Friday Talking Points -- It'll Be A Cold Day In Iowa...
It is shocking (it always is), but here we are on the brink of the 2024 presidential election cycle's official start. The Iowa caucuses will be held Monday. Most of us, thankfully, will have a few more months to go before being faced with the prospect of going to the polls for our state's primary, when (hopefully) the weather will be a lot better than it is predicted to be in the Hawkeye State three days from now. They may be heading to their polls in the midst of a blizzard, with the temperature forecast to be: "Oh CRAP it is cold!" with windchill factors being as low as: "I can't feel my toes... or my face... just leave me here in this snowbank for the wolves to find...."
OK, we exaggerate, perhaps. But not by much. Hey, we grew up in a state that did get some snow (but usually not too much), so we do fully understand (as many Californians simply do not) what "six below" truly means.
Of course, this year, only Republicans will be having their votes counted on Monday. Iowa was defenestrated from the early-state Democratic calendar after their abject failure to count the Democratic votes in a timely manner the last chance they had, so it'll be a GOP-only affair this year.
[As all columnists who reveal future plot developments must, we hereby issue an official Spoiler Alert. Skip to the next paragraph if you want to stay up late Monday listening to the returns come in with breathless anticipation. OK, you have been duly warned!] The outcome of the GOP Iowa caucus, of course, is not in any doubt. Donald Trump is going to win. The only two questions left to be answered are: "By how much?" and "Who came in a distant second place?"
Snarkiness aside, that last one is actually going to be important. Will Nikki Haley beat Ron DeSantis? If she does so, will DeSantis drop out before the New Hampshire primary? If the answer to both of those is "Yes," then the possibility still exists that the Trump train could be derailed by a GOP challenger. It's still looking like a pretty slim possibility, but it will exist.
If DeSantis, on the other hand, beats Haley, then he will doubtlessly stay in the race for another round -- which will completely torpedo any chance of Haley building enough momentum to score an upset in the Granite State. So the Iowa caucuses won't be a completely meaningless exercise, one way or another.
This dynamic was set up by the most momentous shift in the GOP race this past week. And, no, we do not speak of the one-on-one debate between DeSantis and Haley (yawn) or the townhall Donald Trump used to counterprogram it (double yawn). We speak instead of Chris Christie throwing in the towel on his own campaign.
Christie's exit was pure Christie -- a very heartfelt announcement before a small audience where he took the moral high road and admitted that no matter how well he might do in New Hampshire (the state he made the centerpiece of his campaign), there simply is no viable path for him to get the Republican nomination. Since the entire reason for his campaign was to deny Trump the nomination, dropping out and clearing the path for Haley was the morally upstanding thing to do. Also pure Christie were his comments caught on a hot mic, where he (in true New Jersey fashion) let his real opinion of Nikki Haley's chances be known: "She's going to get smoked, and you and I both know it. She's not up to this." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of her campaign, in other words. We assume that soon we'll be seeing Christie on ABC again, mixing it up with Donna Brazile on Sunday mornings -- where he will no doubt have a few more unvarnished things to say.
The knowledge that Donald Trump is going to win in Iowa has freed him up to sit in courtrooms, either scowling at judges or berating them to their faces. This could become a regular feature of Trump's campaign (such as it is). It scores him maximum "I'm such a victim!" points with his base, and it gets his face on the news in a way he can control (before the rulings against him are actually handed down).
Trump showed up in two courtrooms this week, even though his presence was not required in either one. He attended the oral arguments before the three-judge panel who heard his appeal on the January 6th charges against him, and he also showed up for the closing arguments in his New York fraud trial. Both days in court went rather badly for him (and that's putting it charitably).
He didn't speak in the appellate court hearing, instead relying on his lawyers to make his arguments for him. We wrote about this in detail earlier this week, but the upshot is Team Trump attempted to argue that anything he did while he was president was an "official act" and thus he was immune from any consequences for everything; and also that because the Senate did not convict him in his second impeachment trial, he was off the hook for everything since the Constitution says presidents must be successfully impeached before facing any criminal charges (the Constitution does not actually say this -- in fact it says the opposite).
Neither argument impressed the three judges, not even the one appointed by a Republican president (George H. W. Bush). The highlight of the day was when Trump's lawyers argued that a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival was an "official act" and thus if the president who did so was never successfully impeached, he or she couldn't be criminally charged for doing so. Incidentally, if the courts did agree with this bizarre interpretation of the Constitution, it would mean Joe Biden would be free to order the military to take Trump out tomorrow -- and if Biden stepped down the next day, he'd be off the hook legally. Which is precisely why it is such a dangerous legal argument to even make -- which was pointed out by both the prosecutors and the judges.
On the argument that Trump was merely exercising his duty as president to assure the election was held fairly in everything he did up to and including January 6th, the Republican-appointed judge had the harshest thing to say in response: "I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law." Paradoxical indeed, but that's what passes for Trump's legal reasoning and constitutional interpretation.
Trump, though, doesn't care about being legally right. All he cares about is delaying everything as long as possible. And the question of how long that will be is very much an open one. The three-judge panel could rule very quickly (as early as next week) on Trump's appeal, but the Supreme Court could slow-walk it for months and months.
In his New York fraud case, closing arguments were made to the judge and Trump showed up to get a few things off his chest. The judge had previously ruled that Trump couldn't make his own statement -- his own personal closing argument -- because Trump wouldn't agree to the rules for what can be said in a courtroom during a trial. But then the judge relented and gave Trump five minutes to speak. He allowed Trump plenty of rope during this period, when any other defendant (not named "Donald Trump") would have been silenced and cited for contempt of court the first time he insulted the judge to his face. But instead he allowed Trump to rant and rave until he had exceeded his time limit, and then he shut Trump down. It's worth pointing out that there is no jury in this case -- the judge will decide Trump's fate on his own. So there's that to look forward to!
Trump also said some mighty stupid things on the campaign trail this week, but that's nothing really new.
The other big political news of the week was the Chaos Caucus in the House Republicans throwing yet another hissy fit for not getting their own way. This tantrum hasn't fully erupted (yet) but did cause Speaker Mike Johnson headaches all week long. The week began with Johnson announcing he had cut the same budget deal that Kevin McCarthy had with Senate Democrats. There will be no massive budget cuts across the board, there will be no poison pill nonsense to torpedo everything, instead there will just be the usual budget haggling over the details. For bowing to the reality that the House of Representatives doesn't get to singlehandedly set the entire agenda in Washington when the Senate and the White House are held by Democrats, the hardliners began to weep and wail (as usual). They tried to get Johnson to blow up the deal he had just announced and threaten to shut the government down if the hotheads didn't get 100 percent of what they were asking for (which, true to form, the Chaos Caucus couldn't even agree upon amongst themselves). And they ground the floor of the House to a halt for one day, just to prove they had the power to disrupt everything (as if we all weren't aware of that fact already).
The deadline for a partial government shutdown will arrive next Friday -- one week from today. But there's no way they'll be able to draft all the appropriations bills and agree to them all before then, even with the topline-numbers agreement between Johnson and the Senate. So another continuing resolution will be necessary -- but Johnson has sworn he won't pass another temporary C.R. So he may have to go back on that pledge, which will absolutely enrage the Chaos Caucus even further. This all raises the question of whether Johnson will still be speaker at the end of the month, because, well... clowns gotta clown.
Instead of directing their attention towards avoiding a government shutdown, the House kept busy this week moving forward on impeaching everyone under the sun. Well, it seemed that way, at least. Their new number one target is the secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. He hasn't committed any crime or any other actual impeachable offense, mind you, he has just been carrying out the policies of the Biden administration. According to Republicans, this is now an impeachable offense -- which is a real-life (as opposed to made-up) example of "weaponizing the federal government." Disagreeing with an administration's policies has never been an impeachable offense, but that doesn't appear to be stopping the House GOP on their mission to impeach someone -- anyone -- connected to Joe Biden. They're also considering impeaching the attorney general and the secretary of Defense, as well as their ongoing effort to impeach Biden himself.
Because, of course, it's not like they have better things they could be doing, right? As we said, clowns gotta clown.
Which seems as good a place to end this weekly wrap-up as any. So we'll just move swiftly along to this week's awards....
For sheer gall, we are handing the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Representative Adam Schiff.
Schiff just released a letter he sent to Donald Trump. This is a follow-up to the report he and his fellow Democrats on the House Oversight Committee last week, where he itemized how much he could prove that Trump had received from foreign governments while he was president. This was all to undercut all the nonsense the committee is currently engaging in over Hunter Biden, of course.
In any case, Schiff sent a letter demanding every last dime Trump made from China (mostly) and all the other foreign governments. The full text of the letter opens with:
I write today to demand that you immediately return to the American people the $7,886,072 that we know you have accepted from foreign governments in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause -- a fact you admitted, once again, at a Fox News town hall this week. Given that this is a fraction of your unconstitutional collections from foreign governments and that we do not yet know the complete sum of foreign money you accepted while in office, I also demand that you give Congress a full accounting of the money, benefits and other emoluments "of any kind whatever" you pocketed from foreign governments or their agents during your term as President and that you return the total sum of these foreign emoluments to the American people by writing a check to the U.S. Treasury like the one attached, which you received from the Kuwaiti government.
At the very end of the letter, Schiff throws in some Grade-A snark, as a closing line:
Your acceptance of foreign emoluments while in office was a stunning violation of the U.S. Constitution -- and a profound betrayal of the interests of the United States and the trust of the American people. You must immediately pay to the American people the $7,886,072 we now know you accepted in payments from foreign governments in violation of the Constitution. Further, you must provide Congress with a full accounting of all payments, benefits, or other emoluments you received from foreign governments or their agents, including through the more than 500 entities you own, during your term as president -- and you must pay to the American people the total amount in foreign emoluments you accepted as President. I look forward to your prompt response and send you greetings for a happy and law-abiding New Year.
[Cue: rimshot]
But it wasn't just his needling Trump this week that won Schiff the coveted MIDOTW award. He also ramped up his campaign for the open Senate seat in California by releasing his full agenda, which is pretty breathtaking in its optimism:
California Senate candidate and Congressmember Adam Schiff is calling for a major overhaul of American institutions, including getting rid of the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster.
He's currently leading the field in the primary race, and while we're not endorsing Schiff in that race we have to say he had a pretty impressive week all-around. Which is why Adam Schiff is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.
[Congratulate Representative Adam Schiff on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]
We're not entirely sure if he's actually a Democrat or not, but we decided that for the purposes of our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, he's close enough. After all, Lloyd Austin serves in President Joe Biden's cabinet, as Secretary of Defense, and he has retired from military service. So like we said -- close enough.
Lloyd Austin is by all accounts a very private person. So he didn't want anyone to know the details of why he went into the hospital for surgery. And then he didn't tell anyone when he had to go back into the hospital for complications from that surgery. For days on end -- until the story broke.
This is absolutely unacceptible. It should be unacceptible for any cabinet member, although if the same circumstances had happened to, say, the secretary of Agriculture or Housing and Urban Development, we doubt many people would feel as strongly about it. But Austin is in charge of the Pentagon. Didn't anyone put some sort of rules in place for everyone in the military chain of command way back in the times of the Cold War and the passage of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment? Apparently not.
Which is why Defense Secretary Austin was able to enter the hospital and not tell the president, the White House, or the person who was given operational control in his place for days on end.
This, again, is absolutely unacceptible. President Biden just launched a military attack on the Houthis in Yemen. War is raging in the Middle East and in Ukraine. The lines of command and communication need to be crystal-clear right now, obviously. But they weren't.
To his credit, Austin has apologized and the White House has now instituted new protocols for everyone in the cabinet, but again -- to someone who grew up during the latter parts of the Cold War -- it is simply astonishing that protocols weren't adequately put in place 60 or 70 years ago.
Which is why, for putting his own medical privacy above the security of the nation, Secretary Austin was the easy choice for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.
[The only public contact info for Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin we could find is his official snail-mail address, so if you've got the patience you can use that to let him know what you think of his actions -- or, more precisely, his inaction.]
Volume 735 (1/12/24)
The first five of these talking points are all designed to rake the House Republicans over the coals, since we felt they definitely deserve such treatment this week. But our final talking point is not an amusing bit of snark (as it often is, here) but instead the most serious one of all.
The do-nothing House
An oldie but a goodie!
"The Republican House of Representatives has been possibly the least-productive House in American history. They have passed a handful of laws -- far fewer than normally get passed -- and every time they are required to do something meaningful, such as pass a budget, they descend into bickering among themselves or even tossing out their own speaker. They're about to go through another round of that one, in fact. Everyone watching at home should come to the obvious conclusion after watching this clown show for over a year now -- Republicans are incapable of governing. They can't do it. They can't get their act together, period. Republicans run on the slogan: 'Government doesn't work, elect us and we'll prove it!' -- and then they do so, every time they get in the majority. Voters, please take note."
Impeach Commander Biden!
You just know they'll eventually get around to him, right?
"The only thing the Republicans in the House seem to know how to do is disobey the Constitution. They are now moving forward on impeaching not just President Biden but also two or three members of his cabinet -- for carrying out Biden's policies. There are no 'high crimes' here. There are no 'misdemeanors,' even. There is no constitutional reason whatsoever for impeaching anyone in the Biden administration, but that's not stopping this GOP clown car from moving forward. Sooner or later it shouldn't come as any surprise when they attempt to impeach Commander Biden for biting Secret Service agents -- that would be about par for their course these days."
Impeach Hunter Biden!
Ladies and gentlemen -- in the center ring of our clown circus, we have...
"Joe Biden's son Hunter has never held a government job, but that isn't going to stop the House Republicans from impeaching him... or doing what they consider the next best thing, at any rate. You can't make this stuff up, folks -- this week the Republicans on a House committee voted to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for not showing up for a subpoena, while Hunter Biden showed up for the hearing in person and would have been happy to testify in public. He showed up for the day of the subpoena, too, and offered to testify in public. Why are Republicans so scared of letting Hunter Biden tell his story to the American people? There is indeed contempt here, but it's not directed at Congress, the contempt is coming from Congress."
But... new pins!
House Republicans did manage to get one thing done (sigh).
"You know what the biggest accomplishment Republicans in the House can point to this year? They issued new member pins. These are little pins worn by members of the House to allow security to know who is a representative and who is not. For some reason they didn't like the color of the pin they had to wear all last year -- which was a red, white, and blue design, by the way -- so they changed it to predominantly a dull green. So I stand corrected when I say Republicans are incapable of getting their act together -- with the clock ticking down to a government shutdown next week, not only are they working hard on impeaching everyone in sight, but they also got new member pins made! Now there's a real accomplishment they can brag about on the campaign trail!"
Or maybe another new speaker?
Here we go again?
"But maybe I'm being too snarky, pointing out the new pins Republicans managed to approve. Because they also seem to be edging towards the brink of booting out their speaker again. And this time it'll only take two votes to do so. Mike Johnson is caught in the same dilemma that ensnared Kevin McCarthy -- the difference between how the Chaos Caucus sees things and actual reality. No matter how much you indulge the MAGA hotheads in their swamp-fever dreams of what they can accomplish, eventually you have to head over to the Senate and talk with the grownups to keep the government running. One week from today, we could see a partial government shutdown. Whether this happens or not is anyone's guess, but no matter what happens, soon afterwards we could see another 'motion to vacate the chair.' Which will set off another round of musical chairs as they all decide who will lead them for the next few months. Or 'weeks,' maybe I should say...."
GOP out in the states no better
Are things better for Republicans when you get away from Washington, out in the state governments and parties? Well... no.
"This week, the Republican Party of both Michigan and Florida moved to boot out the party's chair. In Michigan, they are trying to get rid of an election-denying incompetent, but she's refusing to give up the levers of party power so we'll all see this family fight play out in court, most likely. In Florida, the party had to move since their chair refused to step down after being accused of rape -- and answering the charge by explaining that the sex was consensual and his wife didn't mind because they had all had a three-way previously. Nothing like the 'family values' party, eh?"
Get him to say the words
We end on a very serious note, this week.
"Donald Trump keeps hinting that his followers are quite likely to commit political violence if anything bad happens to him. Just this week he warned of 'bedlam' if things didn't go his way. He urged his followers to 'stay in those voting booths' on Election Day, to watch for 'bags of crap coming into the voting areas' and telling them 'you've got to stop it, you can't let it happen.' Trump refused to sign a pledge with his candidate application in Illinois to never even 'advocate the overthrow of the government,' either. Joe Biden has already called Trump out for his refusal to condemn all political violence of any kind, even if it is in support of him. So far, he won't do it. He won't say the words -- even while the threats against public officials continue to grow. He has never said the words. Every journalist that ever gets to ask Trump a question should really start with: 'Do you unequivocally condemn the use of political violence for any reason, even by your own supporters?' Because until he does, Donald Trump represents just as much of a threat to democracy as he did on January 6th."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Oh, by the way --
Russia delenda est.
So Iowa
Will Nikki Haley beat Ron DeSantis?
I don't think she will beat him, but I think it might be close among the 2nd and 3rd place losers... them two.
If she does so, will DeSantis drop out before the New Hampshire primary?
Even if she does (which I don't think she will), I think it'll be close between 2nd and 3rd place... so he won't, and obviously she won't.
If DeSantis, on the other hand, beats Haley, then he will doubtlessly stay in the race for another round -- which will completely torpedo any chance of Haley building enough momentum to score an upset in the Granite State.
Wannabe Trump (Deeee Santis) is fairly close to a nonfactor in New Hampshire already. If Wannabe Trump drops out, his voters are more likely to go to Actual Trump anyway. I think.
I don't think she can win her home state so I don't think any of (all of) that matters. :)
Dan,
Do you suppose Biden's endgame in Ukraine is the elimination of Russia from the world stage? Ahem.
And, what about Biden's endgame for his Gaza war?
Funny, I never really thought of Biden as being delusional. Of course, I've never thought he was too old to be president, either.
I guess Biden likes his wars in three's.
Another wacky war, anyone!?
Trump, though, doesn't care about being legally right. All he cares about is delaying everything as long as possible. And the question of how long that will be is very much an open one.
This is where I disagree with political pundits/prognosticators; I believe Trump (obviously) cares about delay but also very much cares absolute immunity. Why? Because cases against Trump aren't just playing out in criminal courts across America, he is also being sued in multiple courts for millions of dollars in civil damages for harm he has caused to multiple people including many, many DC lawmakers, a suit filed by one police officer, a second suit filed by two police officers, a third suit filed by two police officers, a fourth suit filed by seven police officers, two suits filed by E. Jean Carroll (one he lost, another next week).
In a case of extreme whiplash, after years of claiming the election wasn't over, Trump is now lately stating that the election was long over and it was his duty to investigate fraud. Although, it is definitely long past overdue that Trump admitted the election was over, claiming you were investigating fraud when you were obviously putting together slates of fake electors in multiple states and attempting to cajole your Vice President into unilaterally using illegal documents to keep you in power illegally is actually committing fraud... not investigating it.
So, yeah, I believe he actually thinks he could be let "off the hook" for all the civil damages he's likely to owe to a plethora of police officers, lawmakers, and American citizens if he could get the Supreme Court (he believes owes him) to rule he has "absolute immunity" for just "doing his duty" for America "long after" the election was over. *laughs*
Trump already has a case he lost in New York to E. Jean Carroll, he's got another one next week he's already lost based on collateral estoppel, he's lost his case with AG James in New York to the tune of millions and probably/likely his ability to do business in the state, and he's just watched on while two American citizens disparaged by his long-time lawyer were awarded $148,000,000, and Giuliani is now claiming bankruptcy.
Can you imagine the amount of damages it will take to punish a man who's spent decades telling the whole world he's worth tens of billions of dollars? E. Jean Carroll's lawyer definitely sure can.
I think Trump is beginning to realize his mouth has painted himself in a corner; however, he hasn't stopped painting/talking/digging and he doesn't seem intelligent enough to shut it. For a tiny little whiney ass perpetual victim like Poor Donald, whose measure of himself is his overinflated financials and hyperinflated ego, can you imagine having to file bankruptcy? Although, even bankruptcy won't discharge liability damages if a creditor can prove a debtor acted willfully/maliciously.
I think Trump is beginning to see the proverbial "handwriting on the wall" with lots of numbers and zeroes and is therefore desperate to get the Supreme Court to grant him absolute immunity he believes will absolve him of both criminal and civil liability.
Re: MIDOW.
I guess I don't understand the requirements; writing a letter counts as impressive?!?!
The real impressive Democrat was in 'fly-over country'.
'It’s the first time there’s been a Black speaker in the House’s 400-year-plus history. Scott was unanimously voted for speaker after Democrats won control of the Virginia legislature in 2023.'
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/don-scott-first-black-speaker-virginia-house_n_659da19fe4b0bfe5ff64fc23
The media is, as usual, clutching its pearls about a cold-weather event in winter (shocking!), and in particular its possible effect on a political event that has ever-diminishing returns.
Meanwhile, I have seen ZERO commentators suggesting that if a) Iowa's were a primary instead of a caucus (hold your horse for part 'b') please; and b) Iowa conducted its voting entirely by mail; then,
c) the talking heads would have to pull out their hair about some other nonsense.
This week's MDDOW is President Biden for bombing Yemen.
One of the poorest countries in the world, that has been torn apart by a civil war, resulting in one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. And Biden's solution is to bomb the 'enemies' of Saudi Arabia?
This has to rank as one of the worst decisions since Kissinger facilitated the bombing of Cambodia and Laos.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67614911
For sheer gall, we are handing the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Representative Adam Schiff.
Schiff just released a letter he sent to Donald Trump. This is a follow-up to the report he and his fellow Democrats on the House Oversight Committee last week, where he itemized how much he could prove that Trump had received from foreign governments while he was president.
It's a great letter and the first time (as far as I know) where a POTUS has been asked to return millions of dollars to the American people in direct violation of the Constitution (complete with evidence enclosed). However, it's the handiwork of Jamie Raskin and the House Oversight Committee.
Remember what McCarthy did to Schiff (and Swalwell) for their brilliant impeachment work of Defendant Donald?
Poor "not a quitter" Kevin McCarthy, the first ever Speaker of the House of Representatives to be booted out of his speakership. Proving you really do reap what you sow.
While it can be entertaining to write about the theatrics and chaos of the GOP, American voters will be casting their votes on much less esoteric issues. It seems that this week's talking points are the definition of "inside the beltway" speak.
Chris has nothing to offer about:
1) Global warning? This is a true existential crisis that young voters are very concerned about.
'Last year was 0.15 degree Celsius (0.27 degree Fahrenheit) above the previous record holder, 2016, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That margin is itself a record.'
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2023-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-long-shot/
2) The self-identified 'pro-life' party is eager to let children go hungry?
'More than eight million children in 15 states will be shut out of a new federal food assistance program intended to help needy families during the summer months.
Set to begin this summer, the new program will provide low-income families with $120 for each eligible child, which can be used to purchase food at grocery stores, farmers’ markets or other approved retailers when such assistance is not available in schools.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/us/school-lunches-assistance-republicans.html
3) One party is trying to catch fat-cat tax cheaters, the other is protecting them?
'Along with the $122 million collected from delinquent millionaires last October, now nearly half a billion dollars in back taxes from rich tax cheats has been recouped, IRS leaders say.
The announcement comes as the IRS braces for a more severe round of funding cuts.'
https://apnews.com/article/irs-tax-biden-inflation-reduction-act-ceacc306233f1a41e0e41e81e89a60a5
4) Many people worried in 2016 that Trump was a 'Mancurian candidate'; his words and actions since then have proven that he is a FOP ("Friend of Putin"). The Republicans in Congress are now marching in lock-step (goose step?) behind him?
We know how the right-wing media would pummel the Democrats if the shoe were on the other foot.
'The U.S. had no funds left to replace weapons sent to Ukraine, Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said during a Thursday press briefing.
“We’re out of money,” he told reporters.
There exists $4.2 billion left in authority to send such aid, Ryder explained, but the lack of replenishment funds will likely lead to a pause in support, as the Pentagon doesn’t want to risk the readiness of U.S. forces.'
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/01/04/were-out-of-money-us-exhausts-security-funds-for-ukraine/
italyrusty
10
While it can be entertaining to write about the theatrics and chaos of the GOP, American voters will be casting their votes on much less esoteric issues.
You think (another) imminent government shutdown by way of the so-called "chaos of the GOP" is an "esoteric issue"? You must not realize exactly what that entails and how it could directly affect Americans.
It seems that this week's talking points are the definition of "inside the beltway" speak.
I see you still don't understand what a political "talking point" actually is. Well, I can explain it to you (again), but I (still) can't make you understand it.
Chris has nothing to offer about:
Why do I think you are going to follow this with a list of issues that do not meet the general definition of "talking points"?
@liz[3],
as president, biden has defied all expectations and far exceeded the mediocrity that characterized the early career of which you've so long been enamored. he's trusting our allies (ukraine and israel) to deal with our adversaries (putin and hamas), and being a strong leader when the world needs one. some leaders are born great, some become great, and biden seems to have had greatness thrust upon him.
however, if you're searching for delusion, go find a mirror and take a better look.
JL
italyrusty[8],
Should the Houthis be allowed, unimpeded, to attack ships in the Red Sea?
Thanks, Joshua.
italyrusty[10],
It seems that this week's talking points are the definition of "inside the beltway" speak.
Heh. When I first started coming here, I didn't like the whole idea of "talking points". Indeed, one of the reasons for my early following of Biden's senate career was due to his penchant for straight-talk. He called it they way he saw it, in other words, and never really followed the "talking points" of his own party. He always liked to say that the good news is that he says what he means and the bad news is that he means what he says! :)
To me, talking points simply meant 'spin', regardless of how truthful or accurate they were or were not.
However, over many years, I have come to love Chris's FTP columns, actual talking points and all. I now equate them with all that Democratic messaging should be. Dems have notoriously missed the boat on communicating what it is they are doing and trying to do in a way that resonates with voters. Chris's talking points, generally speaking, seek to rectify this sad situation.
italyrusty,
Unfortunately, for those of us who are outsiders and view the US primarily from an international perspective, Chris's blog is most decided NOT a US foreign policy blog or even a blog that focuses on the existential challenges of our time.
CW dot com is a US domestic policy-oriented blog. And, that's that.
And, since Biden became president, I have reverted back to what my main focus has always been - how the US operates on the world stage from the perspective of a casual observer, wanting to learn more. So, of course, I would also love for Chris to write more about US foreign policy and global issues but that isn't the purpose of this blog. :(
Kick,
In response to italyrusty, you wrote,
"I see you still don't understand what a political "talking point" actually is. Well, I can explain it to you (again), but I (still) can't make you understand it."
What I don't understand is why you find it necessary to belittle your fellow Weigantians with mean-spirited responses as you did (again) above ...
Joshua,
as president, biden has defied all expectations and far exceeded the mediocrity that characterized the early career of which you've so long been enamored. he's trusting our allies (ukraine and israel) to deal with our adversaries (putin and hamas), and being a strong leader when the world needs one. some leaders are born great, some become great, and biden seems to have had greatness thrust upon him.
Biden may well have defied the (exceedingly low) expectations of those who bought - hook, line and sinker - the asinine media storyline on him for his entire senate career. But, for those of us who have followed Biden for a half century, more or less, expectations for him and his administration were sky high and, in some respects, still are.
Biden is doing far more than merely "trusting" allies to deal with American adversaries. He is training and/or equipping them with much of what is required to fight wars, seemingly with little apparent regard to how misguided and ultimately ineffective those efforts may be.
So, far from just trusting allies to deal with the adversaries, the US is engaged in two all-out wars and, apparently, itching to start a third.
Is it so delusional to inquire, at this juncture, what the endgames are?
Re MDDOTW
Secretary Lloyd Austin is 70 yrs old. What possible reason could a 70 yr-old have for being embarrassed about people knowing he has prostate cancer? Could he possibly be trying to avoid jeopardizing his reputation as "General Studly", assuming he has such a rep? Can't think of any other possibility.
Heh.
CRS,
Seriously, though ... with the US engaged in two hot wars and a crisis in the Red Sea international shipping lanes, one might imagine that the president would be talking with his Secretary of Defense at least once a day, no?
And, yet, Biden didn't know Austin was in the hospital for four days (or that he had been diagnosed with cancer). Which means the secretary wasn't missed or, perhaps, even cared about.
Maybe Austin wasn't on board with the way the two hot wars have been unfolding. In other words, what we may have here is the curious sidelining of a SecDef. Yet another thing I would never even have dreamed would happen in a Biden administration.
what do you think trusting our allies actually means? we support them with whatever materiel and training we have available, and we realize that they know their own conflict a heck of a lot better than we do. or perhaps we insist on shamelessly pushing an agenda that serves our adversaries more than our allies. good luck with that.
or perhaps we insist on shamelessly pushing an agenda that serves our adversaries more than our allies. good luck with that.
THAT, my friend, is precisely what Biden/NATO have done!
And, Biden/NATO/Ukraine/Israel will need a helluva lot more than luck to prevail on all fronts.
just a few facts to consider:
in december, between 75 and 85 percent of israelis, across all demographics, support their military's goal of permanently ending hamas rule in gaza, including nearly 80% of self-identified leftists and even around a third of israel's ARAB population.
https://www.inss.org.il/publication/israel-war-support/
but sure, keep going on about how wrong it is to continue to fight. biden's stance of fully supporting israel, while advising additional care to prevent civilian suffering, is about as close to perfect a US policy as could be imagined.
JL
ukranians not much fewer. over half reported wanting to continue to fight even if the US were to withdraw its support.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukrainians-war-weary-but-determined-to-fight-russia/a-67962297
JL
Biden/NATO/Neoconservative forces, in the case of Ukraine, have pushed an agenda for thirty years that is shamelessly in the interests of the West's battles with the Soviet Union and then Russia at the distinct sacrifice of America's so-called ally, Ukraine.
It is despicable behavior for a superpower and global. leader.
but sure, maybe you and that shmuck bradley know better than israelis what's best for israel and better than ukranians what's best for ukraine.
ukranians not much fewer. over half reported wanting to continue to fight even if the US were to withdraw its support.
Well, that is certainly not what I am hearing from my Ukrainian friend.
in december, between 75 and 85 percent of israelis, across all demographics, support their military's goal of permanently ending hamas rule in gaza, including nearly 80% of self-identified leftists and even around a third of israel's ARAB population.
I support that goal, as well.
"my ukranian/israeli/gay/black friend" = anecdotal fallacy.
but sure, keep going on about how wrong it is to continue to fight. biden's stance of fully supporting israel, while advising additional care to prevent civilian suffering, is about as close to perfect a US policy as could be imagined.
Oh, it's not wrong for Israel to fight against its adversaries. But, it is not very smart not to learn the lessons that America itself should have learned in fighting the wrong way.
Biden and his ever-present SOS Blinkin have done NOTHING to prevent civilian suffering. They have only acted to ensure more civilian suffering. And, there will be a heavy price to pay, all around, for that action and inaction.
"my ukranian/israeli/gay/black friend" = anecdotal fallacy.
Shocking. Positively shocking. I was just wondering how long it would take.
My Ukrainian friend is also a colleague. She brought her mother and father to Canada after the war began. She has property herself in Kharkiv, their hometown. They all wish to return/visit Ukraine as soon as that is feasible.
They understand what is happening in Ukraine and why far better than any news coverage could hope to describe.
blinken did tell the israelis they couldn't continue to prosecute the hamas war for as long as they wished. they essentially laughed in his face.
Precisely!
i'm laughing too, but not because it's funny.
And, as for pie, so long as there is more filling than crust, I'm a big believer! :-)
israel/palestine is a problem even pie can't fix.
Joshua, I'm not one to laugh when it comes to the US sabotaging its own interests and global leadership possibilities. Not laughing at all.
But, since I can't resist sharing a good tune, here is one just for you today!
Laughing
If there is enough of it, pie can fix ANYTHING!
I learned that from you.
laughing too, but not because it's funny.
I know what you mean. There is a lot of that going around, these days. :(
Joshua,
My frustration at the way Israel is responding to the horrific attacks by Hamas on 10/7 is coming from a place of caring about the future of the Jewish state.
I just don't believe that Israel is acting in a way that will enhance its security and safety of its people. And, by being complicit in how this war is being waged in Gaza, the US is very likely endangering its own national security and safety of its people. Not by fighting back against terrorists and their despicable agenda. But by not fighting back in a smart way that actually will enhance the safety and security of Israel and indeed the entire region.
I really enjoy reading Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times and here is his latest piece.
Elizabeth Miller
21
In response to italyrusty, you wrote,
"I see you still don't understand what a political "talking point" actually is. Well, I can explain it to you (again), but I (still) can't make you understand it."
Thank you for that stroll down Memory Lane; however, you're wasting your time since I don't suffer the affliction of having memory issues.
What I don't understand is why you find it necessary to belittle your fellow Weigantians with mean-spirited responses as you did (again) above ...
Whereas anyone who regularly reads this blog could not fail to fully comprehend your self-admitted inability to understand things and how that (unbeknownst to you) applies to a myriad of issues whether you're cognizant of that penchant or not (spoiler alert: apparently not), and they'd have to be dumb and blind not to have taken notice of that constant display of your obvious belief that you're the official board mother for the entire blog.
In conclusion, I reiterate something I saw a very wise man say not long ago:
*
No need to thank me. :)
nypoet22
34
"my ukranian/israeli/gay/black friend" = anecdotal fallacy.
I'd be lying if I said I did not see that coming.
As for me personally, I know this mountain man by way of Ukraine whose name rhymes with Cadillac, so people call him Moutain Caddy, and unless somebody here is dumb and blind, he too has a well-known opinion about that.
The call word is (still) "panda," but you're right we might need a replacement. I am never not here. ;)
I am never not here. ;)
And, you sure do seem to enjoy belittling people and dismissing their opinions, even when they are not a participating member of this blog.
:(
Why am I not surprised that Trump garners so much support across such a wide swath of Americans? Because, they see themselves in much of what Trump does and says. Talk about holding up a mirror!
Elizabeth Miller
48
And, you sure do seem to enjoy belittling people and dismissing their opinions, even when they are not a participating member of this blog.
OMG! So you're saying you're under the mistaken impression that it's your aim to police the comments section of the blog for those who are and are not participants of it!? Wow, you are going to be really busy since there is no one (living or deceased) who does not fall into one of those categories.
As far as I'm concerned, you have some options:
* Allow yourself to stop obsessing over my opinions.
* Keep your smelling salts nearby.
* Strap yourself in.
Are you freaking serious!? I can't stop laughing.
You really weren't kidding when you said you didn't understand. You seriously think I'm "belittling" Mountain Caddy!? Oh, dear, no... and quite the contrary, in point of fact. It wasn't me who cherry picked a so-called Ukrainian friend as a single data point while totally discounting the very well-known opinions of someone who actually participates on this blog simply because those opinions didn't fit your worldview... that was obviously you.
That is referred to as an "anecdotal fallacy" because it ignores a multitude of evidence to the contrary in favor of a single cherry-picked data point.
When you're in a hole, it's always best to just stop digging. Heh.
Wow, you are going to be really busy since there is no one (living or deceased) who does not fall into one of those categories.
But, fortunately for me, there is only one of you. :)
Kick
[15]
If you explained the purpose of these 'talking points' before, I'm sincerely sorry that I missed that.
I would hope that the TPs are either:
* subjects that Democratic candidates should use in their speeches, appearances, and advertisements during this period, when theses subjects are 'hot' in the minds of voters; or,
* things that WE should tell our friends and neighbors to convince them to vote Democratic in the upcoming elections.
If that's the case, this week's TP's fail.
Kick
[15]
Re: "You think (another) imminent government shutdown by way of the so-called "chaos of the GOP" is an "esoteric issue"
In the current Congress alone, I can recall weeks of commentary on an 'imminent government shutdown'. IMO at this point, TP should be proposed when the shutdown ACTUALLY happens.
Elizabeth Miller
[17]
Re: "Should the Houthis be allowed, unimpeded, to attack ships in the Red Sea?"
I have two responses to this comment, both long.
1) In the weeks after the September 11 attack on the twin towers, my elderly neighbor expressed the opinion that we should bomb Afghanistan immediately. I disagreed with her vehemently. She then opined that we "must do SOMETHING!".
Because of the pleadings of millions of other Americans just like her, we blew trillions in treasure and ruined the lives of millions, both at home and abroad.
And we certainly didn't change any 'hearts and minds' in satisfying their bloodlust.
2) The Yemeni civil war broke out in 2014. America - and most of the world - has ignored it, for myriad reasons.
The latest bombing by the U.S. are NOT intended to resolve the root causes, nor provide any remedy to the millions of civilians who have been displaced and are suffering.
These bombs are to protect petroleum transport, plain and simple.
Elizabeth Miller
[20]
Re: foreign policy and American elections
Conventional wisdom is that foreign affairs do not sway the average American voter.
But from everything that I've read, the current conflict between Israel and Gaza is very much in the news daily AND is tearing apart the Democratic Party and dividing their base.
IMO the real threat in 2024 is NOT the Republican base voter, nor the so-called 'swing voter'. As 2016 should have taught us, low voter turnout is what will sink Biden and the Democrats. And nothing keeps a voter at home on election day more than disgust with BOTH parties, especially your own.
Elizabeth Miller
51|52
When you're in a hole, it's always best to just stop digging. Heh.
That is hysterical because you've displayed no evidence whatsoever you can control yourself, and it will be a cold day in hell when you can control me.
But, fortunately for me, there is only one of you. :)
It's a fact, I'm unique, definitely one of a kind; when God made me, he broke the mold... but not before he made me a twin.
Second rule of holes: When you stop digging, you're still in a hole... and if you're one of those totally typical dime-a-dozen smothering aspiring board mothering wannabe blog dictators, don't be surprised if you find yourself burrowed down deep in your hole without a single soul willing to help you out. :)
italyrusty
53
If you explained the purpose of these 'talking points' before, I'm sincerely sorry that I missed that.
No apologies necessary, sincerely or otherwise; however, a good political talking point isn't something I could likely even come near to successfully defining in print... political posturing that's not generally easily refuted that appeals more to the emotional side of a targeted audience and isn't generally geared toward preaching or teaching complex issues but articulating ideas/political positions in no uncertain terms, simple, concise, compelling, and never boring.
If that's the case, this week's TP's fail.
Agree to disagree. You do not appear to understand what an effective political talking point actually is. :)
italyrusty
54
In the current Congress alone, I can recall weeks of commentary on an 'imminent government shutdown'. IMO at this point, TP should be proposed when the shutdown ACTUALLY happens.
So you're saying you wish to avoid talking about the great white shark until it swims up and bites you in the ass? [there's a movie misquote in there].
In the current Congress, there's been an imminent government shutdown for weeks because that is what a subset of right-wing politicians beholden to Trump are demanding along with impeachment of the current POTUS, and they fired the first speaker in history who didn't deliver it. If you don't already understand how that galvanizes and moves voters, then I can't understand it for you.
italyrusty,
As I said, Israel has not learned from America's mistakes in the response to 9/11. So, yes, bloodlust and the notion that 'something must be done!' is a long way from addressing root causes.
But, you still aren't saying what SHOULD be done. In other words, how do you solve a problem like the Middle East? How does America lead?
One of my favourite Biden quotes has lost quite a lot of its significance for me, lately but, it's still worth repeating ... America leads best when it leads by the power of its example and not just by the example of its power.
italyrusty,
Conventional wisdom is that foreign affairs do not sway the average American voter.
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.
As 2016 should have taught us, low voter turnout is what will sink Biden and the Democrats. And nothing keeps a voter at home on election day more than disgust with BOTH parties, especially your own.
Agreed, wholeheartedly!
I think America is hanging on by a thread, domestic policy-wise AND internationally. The re-election of Trump will very likely push it over the edge.
Certainly, there is disgust with both parties and with the current standard bearers of those parties. Which doesn't bode well for voter turnout. On the other hand, if the situation that currently exists within the Republican party is not enough to override that widespread general disgust with both parties, then all I can do is wish America and the rest of us a lot of luck because we're going to need it!
@liz,
i love the spirit with which you attempt to engage here. but we all have our blind spots, and among my pet peeves about you is that you rarely seem to read beyond the title of any article you disagree with, if you click the link at all. this pattern was most especially evident to me in your response to the howard jacobson article i carefully chose for you, from october 15th.
in an attempt to practice what i preach, i have read closely the kristof article you linked to, and will attempt a gentle riposte regarding the criticisms which he addresses. perhaps not all at a time, but i'll get to them.
JL
@liz,
tangential but still relevant; kick was slightly incorrect when she said you "cherry-picked" your source on ukraine. in order to cherry-pick, one must first access enough differing opinions and their evidentiary support to make an informed choice. like so much of today's electorate, i believe you've remained ignorant by consuming media within an echo-chamber of sources that don't directly challenge your views. i take neither joy nor satisfaction in pointing it out, but i'm dead serious and i hope you'll take it to heart.
JL
Joshua,
I always read the links you provide. And, I read articles from a wide variety of news and analytical sources, including ones that have a bent different from my own. My problem is not that I live in an echo chamber, not by a long shot. In fact, I enjoy commenting on pieces that I disagree with and I always do it with civility, in the spirit of lively discussion and debate.
Upon reading the entire Howard Jacobson article, I assumed - correctly, I believe - that you provided that link because you believe I am engaged in victim-blaming and, worse, have no empathy for human suffering. I never expected, in all of our years of conversing here, to be on the receiving end of those sentiments from you. It made me want to leave this place, permanently.
my first instinct is to refer to this response as "short-sighted," but let's be more objective and just call it focused on the now. there's an argument to be made that allowing so much collateral damage will hurt israeli interests in the long run as well. the trouble for israelis is that they can't afford to think primarily about the extreme short-term or the extreme long-term. when someone has done the things that hamas did in october, has built up the organization and infrastructure to repeat the process, and has clearly stated that october 7th was for them just the beginning, half-measures won't prevent the same or worse from recurring soon.
netanyahu and his right-wing cabal notwithstanding, most israelis are anything but indifferent to the suffering that their response has inflicted; they're profoundly sad about it. however, they don't see it as avoidable the way kristof or other outsiders might.
you once astutely observed that i didn't refute your assertion that netanyahu hasn't chosen the wisest course of military action. that may well be true, and biden has been wise to counsel greater caution and restraint. but that's a tougher challenge than it seems.
like drug cartels and other gangs, hamas regularly uses unarmed women and children, embedded within larger groups of unarmed women and children, generally located in schools, hospitals and other places where there's a greater concentration of innocents, to observe and report tactical information back to heavily armed guerrillas below-ground, who in turn use that information to kill. protecting even the lives of those who hate us has always been a source of pride for the israeli military, so there's always a delicate balance between protecting the innocent and defending oneself. i happen to think the operations in gaza do need to be conducted more patiently, but that's easy to say when you're not being regularly shot at, and when so many who appear innocent are the ones telling others where you are so you can be killed, daring you to stop them because they that know if you do it means good press for their organization.
israelis use the term "human shield," but that doesn't really get at the levels of cynicism with which the deaths of children are incited and exploited by hamas, islamic jihad and other terrorist groups in gaza. so, around 80% of israelis support continued military action (if not the precise military action currently being taken), and criticism mainly of israel coming from kristof and his ilk generally result in dejected stares and head-shaking.
JL
Upon reading the entire Howard Jacobson article, I assumed - correctly, I believe - that you provided that link because you believe I am engaged in victim-blaming and, worse, have no empathy for human suffering.
the only direct mention of victim blaming in that article was the title. the rest of it was about how so much of the supposedly empathetic world has decided to jump on the anti-israel hand-wringing bandwagon when the reality of the situation is so much more complicated. and no, i don't think you lack empathy, just information and perspective. a lot.
By the way, just because I post a link to an article or a lengthy exerpt doesn't mean that I agree with everything in it or that I don't believe there are cogent counterarguments to be made. It's the discussion and debate - minus the personal insults and attacks - that I prefer to be a part of.
Our little group here won't solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict. But, we can engage in discussion and debate about the actions taken by the powers that be and whether those actions are the best way forward to achieve desired goals.
I really need to take a long break from this place. Best wishes to all until I return!
[15] & [60] Kick,
I am never not here, either. ;)
nypoet22
64
tangential but still relevant; kick was slightly incorrect when she said you "cherry-picked" your source on ukraine. in order to cherry-pick, one must first access enough differing opinions and their evidentiary support to make an informed choice.
You're right! Just because I have been carefully considering the opinions of fellow commenters here for years in addition to sources who literally have boots on the ground on two continents, why assume anyone else is doing that, particularly in the midst of a myriad of evidence to the contrary!? For instance:
*
This type of sweeping generalization [in all caps] is not simply an outright fabrication, it displays stunning ignorance regarding actual events in addition to rube-like gullibility and blind regurgitation of absolute rubbish journalism/propaganda.
like so much of today's electorate, i believe you've remained ignorant by consuming media within an echo-chamber of sources that don't directly challenge your views.
Exactly... coupled with the seeming absence of any evidence whatsoever of a person possessing an ounce of any common sense regarding the facts. Who with an ounce of knowledge regarding any of these issues would keep prattling on incessantly about "Biden's wars"? Anyone who buys into that absolute asinine drivel cannot possibly be paying attention... and might as well be blaming Canada.
Elizabeth Miller
65
My problem is not that I live in an echo chamber, not by a long shot. In fact, I enjoy commenting on pieces that I disagree with and I always do it with civility, in the spirit of lively discussion and debate.
In addition, your problem also seems to include your ignorance of the actual meaning of the words "always" and "civility" as well as that constant delusion that it's somehow your calling to monitor the entire forum.
How many years will it take to get through to you that my opinions here are my own? You have absolutely zero control over the content of my posts. You are obviously free to disagree with them, but you should allow yourself to cease and desist in your incessant crusade to control their content. Seriously... get over yourself already.
MyVoice
70
I am never not here, either. ;)
I figured as much. So you can see I have the self-appointed board monitor digging a hole into my backside over my use of certain selected phrasing, and I hope you don't for a scintilla of a second believe that I forgot from whence it came:
This comments section's ass chewing is on you!
If you understand me, and I'm certain you do, then you know I'm just kidding and take full responsibility for having an opinion containing such a "scandalous" meme, and full disclosure: No one reading this blog should put it past me to ever use it again because we twins know a good turn of phrase when we see it.
Don't be a stranger. We miss your voice. :)
Kick
[73]
I knew absolutely you knew what I was referencing. Makes me laugh whenever I see it.
Basic twin communication.
Do carry on, please.
@kick/myvoice
are you real-life related?
[75] nypoet22 wrote:
@kick/myvoice
are you real-life related?
Only in spirit!
nypoet22
75
are you real-life related?
*
So, yes. :)
MyVoice
76
Only in spirit!
That too! :)