognitive tests” for Biden—but not Trump—journalists are committing malpractice by failing to note that President Biden released a detailed summary of his annual physical in February of this year.

The full report is here: Health-Summary-2.28.pdf (whitehouse.gov). The examination included consultations with neurological experts at Walter Reed hospital. I urge you to read the entire report and consider how you would measure up to such a battery of tests!

[...]

So, Biden did have a “detailed neurological exam” four-and-half months ago. The widespread media demands that Biden “take a neurological exam” should be directed to Trump instead.

Predictably, this “proof” won’t be enough for the media. Just as the media refused to accept a certified copy of President Obama’s birth certificate, the goalposts will keep shifting.

The issue is not Joe Biden. It is Donald Trump—and the media’s arrogant refusal to apply the same scrutiny to Trump that it is applying to Biden. If they did, they would be demanding neurological exams of Trump and his withdrawal from the race. So far as we have been informed by Trump, his cognitive test consisted of recalling five objects: “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.” Can you say, “double standard”?

Why isn’t the media making demands that Trump submit to “extremely detailed neurologic testing” by experts from a nationally recognized hospital?

The answer is simple. Trump has quashed dissent within his party. Anyone who dares raise a voice in dissent is the immediate recipient of anonymous death threats and public ridicule on Trump's vanity media platform. And Trump's para-military press surrogates leap into action, declaring that the dissidents are dead to MAGA.

So, the press's application of the same standards to Trump has no upside because it won’t incite the mass panic among Republicans that Democrats are willing to supply by the bucketful.

I accept at face value the good faith of readers who say they have lost confidence in Biden because of the debate or any other reason. That is a personal judgment only you can make. But I again remind everyone that “Biden should withdraw” is not a plan. If you believe a different path to victory is appropriate, then you must devote yourself to that path with all the vigor and financial resources you can muster.

[...]

Timothy Snyder (author of On Tyranny and Substack blog Thinking About), addressed the role that the press has been playing in whipping up “fascist froth” that helps Trump. See Timothy Snyder, Fascism and Fear (substack.com)

There are three tests of good faith for those who are proposing that President Biden step down. The first is recognition that Biden’s first term has been one of extraordinary achievement. The second is a plan for what the Democrats would do, should Biden withdraw, to select a nominee and win the election. The third is recognition that the threat of regime change is what might justify changing the nominee.

If I am right that much of the energy behind the Biden pile-on is displaced fear of a regime change, much of the media will continue to generate fascist froth for Trump, whether or not Biden is the Democratic nominee — unless, of course, journalists confront their fears, and keep the issue of regime change inside the story, and provide a constructive alternative alongside personal criticism.

[I inverted the order of Snyder’s two paragraphs above so they made more sense in a short quotation.]

And, finally, Rebecca Solnit wrote what I wish I had written. See her essay in The Guardian: Why is the pundit class so desperate to push Biden out of the race?

Solnit begins:

I am not usually one to offer diagnoses of people I’ve never met, but it does seem like the pundit class of the American media is suffering from severe memory loss. Because they’re doing exactly what they did in the 2016 presidential race – providing wildly asymmetrical and inflammatory coverage of the one candidate running against Donald J Trump. They have become a stampeding herd producing an avalanche of stories suggesting Biden is unfit, will lose and should go away, at a point in the campaign in which replacing him would likely be somewhere between extremely difficult and utterly catastrophic. They do this while ignoring something every scholar and critic of journalism knows well and every journalist should. As Nikole Hannah-Jones put it: “As media we consistently proclaim that we are just reporting the news when in fact we are driving it. What we cover, how we cover it, determines often what Americans think is important and how they perceive these issues yet we keep pretending it’s not so.” They are not reporting that he is a loser; they are making him one. And so it goes with what appears to be a journalistic competition to outdo each other in the aggressiveness of the attacks and the unreality of the proposals. It’s a dogpile and a panic, and there is no one more unable to understand their own emotional life, biases and motives than people who are utterly convinced of their own ironclad rationality and objectivity, [also known as] pundits.

Here's my advice to everyone—regardless of what side of the issue you take regarding Joe Biden’s continued candidacy. The issue is Trump, not Biden. Whether Biden drops out is not something you or I have control over. (Readers frequently write to me and say, “Please tell Joe Biden . . . .” The only thing Joe Biden knows about me is my credit card number.)

Joe Biden has control over his choices; his close advisors and family have influence; some senior leaders in the Democratic Party have some influence. They are talking amongst themselves. Let them have a rational, private conversation not played out on the front pages of the NYTimes and WaPo minutes after the latest exchange of views.

However, the one institution that has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to deal with this question is the media. They have a perverse financial incentive: Chaos = profit. They are agents of chaos at this moment in pursuit of the mighty dollar.

I believe that Joe Biden is the best candidate to defeat Trump, that replacing him at this point poses unacknowledged and unknowable risks, and that those who advocate a different path have the burden of identifying and funding an alternative candidate.

Our task has not changed. It is our moral and patriotic duty to alert all Americans about the threat posed by Trump and his fascist plan to undermine democracy. We have plenty of work and precious little time left to accomplish our task.

Let us channel all our energy away from debating Joe Biden’s age and health into defeating Trump. In that task, we must speak with one voice.

[MORE]

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

“America, I gave my best to you.”

August 20, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Watching the Democratic National Convention was an out-of-body experience—on many levels. The presentations before President Biden’s keynote speech plumbed a deep well of political experience, raw talent, future leaders, unbridled joy, and personal pain. The stories by hopeful couples and rape survivors devastated by Trump’s abortion bans were powerful and moving—unlike anything previously attempted at a national political convention.

There is much to discuss, but let’s skip to the end: Through the selfless act of President Biden, the Democratic Party is more energized and unified than anyone could have imagined or dared hope. If Democrats can defeat Trump a second time—and we have every reason to believe we will—it will be Joe Biden’s victory along with Kamala Harris’s.

President Joe Biden’s speech

In a wonderful speech with many great moments, Joe Biden’s valedictory statement will be the most remembered and quoted. He recited a verse from American Anthem by Norah Jones,

Let them say of me I was one who believed In sharing the blessings I received Let me know in my heart When my days are through America, America I gave my best to you.

And he acknowledged that he put the interests of the nation before his own in giving his best to America to the very last:

It has been the honor of a lifetime. I love my job, but I love my country more.

In a speech that could have rightly been only about himself, Joe Biden was gracious and generous in his support for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. President Biden said,

I promise I will be the best volunteer that the Kamala and Walz campaign have ever seen.

He praised Kamala Harris effusively, saying,

Selecting Kamala was the best decision I made in my career. She’s tough and has enormous integrity. She will be respected by world leaders because she already is. She will be a president who puts her stamp on America’s future.

When cheers of “Thank you, Joe” erupted from the floor, Joe Biden re-directed those chants to “Thank you, Kamala.”

Joe Biden is a mensch. He could not have acted more honorably or selflessly. Even in his valedictory speech, he did his best to ensure that Kamala Harris will defeat Trump.

President’s Biden’s speech was fiery, passionate and—at times—righteously angry. (A few readers worried that he was “strident” or “just angry.”) But in his righteous anger, Biden was speaking hard truths that must never be forgotten:

This is the first presidential election since January 6—a day on which we almost lost everything. Trump says he will be a dictator on day one. He means it. No commander in chief should bow down to a dictator. Trump is a liar. When Trump left office NATO was in tatters. Trump demonizes immigrants, saying that they will poison the blood of our nation.

President Biden reminded us what is at stake in in 2024 and beyond:

All of us carry a special obligation. We saved democracy in 2020 and now we must save it again in 2024. In 2024, we need you to vote; we need you to keep the Senate, flip the House of Representatives, and need you to elect Kamala and Tim. They will continue to lead America forward. Our best days are not behind us they are in front of us. And on this hot August night, democracy has prevailed and must be preserved.

Biden recounted the story of his decision to run in 2020 because of Trump's handling of the white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia. Biden said,

Hate was on the march in America. Old ghosts in new garments. Giving oxygen to old forces that had long sought to destroy America — “there are very fine people on both sides” was the response from their president — but in an America where honesty, dignity, decency and hate has no safe harbor, I knew I had to run.

But Biden said that he also ran “to rebuild the middle class”—which he did through the most far-reaching legislative agenda in sixty-years. He gave Kamala due credit for her assistance in achieving success.

In touting his own accomplishments, Biden took several large swings at Trump, saying,

Donald Trump promised infrastructure week every week for four years and he never built a damn thing!

Trump killed the strongest bipartisan border security bill in the history of the nation. He asked for Republican Senators to kill the bill in order to help Trump politically. He put Trump first and America last. Border encounters have dropped by 50% in the last few months--fewer than when Trump left office.

Biden also predicted that Trump would regret the words of Justice Alito in the Dobbs decision, saying,

Justice Alito wrote, “Women are not without electoral or political power.” No kidding! Donald Trump is going to find out the power of women in 2024.

I am running out of time to get this edition out the door, I will simply highlight additional notable comments:

More children die of gun violence than any other cause. It is time to ban assault weapons and demand universal background checks. Americans should have the freedom to love who you love. Women should have the freedom to choose. We must surge food assistance into Gaza now. We must deliver a ceasefire and end this war! Those protestors out in the street have a point—a lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides.

The program before Joe Biden’s speech

The choreography of speakers and pre-recorded stories in the run-up to Joe Biden’s speech was brilliant. I wish I could give credit to everyone who spoke because every speaker is deserving of recognition. Of particular note:

A surprise appearance by Kamala Harris to acknowledge Joe Biden’s speech on Monday. Her brief appearance gave us a prelude of the absolute joy and positivity she will exude when she gives her acceptance speech.

Jill Biden was genuine, generous in her praise of Kamala Harris, and loving in comments about Joe.

Ashley Biden was a revelation. Joe Biden’s daughter gave a moving tribute to the genuine love in the Biden family. She said she was confident Democrats will defeat Trump because “my father has shown us the way.” Beautiful!

Raphael Warnock is a force of nature. His speech was exhilarating.

Hillary Clinton—I had to step away from Hillary’s speech to attend an emergency Board meeting, but my wife and Managing Editor watched Hillary’s speech and writes,

Hillary’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was inspiring, emotional, and stirring. She made me proud to be a Democrat, and proud to be a woman. She convinced me that now is our time. Soon there will be a woman in the office of the President of the United States. And we will finally have broken through that glass ceiling. Thank you, Hillary. For everything. We will "keep on going!"

Other outstanding speeches included:

Shawn Fain, President of the UAW, who gave a rousing,  profane, in-your-face speech that called Trump a “scab” for laughing at Elon Musk’s firing of workers who tried to unionize at Tesla.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued her transformation into a party leader who is a team player while pushing the party to more progressive positions.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett was particularly effective in humanizing Kamala Harris. Crockett told a touching story in which Kamala Harris sensed Crockett’s emotional distress and asked, “What’s wrong.” Crockett broke down in tears as Kamala hugged her. It was their first meeting!

Steve Kerr, the coach of the NBA Warrior and USA Men’s Basketball Team was earnest, effective, plain spoken, and positive.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

TFG :: Sign of the Day... this billboard on a highway in Michigan... the swingiest of swing states...

Mary Elaine LeBey

* * * *

What’s at stake in 2024

At least once a week, I receive a note from a parent telling me that their son or daughter will not vote for Biden because he supports Israel. Many (but not all) of those letters ask me to articulate reasons why their son or daughter should vote for Biden, notwithstanding his ongoing support for Israel.

I wrote the following note today in response to a reader who sent a email about his son. I thought it might be helpful to other readers having conversations with adult children who are considering not voting for Biden.

I do not recommend forwarding this list to a son or daughter with a note saying, “Read this.” Conversations about the war in Gaza and support for Biden are difficult and should be approached with caution, respect, deference, and due regard for timing. Consider this list as a resource when the opportunity presents itself for such a discussion.

Here it is:

Trump has threatened to cancel the visas of students protesting in support of Palestinians and “send them home” immediately.

Trump is a much stronger supporter of Netanyahu than Biden and will not put any pressure on Netanyahu to end civilian casualties, while Biden has been putting significant pressure on Netanyahu to avoid civilian casualties.

Trump has promised to round up, imprison, and deport ten million immigrants using the US military, which will cause a humanitarian and civil rights disaster in the US, including the deportation of US citizens based on their surnames, language preference, and ethnicity.

Moreover, supporting Trump increases the likelihood that

Your son’s sisters, girlfriend, and female friends will be demoted to second-class citizens by being denied access to abortions, contraception, and IVF; they and their doctors will face ruinous criminal and civil penalties, even for miscarriages that seem “suspicious” to the fundamentalist police.

Your son’s LGBTQ friends will lose their right to marry and can be legally discriminated against by anyone who claims a religious basis for doing so.

Your son’s Black and Hispanic friends will see their right to vote diluted or denied entirely.

Trump will pull out of the Paris Climate Accords, threatening your son’s health, safety, and economic security and that of his children.

Trump will weaken NATO, increasing the likelihood that your son and his friends will be sent to fight in conflicts in Europe to stop Russia’s advances against former USSR republics.

Your son’s friends will continue to be saddled with crushing student debt.

Your son and his friends will lose guaranteed access to healthcare through the Affordable Care Act.

Your son’s parents’ economic security will be threatened by cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

Rights to free speech on social media will be suppressed when they do not comport with MAGA ideology.

The DOJ and FBI will turn into the equivalent of the German Stasi—the personal guard of a despotic ruler.

The Supreme Court will be further stacked with reactionary justices who will reign during most of your son’s lifetime, implementing white Christian nationalism in place of an open, tolerant, pluralistic democracy that maintains the separation between church and state.

If your son is still pursuing an education, his academic curriculum will be determined by the likes of Moms for Liberty, the Federalist Society, Steven Miller, Ron DeSantis, and Marjorie Taylor Green

The Civil Service will be replaced with MAGA loyalists who will ignore the Constitution and laws of the US to implement Trump's policies of revenge and hate

Your son should lobby Joe Biden to change policy, protest the administration’s policy, and organize resistance to that policy all he wants. But threatening to withhold his vote is wrong and self-destructive. It will encourage others to abandon Biden by giving legitimacy to the idea that there is an equivalency between Biden’s support for Israel and the multitude of deprivations and injuries Trump will inflict on hundreds of millions of Americans during a second Trump term.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Meanwhile at Trump’s mini rally in Asheville. Best photo of the new billboard truck yet! Please help us fund the truck! Doug did great! Chip in https://maddogpac.com/products/quick-donate-1

* * * *

Republicans say, “It’s the economy, stupid” . . . unless the economy is strong, then it’s “Look, there goes Elvis!”

August 15, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

I hurt my jaw on Wednesday. I was listening to MSNBC report on the drop in inflation below 3% when the news anchor asked an “expert” how the positive economic news would affect the election. With no sense of irony or memory, the “expert” said, “Well, of course, the election won’t be decided on the economy.”

My jaw hit the floor so quickly that I nearly chipped a tooth. Remember that time—for the last year-and-half—when political pundits told us that voters cared about inflation more than democracy itself?

Now that inflation is at the lowest level in the last three years, pundits are telling us that the economy doesn’t matter—or that the good news about inflation is actually bad news for Kamala Harris. See, e.g., Politico, Inflation is easing. Now, Harris has an even bigger problem with the economy. (Per Politico, the economy faces a possible recession—which is what economists have been predicting for the last year-and-half.)

To President Biden’s credit, he called out the media’s insistence on spinning all economic news as unfavorable. At an event at the White House, a reporter shouted a question, “Did the US beat inflation, Mr. President.” Biden responded,

Yes, yes, yes. I told you we were going to have a soft landing [and]we’re going to have a soft landing. My policies are working. Start writing it that way.” See President Biden on Easing Inflation: "My Policies Are Working" | C-SPAN.org.

But the press has no interest in reporting on a positive economic story. Kamala Harris announced that she would give a speech on Friday outlining her economic policies. The New York Times didn’t wait for the speech to give it a negative review, posting the headline Harris Is Set to Lay Out an Economic Message Light on Detail.

Per the Times,

In her speech, according to those familiar with her plans, Ms. Harris will call for expanding the child tax credit, along with higher taxes on corporations and high earners, in line with Mr. Biden’s budget proposals in office. She will also push for more affordable housing, among other measures. In her campaign, Ms. Harris has already called for raising the minimum wage and providing paid leave for workers. She has defended the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Other outlets reported that Kamala Harris will also introduce “anti-price gouging” legislation to prevent corporations from using inflation as an excuse to raise grocery prices faster than justified by cost increases. See The Guardian, Kamala Harris economic plan to focus on groceries, housing and healthcare

Hmm. Sounds specific to me. Perhaps if the Times had waited for the speech before declaring it was “light on details,” it would have had a firmer basis for its critique.

By comparison, when Trump gave a rambling speech on Wednesday that was billed as setting forth his “vision for the economy,” he descended into name-calling, conspiracy-mongering, and crowd-sizing. The Times’ headline was Trump Lobs Personal Attacks Against Harris in Economy-Focused Speech.

The Times summarized Trump's economic plans as follows:

During his speech, Mr. Trump vowed that he would end “costly, job-killing” regulations in order to bring prices down, though he did not specify which regulations. He promised to address housing costs by opening large tracts of federal land for development, imposing tariffs of up to 20 percent on America’s trading partners and expanding signature tax cuts he pushed while in the White House. He also said that his chief tool to fight rising prices would be boosting oil and gas production, even as the U.S. is currently producing significantly more crude oil today than it did under the Trump administration.

So, Trump's “economic” policy is (1) “Drill baby, drill,” (2) cut taxes for the wealthy, (3) reduce federal regulation, and (4) allow private developers to use federal land to build homes. Now that sounds “light on details,” no?

Ah, well! We aren’t going to fix the broken press before November. But the general acknowledgment that the media is broken is widespread and accepted as truth. See Jonathan Chait in NYMagazine, The Media’s Double Standard Favors Trump, Not Harris.

Per Chait,

If Harris avoids any substantive commitments by September and the media aren’t making a big issue out of it, I’d be surprised. Meanwhile, Donald Trump very much is skating by without serious policy commitments. He floated the idea of repealing Obamacare, then backed away, and is continuing to vaguely promise to make health care better for everybody without anybody paying for it. He has made positive noises about cutting retirement programs without specifying how. He is secretly promising huge tax cuts to wealthy donors, while saying he would “be okay” with setting the corporate tax rate just one point lower. The media are reporting on some of these questions . . . but most of Trump’s issue evasions have disappeared from the news, and the press has had almost no ability to force him to take a stand on any issue he prefers not to talk about. Harris, at least, is supposed to be working on an agenda. Trump won’t get more specific until he wins.

So, as the media whines about Kamala Harris's lack of a full-blown policy portfolio three weeks after entering the presidential race, it has failed to hold Trump to specifics on his grandiose, illusory promises.

One final note: Trump is touting “No taxes on Social Security.” Without regard to the merits of that proposal, Democrats introduced a bill in 2022 to eliminate taxes on Social Security. See Pensions & Investments, (1/31/2024), Bill reintroduced to eliminate federal taxes on Social Security benefits, extend solvency. (“Originally introduced in August 2022, the bill would repeal the taxation of Social Security benefits starting in 2025.”)

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[from Haaretz]

* * * *

US Response to Israeli-Hamas War.

          The US continues to provide support and assurances to Israel that are unreserved and unequivocal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Tel Aviv to communicate US support directly to the unity government organized by Prime Minister Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz. Blinken will visit with the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt in an effort to contain the conflict.

          Biden has moved decisively and acted boldly in managing the crisis. The inane patter about Biden’s age has suddenly receded into the background. See, e.g., Washington Post Editorial Board, Biden rises to the occasion on Israel and Hamas. Trump sinks to a new low. (This article is accessible to all.)

At a time when the United States, and the world, desperately need decency and moral clarity, President Biden has provided both. His words regarding the wanton atrocities Hamas has committed against hundreds of Israeli civilians, as well as many Americans and citizens of other countries, in the past week have been unequivocal.

In condemning the terrorism, and offering support to Israel’s military response, the president also reminded the new emergency war government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of its responsibilities under “the law of war.” These measured statements put the United States in just the right place: supportive of Israel but positioned, if need be, to influence and temper its response.

          As the Post’s editorial board praised Biden’s response, it described Trump's comments as being “in a reckless category of their own.” After reviewing his litany of breathtaking comments and the understandable anger of the Israeli leadership in response to those comments, the Post concludes:

Mostly, though, it is Americans who need to take notice of these comments — especially Republicans, both voters and politicians. To their credit, some of Mr. Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination denounced his remarks. Even by his standards, they showed an extraordinary penchant for . . . converting an international crisis into a drama about himself. Mr. Trump’s latest outburst showed how fortunate this country is that he is not in the White House now and how unfortunate it would be if he ever returned to it.

          The war in Gaza is not about American politics. Yet, it serves as a stark reminder that the proper measure of the remaining time before the 2024 presidential election is, effectively, infinity. Anything that can happen probably will happen. We cannot predict how unknowable events will affect the outcome of the 2024 election. But what we can predict is that a president who is knowledgeable, steady, calm, decent, and determined is more likely to handle unknowable events better than a candidate who is mercurial, narcissistic, impulsive, and ignorant. See The Bulwark, Will Narcissist Trump’s Bizarre Praise for Hezbollah Hurt Him? As author Dennis Aftergut concludes,

Ordinary Americans’ repulsion at Trump's indecency may well be part of what saves American democracy from him.

          Foreign wars frequently determine the fate of US presidents. In choosing to stand firmly by Israel, Biden has made the right choice for America and Israel—and likely made a choice that will help us defend democracy in the US in 2024 and beyond.

Former Hamas leader calls for “Day of Rage.”

          A former Hamas leader has called for a “day of rage” on October 13, 2023. Per the Washington Post, the phrase “day of rage” is “a standard call for demonstrations.” But after the massive terrorist attack on Israel, calling for a “day of rage” has taken on an ominous undertone that has caused synagogues, schools, and cities to heighten their security alert status. See WaPo, D.C. region to boost security Friday after call for Hamas ‘day of rage’

          The call for a “day of rage” by a former Hamas leader has brought home the reality of the terrorist attack to tens of millions of Americans who will experience heightened security in the relative safety of homes, schools, and cities that are thousands of miles away from Israel and Gaza.

          Millions of parents and grandparents received notes on Thursday evening that read something like this:

We know many of you are aware of the online post calling for individuals throughout the world to take up arms in a global day of "rage" tomorrow, directed primarily at Jewish and Israeli institutions. We do not fall into this category, but we want to make sure we are as cautious as possible. It pains us to have to write these types of emails to you, just as we know it pains you to have to read them. This is undoubtedly a frightening time for everyone, and we share in your feelings of unease, sadness and shock. Since we all know the global situation is rapidly evolving, we do ask you to please stay close to your phones and ask your child's other emergency contacts to also stay close to their phones.

          The point of terrorist attacks is to create fear and instill terror far beyond the reach of the terrorist groups. In that, Hamas has succeeded—for a time. I urge everyone to recognize that many Americans are feeling additional anxiety, anger, and fear, even if they have not been touched directly by the terror attack and war in Israel and Gaza. Trying to discuss or resolve questions about the status of Gaza and the West Bank through the lens of the Hamas terror attack and Israel’s declaration of war is not a good idea—at least not at this time.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[mike luckovich]

* * * *

The demise of the GOP.

September 22, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

          The media is in rapture over the resignation of Rupert Murdoch, but the most significant story of the day was Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s inability to bring a defense spending bill to the floor of the House on Thursday—the third such failure in two weeks. See Politico, House GOP erupts as McCarthy fails to move Pentagon bill.

          The power of the Speaker lies mainly in their ability to control the progress of legislation through the House. Absent that power, the Speaker’s office is ornamental—a fascinator on the head of Congress. Kevin McCarthy is all feather and no hat.

          The collapse of the Republican Party in the House mirrors the collapse of the GOP as a national party, no longer capable of winning the popular vote in presidential elections. The GOP has not won the popular vote in a presidential election in two decades—and has won the popular vote only once in the last three decades (George Bush in 2004).

          The GOP is a failed party at the national level, especially in the House. It is no longer a political party. It is a loose federation of fiefdoms, each run by a petty tyrant who maintains power by transactional graft, shifting alliances, and animal cunning.

          None of this means that we can assume victory or relent in our efforts to defeat every Republican in every election henceforth. But it is worth a moment of reflection and introspection on our part. I hear from readers every day who are concerned about the supposed dysfunction and weak messaging of the Democratic Party. I believe that misperception is based on the asymmetry inherent in a two-party system in which one party is dedicated to the truth while the other views deceit as its business model. It is easier to create a soundbite if you are not constrained by the truth.

          That asymmetry is inherent in a two-party system in which one party seeks to achieve consensus for the common good while the other inflames grievance to secure votes in gerrymandered districts.

          That asymmetry is inherent in a two-party system in which one seeks to preserve the rule of law while the other views it as an impediment to power.

          That asymmetry is inherent in a two-party system in which one party recognizes that lasting progress is the incremental product of thoughtful planning and careful execution while the other measures success in soundbites-per-minute on Fox News.

          When McCarthy’s third attempt to bring the defense bill to the floor collapsed, he declared a recess and sent members of his party home for the weekend—five business days before the government would shut down in the absence of a budget. McCarthy appears to have surrendered to the chaos of his warring federation of tribes.

If there is a way out of the mess caused by the demise of the GOP as a governing political party, it will involve a bipartisan solution in which a handful of Republicans cross party lines to protect millions of Americans from the devastating effects of a government shutdown.

          The demise of the GOP is no cause for joy; it calls us to create a stronger Democratic Party that can rise above the chaos of the failed Republican Party. That challenge—and much more—is on the ballot in 2024.