#An early and consequential mistake by John

[waveofahand]

That's an agreement that, when you think about it, goes way beyond a partnership, or even a pact between brothers. Saying "Anything I write I will put both of our names on," is like saying "we will be together FOREVER." It's pretty much akin to a marriage. It's a suggestion of the idea that in marriages partners become "one flesh":  "...and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:8) So at this very young age (and John never gets ages right in these interviews - he would have been 17) John and Paul, these two lost and grieving boys, were so profoundly connected and committed to each other that they saw themselves as a single entity. It explains a lot about all the grief, later in life.

Because this decision is monumental. Whether they actually became physical lovers or were simply profoundly close, it is still a monumental thing. A huge, huge offering of self to each other, showing ENORMOUS trust. I have always suspected that the first big rift that occurred between John and Paul -- one that may have been papered over but was LASTING, nevertheless -- was when John went with Spain with Brian and convinced him (however he did it) to go with Lennon/McCartney on all of their works. I believe the original idea was that whoever was the main writer would have precedence, thus "I saw her standing there" would have read as "McCartney/Lennon" (which is how it reads on first singles issued for "Please, Please Me" and of COURSE, the orally fixated McCartney would have been the dominant writer of that piece on oral pleasures...)

I think on some level Paul never got over that, and John might have felt guilty over it, as he did with nearly everything. An "original sin" that eventually caused real pain. It was an early and consequential mistake by John, possibly made due to his own sense of insecurity and his crippling impostor syndrome and (perhaps) an unconscious recognition of the face that Paul was the stronger musician. John's tremendous insecurity was always the catalyst for the bad things.

I kind of wish, now, that I'd added something about this incredible, unprecedented agreement to share all of their writing credits -- to become "one flesh" in their songwriting and music making, which was the most important thing in their lives -- in "Mums, Yer Boys are Cryin,'"

It might be a very hinge upon which this whole relationship should be researched and understood. A claiming of co-creation and co-custody of the fruit of their commingled sense of their selves -- their "marriage."

“Paul and I made a deal when we were 15. There was never a legal deal between us, just a deal we made when we decided to write together that we put both our names on it, no matter what." —​ John

[qqueenofhades]

Thoughts about Mary, Queen of Scots? I've been fascinated by her for years, and have been reading about her-specifically the book Rival Queens by Kate Williams, which has been really interesting. Things obviously ended pretty badly for her, and I know it was a combination of many things and many bad decisions, but I'm curious as to what that first mistake was that eventually led to her losing the throne. Would love to hear your insight!

I think that Mary's chief mistake, such as it was, was being both a woman and Catholic in a political climate that could see its way to one, barely, but not the other, and definitely not both. She also appears to have had rather catastrophic personal taste in men, but this is not an argument customarily made against male rulers and their choice in partners, so I'm less inclined to list that as a mistake. Her marriage to Henry, Lord Darnley definitely backfired (literally, seeing as he was blown up), but she had been on thin ice before that due to misogyny, anti-Catholicism, and xenophobia.

Mary's gender and religion were both weaponized against her, along with her French heritage and prior marriage to the dauphin. John Knox, a Calvinist Presbyterian preacher and one of the most prominent religious leaders in sixteenth-century Scotland, hated her vigorously for all of these reasons; he was the author of the splendidly misogynist "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women," a political pamphlet published in 1558, which argued that female sovereigns such as Elizabeth I in England and Mary in Scotland were blatantly contrary to divine law. While there was a certain amount of Scottish nationalism at play, leading to some support of Mary, this was early-on transferred to her son James, the future James VI/I, who had the advantage of being a male heir with a strong claim to both Scottish and English thrones (indeed, as eventually happened).

It seems clear that Elizabeth didn't actually want to kill her cousin, at least not for a long time, but after Mary was made the figurehead of one too many anti-Elizabethan plots, a decision had to be taken one way or the other. This isn't to paint Mary exclusively as the helpless puppet of powerful men, as she certainly had agency and choices of her own and participated in a number of consequential actions and decisions, including refusing to surrender her claim to the throne when it probably would have saved her life. However, it's difficult to see how she could have succeeded in her particular context, given the weight of the prejudices existing in that time and place, and the way this was already used in increasingly refined ways as a political weapon.

[lisa357]

Packing the Court

The current political news in the United States is bombarded with stories and rumors about “Court packing,” relating to its Supreme Court. The first consequential Chief Justice of that court was John Marshall of Virginia, appointed by President John Adams. Marshall’s very able leadership of the Court during the early years of the Republic led to its preeminence to this day. During those years, the total number of Court Justices changed frequently. Since 1868, however, the number has remained at nine.

 The most consequential and controversial Chief Justice after Marshall was Roger Brooke Taney. A supporter of President Jackson, he was appointed by Jackson to succeed John Marshall. Taney continuously disagreed with President Lincoln, and Taney’s Dred Scott ruling has been widely criticized through the years. It has been rumored that President Lincoln was preparing to put Chief Justice Taney in prison, but fortunately was finally persuaded to abandon the idea.

 In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt was elected President by a wide margin, along with substantial majorities in the Senate and House. Having followed Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, FDRs Supreme Court consisted entirely of conservative Republican appointees. That court rejected a number of important New Deal proposals submitted during his first term.

 A proposed reorganization plan, which became widely known as “court packing,” would have gradually given Roosevelt control of the Court, was rejected by the Democratic Congress. The conservative Court, however, was apparently sufficiently alarmed by the writing on the wall that it became more amenable to New Deal proposals. Some see a similar acquiescing emerging in the current Roberts Court.

  In theory of course, the President will nominate, and the Senate will confirm, the most brilliant legal minds with an unyielding dedication to the Constitution, and no consideration of partisan political interests. In practice, however, the President will nominate someone with compatible political philosophies. Inevitably mistakes were made and unjust accusations were voiced. For instance, President Eisenhower reportedly stated his biggest mistake as President was to nominate Governor Earl Warren as Chief Justice, The scurrilous attacks on the well qualified Judge Robert Bork by Senator Edward Kennedy was an example of blatant extremism!

 On the other hand, some of the most brilliant and consequential names in American history did become Justice of the Supreme Court. John Marshall, previously noted, was the longest serving Chief Justice and has generally been considered to be the most important Supreme Court Justice. His

ruling in Marbury v Madison established the principle that the Supreme Court would be the ultimate determinant of the constitutionality of any and all Congressional legislation! That has been called “the most important American judicial opinion of all time.”

 In addition to the Court giants noted, there have been a few who have made their own special imprint:

 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr; this famous son of a famous father was nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. He had earlier performed with honor in the Massachusetts Militia during the Civil War. In his 30 years on the Supreme Court, he had become one of the most widely quoted justices in American history and has made a lasting imprint on its jurisprudence.

 Louis Brandeis: In 1916 Woodrow Wilson, possibly the most overtly racist President in American history, made news of a sort when he nominated the first Jewish American to be an Associate Justice. It has been said that Brandeis became one of the most influential jurists ever to serve on the Court. Legal scholars have universally praised the brilliance and impact of his opinions.

 Thurgood Marshall: He was a civil rights activist who became the first African American Justice when nominated by President Johnson in 1967. He had been a very successful civil rights attorney for the NAACP. He won enduring fame in the landmark Brown v Board of Education case which invalidated segregation in U.S. public schools.

 Sandra Day O’Connor: In July 1981 President Reagan made history by nominating her to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the first woman to occupy that position. In September she was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. As the first female Justice she felt a special responsibility and was known to have fostered collegiality. During her tenure, her opinions tended towards conservatism.

 Moving forward in time to the present Court situation:

 Having managed, with questionable methodology, to take control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the American Republic, the Democratic party leaders, obeying the wishes of their ultra-left wing Socialist masters, are now focusing on the one remaining branch they do not yet control, the Federal Judiciary

 The current planned distortion would be to increase the nine-member Court by four. The Democrat President would appoint, and the Democrat robot Senators would confirm, four new liberal Justices. The fiction of an apolitical Court would be demolished, leading inevitably to a reduction and absurdum!

 If this political apocalypse were to take place, some years from now the political pendulum, also inevitable, would cause an opposite political party to add a sufficient number of justices to meet their goals, and the insanity would be perpetuated ad infinitum.

[americanmysticom]

Why the Obama intelligence assessment on Russia collusion is under investigation

John Durham, the special prosecutor, is examining the Intelligence Community Assessment as evidence that conflicts with one of its key conclusions keeps mounting.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/evidence-puts-obama-intelligence-assessment-russia

Rrecently declassified annex to the Obama administration’s intelligence report on Russian election interference took great pains to make clear it did not use Christopher Steele’s deeply flawed dossier to make any assessments about Moscow’s intentions.

The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) found Steele’s evidence “highly politically sensitive” and minimally corroborated and thus not worthy of including in its analysis of Russian election interference, the annex stated.

“We have only limited corroboration of the source reporting in this case and did not use it to reach the analytic conclusions of the CIA/FBI/NSA assessment,” the memo added.

File ICA-AnnexA.pdf

In retrospect, the exclusion of the Steele dossier in assessing Russian intentions may have been a consequential mistake, since evidence emerged just two weeks after the assessment was made public in early January 2017 that directly conflicted with one of the ICA’s key conclusions.

The outgoing Obama administration’s intelligence community leaders — FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, NSA Director Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper — declared on July 5, 2017 that Moscow was specifically trying to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election and to defeat Hillary Clinton.

An official with direct knowledge told Just the News that U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor named by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the investigators in the Russia collusion case, is currently reviewing the conduct of officials in the ICA and their subsequent testimony to Congress.

The official said that not all intelligence community analysts felt comfortable with the conclusion about Russia’s intent to help Trump. “There was some dissent and concern that has been hidden all this time,” the official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

One reason for that dissent may have emerged just two weeks later. Recently declassified footnotes from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report reveal U.S intelligence provided multiple warnings that some of Steele’s dossier was Russian disinformation fed by Moscow’s intelligence service.

Footnote 350, for instance, revealed that the FBI received a U.S. intelligence report on Jan. 12, 2017 warning of an inaccuracy in the dossier related to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and warning that the material was “part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.”

That same day, the FISA warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page was renewed for the first time.

File 04-15-20_ODNI_Declassified_Footnotes_20-00337_Unclassified.pdf

Another U.S. intelligence report on Feb. 28, 2017 contradicted another key allegation in the Steele dossier against Trump, declaring the claims were false and the product of Russian intelligence services “infiltrat[ing] a source into the network” that contributed to the dossier.

By June 2017, according to footnote 342 in the Horowitz report, U.S. intelligence informed the FBI that Russian intelligence was aware of Steele’s opposition research work as early as July 2016, a fact experts say likely meant Steele was used to feed derogatory information on Trump to the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.

To date, these revelations have mostly been used to call into question the FBI’s conduct in renewing the FISA warrant against Page three times without informing the court about the serious flaws in Steele’s dossier and the intelligence community’s warnings about Russian disinformation seeded within it.

But the warnings to the FBI also undercut the ICA’s conclusion on intent: If Russians were intentionally feeding false dirt to Clinton about Trump, how could they be trying to help the Republican win?

Congress is split on the issue. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the ICA’s basis for making its conclusions on Russian interference was solid. The GOP-led House Intelligence Committee came to a different conclusion in 2018, saying most of the intelligence tradecraft used in the ICA was solid but the conclusion about Russian intentions was flawed and contradicted.

The evidence backing the House panel’s report remains classified, part of a long report former Chairman Devin Nunes referred to the CIA inspector general. There is growing pressure inside the Trump administration to declassify Nunes’ referral.

In the meantime, former senior National Security Council official Fred Fleitz recently wrote an op-ed revealing that the nonpublic Nunes report included secret evidence suggesting that Brennan suppressed dissent inside the CIA about the conclusions on Russian intent.

“Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election,” Fleitz wrote. “They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.”

Brennan has denied suppressing any dissent and hailed the Senate Intelligence Committee’s finding embracing the ICA’s conclusions.

But Rogers, the former NSA chief, revealed in testimony in 2017 his agency had only “moderate confidence” that Putin actively tried to help Trump win and that his agency had “an honest difference of opinion” with the FBI and CIA.

As to why the NSA was more cautious, Rogers said the conclusion about Russia helping Trump “did not have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.”

With such differences of opinion, the Justice Department is taking a second look. Barr recently disclosed that Durham is investigating the ICA, signaling that the final fate of its conclusions remains up in the air.

“Durham is looking at the intelligence community’s ICA … and he’s sort of examining all the information that was based on, the basis for their conclusions,” Barr told The New York Times this spring. "So to that extent, I still have an open mind, depending on what he finds."

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) have joined the chorus of those questioning the ICA’s finding after the revelations from recently declassified evidence.

They said last week the newly released annex raises concerns about both the FBI’s conduct and the intelligence community’s conclusions.

“Despite the apparent absence of any initial corroboration and these mounting concerns, the FBI’s investigation continued seemingly unabated. It’s also unclear what, if any, steps were taken by the Intelligence Community to update their assessment based on the warnings,” they said.

Daniel Hoffman, the CIA’s former station chief in Moscow and one of the Agency’s top experts on Russian intelligence, told me recently that Russia’s real intention was to sow discord in American democracy, and he believes the Obama administration assessment got that wrong. He is calling for a new assessment to be conducted.

“At the end of the day, I don't think Russia influenced the outcome of the election at all,” Hoffman told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “And whatever support that they may have appeared to have given then-candidate Trump, it was discoverable. In other words, Putin wanted us to know it.

“And he knew that was the best way for Democrats and Republicans to get at each other's throats as a result, trust me. Vladimir Putin hates President Trump as much as he hates Secretary Clinton, there's no difference there."

[ruminativerabbi]

An American Hero

John McCain’s death was hardly a surprise. (The announcement at the end of last week that the decision had been made to discontinue medical treatment was certainly a clear enough indicator that he was coming to the end of his days.) I admit that the national wellspring of emotion the senator’s death brought forth from political fellow travelers and opponents alike, even leaving the President’s belated and begrudging response out of the mix, caught more than a bit off-guard. But it was Senator McCain’s posthumously-revealed wish that he be eulogized in a bipartisan manner both by Presidents George Bush and Obama that made the strongest impression on me. That these were the two men who the most consequentially thwarted his own White House aspirations—the former by defeating him for the Republican nomination in 2000 and the later by defeating him in the presidential election of 2008—also impressed me as a sign both of humility and magnanimity. The funeral is this Saturday, so I’m writing this before knowing what either man will say. But my guess is that both will rise to the occasion and pay homage to the man, not for holding this or that political view, but for having the moral stamina to move past his own defeats at both their hands to return to the Senate to continue his life of service to the American people.

Senator McCain was a complicated figure and hardly a paragon of invariable virtue. He himself characterized the decisions that led to his involvement in the “Keating Five” scandal the “worst mistake of my life.” (The fact that he made that comment after the Senate Ethics Committee determined that he had violated neither any U.S. law nor any specific rule of the Senate itself speaks volumes: here was a man who could have gone on to crow about his innocence—or at least about his non-guilt—yet who chose instead publicly to rue the appearance of impropriety that he feared would permanently attach itself to his name.) He owned up publicly to the fact that, at least in the context of his first marriage, he was not a model of marital fidelity. He was in many instances a party-line guy, going along with the plan to invade Iraq without stopping to notice that there was no actual evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed the weapons of mass destruction President Bush was so certain had to exist and in fact going so far as to refer on the floor of the Senate to Iraq as a “clear and present danger” to our country without pausing to ask himself how he could possibly know that in the absence of evidence that Iraq possessed actual weapons capable of reaching these shores.

On the other hand, his more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese—the beatings and the torture he endured, his refusal to accept the early release offered to him because the military Code of Conduct instructs prisoners to accept “neither parole nor special favors” from the enemy, his two years of solitary confinement—speaks for itself. (And the phony “confession” he signed at a particularly low point when his injuries had brought him to the point of considering suicide does nothing to change my mind about his heroism. In the end, he defied his captors in every meaningful way and was momentarily defeated by them only once.) As does his lifetime of service to the American people, one given real meaning specifically by the fact, as noted above, that he specifically did not abandon his commitment to serve merely because he was twice thwarted in his bid for the presidency and instead simply returned to the Senate, following the admirable example of Henry Clay, who lost the election of 1824 to John Quincy Adams and then, after serving as the latter’s Secretary of State for four years, returned to the Senate where he served as Senator from Kentucky for two non-consecutive terms and died, like McCain, in office.

But it was McCain’s posthumous letter to America that I want the most to write about today. Lots of literary masterworks have been published posthumously—all three of Kafka’s novels, for example, came out after he died in 1924—but most have been works that their authors for some reasons chose not to publish or were unable to get published in their lifetimes, not letters that their authors specifically wished to be publicized after they were gone from the world. That concept, however, is not unknown…and the concept of creating what is called an ethical will in which a legator bequeaths, not physical possessions or money, but values and moral principles to his or her heirs is actually a Jewish practice that has its roots in medieval Jewish times.

There are early examples of something like that even from biblical times—the Torah contains the pre-posthumous blessings that both Jacob and Moses left behind for their heirs to contemplate and to allow to guide them forward after Jacob and Moses were going to be gone from the world. (When the New Testament author of the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as doing the same thing, in fact, it is probably part of an ancient author’s effort accurately to depict Jesus as a Jewish man doing what Jewish men in his day did.) But the custom reached its fullest flower in the Middle Ages—the oldest extant ethical will from that period was written by one Eleazar ben Isaac of Worms in Germany and dates back to c. 1050. After that, there are lots of examples, many of which were collected and published in two volumes back in 1926 by Israel Abrahams under the title Hebrew Ethical Wills and still available for a very reasonable price. There is even a modern guide to preparing such a will to leave to your own descendants in Jack Riemer’s Ethical Will and How To Prepare Them: A Guide for Sharing Your Values from Generation to Generation, published in a revised second edition just a few years ago by Jewish Lights in Woodstock, Vermont.

And it is in that specific vein that I found myself reading Senator McCain’s letter to the American people: not as last-minute effort to make a few final points, much less to get a few last jabs in at specific, if unnamed, opponents. (The Bible has a good example of that too in David’s last message to the world, which includes a hit-list of people David hopes Solomon will find a way to punish—or rather, to execute—after David is gone from the world and Solomon becomes king after him.) The McCain letter, neither vengeful nor angry, is not at all in that vein. Nor is it particularly soothing: it is, in every sense, the literary embodiment of its authors hopes for the nation he served and his last word on the course he hopes our nation will take in the years following his death. To read the full text, click here.

Senator McCain identifies the core values he feels should lie at the generative core of all American policy: a deep dedication to the concept of personal liberty, an equally serious dedication to the pursuit of justice for all, and, to quote directly, a level of “respect for the dignity of all people [that will bring the nation and its citizens] happiness more sublime than life’s fleeting pleasures.” Furthermore, he writes unambiguously that, in his opinion, “our identities and sense of worth [are never] circumscribed, but enlarged, by serving good causes bigger than ourselves.”

He characterizes our country as “a nation of ideals, not blood and soil.” And then he writes this: “We are blessed and are a blessing to humanity when we uphold and advance those ideals at home and in the world.” But his tone is not at all self-congratulatory. Indeed, the very next passage is the one that seems both the most filled with honor and trepidation: “We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down; when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.” It is hard to read those words without reference to the current administration, and I’m sure that McCain meant them to be understood in that specific way. But the overall tone of the letter is not preachy or political, but deeply encouraging and uplifting. His final words to his fellow Americans are also worth citing verbatim: “Do not despair of our present difficulties,” the senator writes from the very edge of his life. “We believe always in the promise and greatness of America because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit, we never surrender, we never hide from history. We make history. Farewell fellow Americans, God bless you, and God bless America.”

I disagreed with John McCain about a lot. We were not on the same side of any number of the most important issues facing our nation, but those divisions fall away easily as I read those final words. Here, I find myself thinking easily, was a true patriot—a flawed man in the way all of us must grapple with our own weaknesses and failings, but, at the end of the day, a principled man and a patriot. His death was a loss to the nation and particularly to the Senate, but the words he left behind will, I hope, guide us forward in a principled way that finds in debate and respectful disagreement the context in which the American people can find harmony in discord (which is, after all, a peculiarly and particularly American concept) and a focused national will to live up our own Founders’ ideals.

In the physical universe, energy derives from tension, friction, and stress. In the world of ideas, the same is true: Socrates knew that and developed a way of seeking the truth rooted not in placid agreement but in vigorous debate. That concept, almost more than anything else, is what shines through Senator McCain’s literary testament to the nation. He notes wryly, and surely correctly, that we are a nation composed of 325 million “opinionated, vociferous individuals.” But he also notes that when debate, even raucous public debate, is rooted in a shared love of country, the result is a stronger, more self-assured nation, not a weaker one enfeebled by conflicting opinions. I think that too…and my sadness at the senator’s passing is rooted, more than anything else, in that specific notion.

John McCain’s life was a gift to our country and his death, a tragedy. May he rest in peace, and may his memory be a source of ongoing blessing for his family and for his friends, and also for us all.

[aion-rsa]

Joker 2 Might Not Happen After All

https://ift.tt/37qW7On

Joker first disturbed widespread audiences on October 4, 2019—over two years ago already! Not only was it a dramatically groundbreaking outlier of a comic book movie, but it was the last major genre offering to hit the big screen before the pandemic upended the theater industry. Moreover, despite its homicidal barrage of bleakness, the film grossed over $1 billion worldwide and even reaped mainstream accolades—notably star Joaquin Phoenix’s Best Actor Oscar win. However, a potential sequel remains stalled, as Phoenix now affirms.

Make no mistake, Joaquin Phoenix hasn’t quite gone the post-Spectre Daniel Craig, “I’d rather slash my wrists” route regarding the possibility of reprising his Joker title role. In fact, he still seems somewhat intrigued by the notion of tackling a prospective Joker 2, which was the center of conflicting late-2019 trade reports about a greenlight, which were subsequently debunked by director Todd Phillips. However, with sequel rumors having been recently revived, the star’s latest comments on the matter, made to The Playlist at this week’s New York Film Festival, seem to belie the possibility… at least for the immediate future.

“I mean, I dunno. From when we were shooting, we started to —you know, uhh, this is an interesting guy,” answers an ambivalent Phoenix. “There are some things we could do with this guy and could [explore] further. But as to whether we actually will? I don’t know.”

Of course, Joker is a solo film centered on the origin story of DC Comics’ Clown Prince of Crime and Batman’s signature archnemesis. However, Phoenix’s massive legacy role starts out quite far-removed from its signature sinister splendor, as Arthur Fleck, a meek, emaciated specimen of a man whose aspirations to become a stand-up comedian are failing, forcing him to earn income to support his live-in mother by working as a party clown—and failing at that as well. What follows for the character—who suffers from a condition that causes him to randomly laugh uncontrollably—is a steady descent into madness and misapprehension that takes shape as a series of Fight Club-esque unreliable-narrator elements, building tremendous tension toward a rampaging release. Although compelling, it is not a comic book movie that’s compatible with conventional franchise aspirations by any stretch of the imagination.

Read more

Movies

Upcoming DC Movies: Full DCEU Release Date Calendar

By Mike Cecchini

Movies

Ben Affleck Opens Up About Batman Return in The Flash Movie

By John Saavedra

Indeed, Joker doesn’t offer any serving of crowd-pleasing balls-to-the-wall action. Rather, it is a morose showcase of the kind of dangerous delusions that come about from a combination of declining mental health, lack of support and the general dehumanizing alienation of city life. In fact, when detached from its DC roots, the film—which Phillips co-wrote with Scott Silver—is a myopic, The Catcher in the Rye-inspired drama in the same tonal vein as offerings like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy (a notion boosted by Robert De Niro’s presence here,) and Falling Down. Pertinent to that classification, the film gained a kind of notoriety, especially over its perceived call-to-action climax, in which Arthur finally goes full-Joker and inspires followers to go on a fateful nihilistic spree of death and destruction. It’s the kind of concept that susceptible individuals tend to grasp and bizarrely fixate upon (almost like the cult admiration for A Clockwork Orange’s Alex). Thusly, any follow-up would be a tall, potentially-powder-keg task, even from the standpoint of a script.

Additionally, Joker 2 has another notable obstacle: its canonical status, which doesn’t quite fit anywhere in Warner’s ongoing DC Extended Universe movies and television shows. While that was always true even from the first film’s outset, the pandemic seemingly streamlined the studio’s focus away from periphery projects like Joker, despite the film’s overwhelming success. Yet, notwithstanding the gloom, Joker did firmly plant its roots in Batman lore with its Gotham City setting, and a direct connection to the Wayne family via Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen), along with an appearance by Alfred Pennyworth (Douglas Hodge) and a child Bruce Wayne (Dante Pereira-Olson). However, its early-1980s setting conflicts with the narrative of anything that the DCEU has on tap, especially with Jared Leto’s unique version of Joker having just returned in Zack Snyder’s Justice League. Plus, upcoming Robert Pattinson-headlined franchise reboot The Batman is notably set in another universe, potentially setting the stage for yet another Joker in a sequel—at least, barring the unlikely possibility of pulling a similar stunt as Sony/Marvel in Venom: Let There Be Carnage‘s canonically-consequential post-credits scene.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Regardless, while Joker 2 still has a chance, it is, for now, an unlikely proposition, especially given the state of the world in the last few years. In hindsight, the success of Joker might just be attributed to a pre-pandemic example of a movie managing to catch lightning in a bottle by riding a buzz-worthy wave of controversy. The film was an unforgettable experience, but, despite the undoubted potency, it’s a tour-de-force of melancholy that mainstream audiences might not be up for revisiting.

The post Joker 2 Might Not Happen After All appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3lcFz3H

[patriotsnet]

Did The Republicans Win The Senate Last Night

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-the-republicans-win-the-senate-last-night/

Did The Republicans Win The Senate Last Night

Buzzfeed News Has Journalists Around The Us Bringing You Trustworthy Stories On The 2020 Elections To Help Keep This News Freebecome A Member

McConnell used his power as majority leader to great effect, stonewalling bills passed in the House by both Democrats and Republicans. Rather than vote down those bills in the Senate, McConnell simply ignored them, never letting them go to a vote. Over the four years of Trump’s term, McConnell’s Senate has hardly passed any substantial legislation, despite Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress for the first two of those years. A Republican tax cut bill in 2017 and a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill in 2018 were among the rare exceptions.

Instead, McConnell focused on confirming conservative judges. He was able to confirm 218 federal judges to lifetime appointments under Trump, including three Supreme Court justices. “A lot of what we’ve done over the past four years will be undone, sooner or later, by the next election,” McConnell said last month during the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. “They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

McConnell’s disinterest in passing legislation enraged Democrats — and also drew frustration from some Republicans in the House and the Senate.

Democrats will be under intense pressure to do away with the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to actually get to a vote on a bill. The filibuster means Democrats will need to get at least 10 Republicans to support any bill they want to pass.

Gop Holds Key Seats In Battle For Majority As Ernst Cornyn And Graham All Win; Democrat Kelly Unseats Incumbent Mcsally In Arizona

lindsay.wise@wsj.com

WASHINGTON—Republicans scored key Senate victories in Tuesday’s elections, with wins in Iowa and Alabama, while Democrats flipped two seats, with former Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper unseating incumbent GOP Sen. Cory Gardner in Colorado, and Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, toppling Republican Sen. Martha McSally in Arizona, the Associated Press projected.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, AP projected that Iowa’s incumbent GOP Sen. Joni Ernst had defeated Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield, a Des Moines businesswoman. Republicans picked up a seat by ousting Democratic Sen. Doug Jones in deep red Alabama, with Tommy Tuberville, the Republican candidate and former Auburn head football coach, winning.

Control of the chamber still remains in doubt as a number of other GOP-held races hang in the balance. Democrats now have a net gain of one seat. They need to gain three seats to win a majority if Democrat Joe Biden wins the White House or four if President Trump wins re-election.

“Everything has to go right at this point in order for Democrats to have what is a very small shot to win the majority,” said Jessica Taylor, who follows Senate races for the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan outlet that tracks congressional races.

The races in North Carolina and Georgia were too close to call, and the outcomes in Michigan and Maine were uncertain. The Democrats’ opportunities to pick off seats dwindled as the vote counting deepened.

Biden Tells Georgia Voters They Have The Power To Break The Gridlock And Help Americans Get More Covid Stimulus Relief

At a rally in Atlanta on Monday, President-elect Biden urged Georgia voters to support Warnock and Ossoff, vowing that if they both win, Americans will be able to receive $2,000 COVID stimulus checks they need, and “there’s no one in America with more power to make that happen than you.”

“The power is literally in your hands. By electing Jon and the reverend, you can break the gridlock that has gripped Washington,” he continued.

He also joked that he won Georgia in the presidential election three times — in the original vote and two recounts.

Voters Endured A January Chill As They Headed To The Polls For Georgias Highly Consequential Runoffs

ATLANTA — Georgia’s Election Day voters braved a bracing January chill on Tuesday, arriving at polling places to make their choices in two Senate runoff races that are among the most consequential in recent American history.

In liberal-leaning Atlanta, Whitney Leonard, 24, walked out of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in a precinct in the West End neighborhood. Ms. Leonard said she voted for the Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock. But she said she was not beholden to the party.

Ms. Leonard said she felt that President Trump had proved himself immature and erratic, and she believed that Democrats taking control of the Senate was crucial to undoing the damage he had caused.

Before the presidential election in November, Ms. Leonard had never voted. Now, Ms. Leonard, who was previously incarcerated, said she was going to vote whenever the opportunity presented itself. “You don’t know how much of a privilege it is to vote until it’s been taken away from you,” she said.

In Dalton, the northwest city where Mr. Trump held a rally on Monday night, a steady flow of Georgians poured into Dalton State College to vote.

Northwest Georgia is a conservative stronghold, and Republicans knew their task was to overcome strong statewide Democratic turnout in early voting and absentee ballots. By Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s message to Republicans to get out and vote appeared to resonate.

How Defeat In Senate Battle Could Leave A Hamstrung Joe Biden Struggling To Accomplish Real Change

It is hard to over-exaggerate just how much is riding on the remaining Senate seat race in Georgia which will decide the balance of power and thus the fate of many of Joe Biden’s policies, writes our US editor Ben Riley-Smith

On the current maths the Democrats have 49 seats and the Republicans have 50. Win the last so-called ‘run-off’ races in Georgia and the Democrats are just about over the line. In tied votes in the US Senate, the deciding vote is cast by the vice president, soon to be Kamala Harris. Mr Biden can pass some laws in that case without Republican votes.

But if they fall short the Republicans keep their majority. And that means Mitch McConnell remains as Senate leader.

10:37AM

If You Have A News Tip Wed Like To Hear From You Reach Out To Us Via One Of Ourtip Line Channels

Still, Democrats will have one chance per year to bypass Republicans altogether and try to pass major legislation. Each year the Senate can pass a budget reconciliation bill, which is exempt from the filibuster and only needs a majority to pass. In theory, these bills need to pertain to the federal budget, but that can be interpreted widely. Republicans tried to use a budget reconciliation bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, only to fail to gain 50 Republican votes.

The Georgia results give Biden’s ability to tackle the climate crisis, one of his priorities, a big boost. The new Senate opens the door to raising spending, whether it relates to the federal budget or the next coronavirus aid package, on climate, resiliency, and environmental justice efforts. There’s also now a greater chance that Congress confirms Biden’s environmental appointees.

But the incoming administration still faces an uphill battle in passing any new, bold climate laws, the kind needed to meet Biden’s goal of dramatically cutting climate pollution from the transportation, buildings, and energy sectors in the coming decades.

Pence Is Said To Have Told Trump That He Does Not Have The Power To Change The Election Result

Vice President Mike Pence told President Trump on Tuesday that he did not believe he had the power to block congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election victory despite Mr. Trump’s baseless insistence that he did, people briefed on the conversation said.

Mr. Pence’s message, delivered during his weekly lunch with the president, came hours after Mr. Trump increased public pressure on the vice president to do his bidding when Congress convenes Wednesday in a joint session to ratify Mr. Biden’s Electoral College win.

“The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday morning, an inaccurate assertion that mischaracterized Mr. Pence’s largely formal and constitutionally prescribed role of presiding over the House and Senate.

Mr. Pence does not have the unilateral power to alter the results sent by the states to Congress.

That did not stop Mr. Trump from trying to exert pressure on Mr. Pence on Twitter early Wednesday morning in a post that the social media company flagged as promoting baseless claims about election fraud.

“If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us,” Mr. Trump tweeted, “we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures . Mike can send it back!”

:30 Pm Mcconnell Says Rejecting Bidens Win Amounts To A Death Spiral For American Democracy

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gave his strongest rebuke yet of his colleagues’ intent to challenge Biden’s victory, alleging that it would permanently damage the country’s democratic ideals. “We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids,” he said. “Voters, courts and the states have all spoken. If we overrule them we could damage our republic forever.”

As he spoke, footage of Trump supporters trying to break into the U.S. capitol were circulating on the internet, and lawmakers were tweeting that they were forced to evacuate their office buildings due to a threat. —A.A.

Pelosi Says It Doesn’t Matter Right Now If She’ll Seek Another Term As Speaker Beyond 2022

 In a press call, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot down a question about whether this upcoming term would be her last as speaker, calling it the “least important question you could ask today.” She added that “the fate of our nation, the soul of the nation” is at stake in the election.

“Elections are about the future,” Pelosi said. “One of these days I’ll let you know what my plans are, when it is appropriate and when it matters. It doesn’t matter right now.”

After the 2018 election, Pelosi agreed to term limits on Democratic leaders that would prevent her from serving as speaker beyond 2022.

Donald Trump’s Presidency: The Best And Worst Moments From His Four Years As Us President

As we enter the final two weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency, Dominic Penna our video team take a look back at his tumultuos four years in office.

Since his victory in 2016 and inauguration in 2017, Donald Trump has been at the helm of one of the most unconventional and eventful presidencies in recent memory.

From the inauguration crowd size controversy, to meeting Kim Jong-un and swearing in three Supreme Court justices, Mr Trump ploughed ahead with his unique style of leadership which sometimes stumped even the most seasoned of Washington correspondents.

To round off his term in office, Mr Trump faced both an impeachment, a devastating pandemic in the months leading up to the 2020 election, and most recently, a controversial phone call with Georgia’s Secretary of State in an attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

2:01PM

:05 Pm Biden Delivers A Speech Calling The Violence An Assault On The Citadel Of Liberty

In brief remarks, Biden called on Trump to “step up,” urging him to “go on national television now to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege.”

“At this hour, our democracy is under an unprecedented assault, unlike anything we’ve seen in modern times,” he said, adding, “”This is not dissent, it’s disorder, it’s chaos, it borders on sedition, and it must end now. I call on this mob to pull back and allow the work of democracy to go forward.”

Biden expressed dismay and surprise at the breach of the Capitol building, saying he was “genuinely shocked and saddened that our nation, so long the beacon of light and hope for democracy has come to such a dark moment.”

“Today’s reminder is a painful one,” he said. “Democracy is fragile.”

In urging an end to the violence, Biden returned to the themes of national unity that have animated his campaign and helped him capture the Presidency from Trump, saying that the “work of the next four years must be the restoration of democracy, of decency honor and respect, the rule of law,” he said. He ended by quoting Lincoln: “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”— Charlotte Alter

:15 Pm Trump Supporters Turn Violent Breach Police Barricades Forcibly Enter The Capitol

Just as the chambers recess, footage showed Trump supporters violently clashing with police, scaling the walls, gathering on the terraces, and entering the building.

The Capitol is locked down, lawmakers are asked to shelter in space, and top lawmakers were escorted off the floor.

“We’re seeing protesters assaulting Capitol Police,” tweeted Rep. Nancy Mace, a newly-minted Republican lawmaker from South Carolina.“This is wrong. This is not who we are. I’m heartbroken for our nation today.”— A.A.

Gop Sen Collins: Trump Incited An Insurrection To Prevent Peaceful Transfer Of Authority

From CNN’s Clare Foran

GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who was among the Republicans who voted to convict former President Trump, spoke on the Senate floor explaining her vote, saying Trump “incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring.”

“Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one. Rather than defend the Constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring,” she said.

Collins said that Trump’s “actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power – the hallmark of our Constitution and our American democracy – were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction.”

“The record is clear that the President, President Trump abused his power, violated his oath to uphold the Constitution and tried almost every means in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected President,” she said.

“My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the Constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors and for those reasons, I voted to convict,” she said.

More Than 4 Million Votes Were Cast In The Georgia Runoffs Surpassing The 2016 Election

With control of the U.S. Senate at stake, more than four million Georgians cast ballots in Tuesday’s runoff contests, surpassing the number of votes cast in the state during the 2016 presidential race, state election officials said.

More than three million of those votes were cast early or by absentee ballot, with more than 1.2 million people turning out at the polls on Tuesday, Gabriel Sterling, a top election official in Georgia, said during a news conference late on Tuesday night.

Mr. Sterling said that the Election Day voter turnout was “more than we anticipated” and that the counting was expected to continue into Wednesday.

Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, told CNN late on Tuesday night that about 200,000 votes were still waiting be counted.

As was the case in the November election, election officials said, the votes waiting to be counted came from DeKalb and Fulton counties in Metro Atlanta, as well as other areas that favored Democrats.

The surge in turnout capped a two-month heated runoff in a swing state that had long favored Republicans but where the changing electorate, particularly in the suburbs, helped Democrats make momentous strides. A prelude came in November, when President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. became the first Democrat to win Georgia since Bill Clinton in 1992.

Incoming Biden Administration And Democratic House Wont Have To Deal With A Republican

Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff wave to supporters during a joint rally on Nov. 15 in Marietta, Ga.

1.285%

Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have defeated Georgia’s two incumbent Republican U.S. senators in the state’s runoff elections, the Associated Press said Wednesday, in a development that gives their party effective control of the Senate.

Ossoff and Warnock were projected the winners over Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler by the AP following campaigns that drew massive spending and worldwide attention because the runoffs were set to determine the balance of power in Washington. The AP , at about 2 a.m. Eastern, then followed with the call for Ossoff over Perdue on Wednesday afternoon.

President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration and the Democratic-run House of Representatives now won’t face the same checks on their policy priorities that they would have faced with a Republican-controlled Senate, though analysts have said the slim Democratic majority in the chamber could mean more power for moderate senators from either party.

See:With sweep expected in Georgia Senate races, Democrats have high hopes for what Biden can do

“It is looking like the Democratic campaign machine was more effective at driving turnout than the Republican one,” said Eurasia Group analyst Jon Lieber in a note late Tuesday.

Warnock then made just before 8 a.m. Eastern time on Wednesday.

Dc Officials Urge Residents To Avoid Potentially Violent Protests By Trump Supporters

The local authorities in Washington are cautioning residents to avoid potentially violent agitators who are expected to gather downtown on Wednesday to amplify President Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in the general election in November.

Chief Robert J. Contee III of the Metropolitan Police Department said the police had received information that people intended to show up to the demonstrations armed, a violation of local firearm laws.

Mr. Trump is expected to appear at the rally on Wednesday and has encouraged his supporters to travel to Washington for the event. Some of Mr. Trump’s allies, including the conspiracy theorist and conservative radio host Alex Jones and some associates who recently received a pardon from the president, spoke to hundreds of people who crowded into the city’s Freedom Plaza on Tuesday, one day before Congress begins the formal counting of the Electoral College votes.

A spokeswoman for the Eighty Percent Coalition, which was publicizing the event on Tuesday, did not return requests for comment.

Tensions already began to escalate on Tuesday night, with some of Mr. Trump’s supporters clashing with police near Black Lives Matter Plaza, videos of the confrontation showed. The police used pepper spray to repel some of the demonstrators.

There were a number of violent clashes last month between supporters of Mr. Trump and counterprotesters in Washington, where four people were stabbed.

Cruz And Loeffler Plan To Join Hawley In Forcing Votes On Overturning Bidens Election

Two more Republican senators were making plans on Tuesday to object to electoral votes won by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Wednesday when Congress meets to formalize his victory.

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, plans to object to the certification of Arizona’s Democratic electors, according to a person familiar with his plans. And Senator Kelly Loeffler, Republican of Georgia, intends to object to the electors from her state, according to a person familiar with her thinking.

Mr. Cruz, a possible 2024 presidential candidate, is among 11 senators who have said in recent days that they will challenge the Electoral College results unless Congress agrees to create an independent commission to audit the results. But his earlier statements had been vague as to whether he would lodge a formal objection himself. His plan to object was first reported by The Washington Post.

His decision to do so, along with Ms. Loeffler’s, ensures that the House and the Senate will formally debate whether to overturn the results in at least three states, prolonging what is normally a brief, ceremonial session and forcing at least three votes on whether to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, plans to object to Pennsylvania’s electors, and other Republican senators could still join the mix.

Joe Biden Calls Schumer Majority Leader’ Says Georgia Delivered Resounding Message

President-elect Joe Biden congratulated Democrat Raphael Warnock on “his groundbreaking win” and said he’s hopeful Democrat Jon Ossoff will also be victorious in the Georgia Senate runoffs. 

Biden also appeared to acknowledge what Democrats hope will be their new majority in Senate by calling current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the new “majority leader.”

In his first statement on what appears to be a Democratic sweep in Georgia’s two Senate runoff elections, Biden Wednesday credited progressive activist Stacey Abrams and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, calling them “twin powers” who “laid the difficult groundwork necessary to encourage turnout and protect the vote over these last years.”

“Georgia’s voters delivered a resounding message yesterday: they want action on the crises we face and they want it right now,” Biden said in a statement. “On COVID-19, on economic relief, on climate, on racial justice, on voting rights and so much more. They want us to move, but move together.”

Warnock, who leads Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler by more than 54,000 votes, is the projected winner in his race. Ossoff leads Republican David Perdue by 17,025.

Biden vowed to try to work with both parties “to get big things done for our nation.”

He called for “urgent action” on an additional federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, reiterating his position that the COVID-19 relief bill that passed Congress in December was “just a down payment.”

– Joey Garrison

Will Trumps Attempt To Pressure Georgia Officials To Find Votes Affect The Runoffs

As Intelligencer’s Benjamin Hart and Gabriel Debenedetti discuss, the likelihood that the fallout from Trump’s apparent threat to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger will affect any voters in an election cycle as highly publicized and politically entrenched as this one:

When you have a very close race, you have to watch what happens on the margins. And there’s no doubt that these kinds of news developments from the president — who is promising to quintuple down during his closing-hours rally tonight — could cause some Republican-leaning voters to second-guess the use or wisdom of voting for Loeffler or Perdue. In races that could be decided by a few thousand votes, that’s really significant.

The thing is: Already today, Loeffler and Perdue have been trying to move on from news of this call in ways that demonstrate how desperate they are to keep the pressure on their Democratic challengers. That’s because Dems appear to have a hefty lead through early voting, and Republicans are counting on massive day-of voting on Tuesday. They don’t think they can afford for their voters to focus on this kind of story right now … but the story is blanketing Georgia.

Mcconnell: Trump Is Practically And Morally Responsible For Provoking Capitol Riot

From CNN’s Adrienne Vogt

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the Jan. 6 Capitol attack a “disgrace.” 

“They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth. Because he was angry. He had lost an election. Former President Trump’s actions preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said.

“There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President,” he added.

McConnell said there were “wild myths” about election fraud, but he said he defended Trump’s right to bring any complaints to the legal system.

“As I stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was settled. It was over. But that just really opened a new chapter of even wilder, wilder and more unfounded claims,” he said. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”

Trump “did not do his job” to end the Jan. 6 violence, McConnell said.

McConnell called the Trump defense team invoking Trump’s voters during the impeachment trial “as a human shield against criticism.”

Watch:

Historic Showdown In Congress As Gop Members Challenge Biden’s Electoral Vote Win

Democrats call it an effort to help President Trump overturn a fair election.

On Location: August 14, 2021

In a historic turn of events Wednesday, more than 100 Republicans in the House and at least a dozen in the Senate are expected to join with President Donald Trump in a last-ditch effort to challenge his election loss to President-elect Joe Biden in what Democrats are calling an unprecedented attack on American democracy.

While their complaints are not expected to change the final outcome, when Congress convenes in the House chamber in joint session to ratify the Electoral College vote confirming Biden’s win, Republicans in the House and Senate are expected to lodge formal objections to the electoral results in at least three states, according to GOP aides.

MORE: Trump keeps pressure on Pence to reject Biden’s win before Congress Wednesday

What traditionally has been a solemn and relatively routine process of counting the certified electoral votes from each state will instead prompt two hours of likely bitter debate and then votes in the House and Senate on each challenge.

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Kelly Loeffler of Georgia and Josh Hawley of Missouri are expected to co-sign written objections from House Republicans to the slate of electors from Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, respectively.

MORE: Georgia Senate elections live updates: Election official says biggest issue is rumors

The effort, which is certain to fail, has also put mounting political pressure on Pence.

Democrats Fail To Retake Control Of The Senate After Big Losses On Election Night

Republicans served the next president a Congress near certain locked in GOP control with Democratic losses in Florida, Pennsylvania and Indiana

Support our fearless, independent journalism by making a contribution or becoming a member

Julian BorgerAlan Yuhas

First published on Wed 9 Nov 2016 02.13 GMT

The Democratic party failed to retake the US Senate on Tuesday night, following losses in Florida, Pennsylvania and Indiana, as Republicans delivered Donald Trump a Congress firmly in conservative control.

Read more

On a night of dashed hopes in the presidential election, Democratic morale was buoyed slightly by a Senate victory in Illinois, where congresswoman Tammy Duckworth beat the Republican incumbent, Mark Kirk. Kirk ran a poor race against Duckworth, a veteran who lost both legs when her helicopter went down in Iraq, and was forced to apologize last week for mocking her family’s Thai background.

But other key Senate contests were far closer, with Republican Senate contenders outperforming expectations on the coattails of Trump’s surprisingly strong showing around the country.

Even before election night, the Democrats had given up on hopes of recapturing the House of Representatives, after Hillary Clinton’s strong lead in October eroded in the final two weeks of the campaign. Only a few hours into counting polls on Tuesday night, the chamber was secured for the conservative party.

Read more

Cbs News Projects Hickenlooper Wins Colorado Senate Seat Democrats’ First Pickup

Democrats picked up their first Senate seat of the night, with CBS News projecting former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has defeated incumbent GOP Senator Cory Gardner. Hickenlooper decided to run for Senate after running briefly in the Democratic presidential primary.

Gardner was considered one of the most vulnerable Republican senators up for reelection this year, especially since he’s the only major statewide elected GOP official. Gardner has also been trailing Hickenlooper in polls leading up to Election Day.

While this is a victory for Democrats, they will have to pick up several other seats to gain a majority in the Senate.

House Candidate In Georgia Who Promoted Qanon Conspiracy Theories Likely To Win

Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon supporter who has promoted conspiracy theories, is likely to win her Georgia House race. The QAnon mindset purports that President Trump is fighting against a deep state cabal of satanists who abuse children.

Greene has referred to the election of Muslim members to the House as “an Islamic invasion of our government,” and spread conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.

Mr. Trump has expressed his support for Taylor and called her a “future Republican star.” Senator Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, who is locked in a tight reelection race, campaigned with Taylor last month.

The House passed a bipartisan resolution condemning QAnon in early October.

The Gop Scored Two Wins In The Budget Blueprint On Abortion And Systemic Racism

Republicans claimed two narrow victories with potential long-term implications, with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, one of the chamber’s more conservative Democrats, joining them on both nonbinding amendments.

One indicated support for health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions. The other voiced opposition to teaching critical race theory, which considers racism endemic to American institutions. There’s scant evidence that it’s part of public school curriculums.

The budget blueprint envisions creating new programs including tuition-free pre-kindergarten and community college, paid family leave and a Civilian Climate Corps whose workers would tackle environmental projects. Millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally would have a new chance for citizenship, and there would be financial incentives for states to adopt more labor-friendly laws.

Medicare would add dental, hearing and vision benefits, and tax credits and grants would prod utilities and industries to embrace clean energy. Child tax credits beefed up for the pandemic would be extended, along with federal subsidies for health insurance.

Besides higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, Democrats envision savings by letting the government negotiate prices for pharmaceuticals it buys, slapping taxes on imported carbon fuels and strengthening IRS tax collections. Democrats have said their policies will be fully paid for, but they’ll make no final decisions until this fall’s follow-up bill.

Mcconnell Not Troubled At All By Trump’s Suggestion Of Supreme Court Challenge

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended Mr. Trump for falsely claiming that he won reelection, although he acknowledged that the presidential race had not yet been decided.

“It’s not unusual for people to claim they have won the election. I can think of that happening on numerous occasions,” McConnell told reporters in Kentucky. “But, claiming to win the election is different from finishing the counting.”

“Claiming to win the election is different from finishing the counting,” Mitch McConnell says, adding that Americans “should not be shocked” that Democrats and Republicans are both lawyering up for the close races https://t.co/fxHKy8hSEppic.twitter.com/2pNlka2Jl4

— CBS News November 4, 2020

He also said he was “not troubled at all” by the president suggesting that the outcome of the election might be determined by the Supreme Court. The president cannot unilaterally bring a case to the Supreme Court, what it’s unclear what case the Trump campaign would have if it challenged the counting of legally cast absentee ballots.

McConnell, who won his own closely watched reelection race on Tuesday evening, expressed measured confidence about Republicans maintaining their majority in the Senate. He said he believed there is a “chance we will know by the end of the day” if Republicans won races in states like Georgia and North Carolina.

[gordonwilliamsweb]

Evaluating President Joe Biden’s First 100 Days in Office

In the first 100 days, new presidents try to turn campaign promises into quick legislative victories, defuse lingering crises, set themselves apart from their predecessor and set a leadership tone for the next four years — all while avoiding blunders that could destroy their momentum.

This story ran in partnership with PolitiFact. It can be republished for free.

So how is President Joe Biden doing as he approaches this mark?

Not bad, experts say, given the scale of the crisis he’s tackling and the political opposition he faces in Congress.

“I think there are three accomplishments that stand out so far: the ramped-up coronavirus vaccine distribution, the passage of the American Rescue Plan and the return to the Paris Climate Agreement,” said John Frendreis, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

When Biden took office, the seven-day rolling average for vaccinations was 777,000 a day, but that number rose under Biden to about 3 million a day. As his 100th day approached, about half of the 16-and-older U.S. population had received at least one dose of vaccine. In addition, more than 80% of seniors had received at least one shot, and 25% of American adults were fully vaccinated.

The American Rescue Plan was a $1.9 trillion bill aimed at both providing additional funding for fighting the pandemic and helping the economy through the resulting recession. The measure included aid to state and local governments, increased unemployment insurance, support for vaccination efforts, education aid, refundable child tax credits and housing assistance.

“Few presidents have passed anything as consequential as the relief package” in their first 100 days, said John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

Beyond these items, our partners at PolitiFact provide a detailed accounting of other actions taken by Biden during his early tenure.

Other moves have been more intangible, but no less significant, experts said. “One word sums it up: normality,” Pitney said. “We can now skip the news for a day or two without worrying that we’ve missed a scandal or a crazy presidential tweet. Biden has made mistakes, such as having to backtrack on refugee policy, but they are the kind of mistakes that presidents normally make early in their term.”

Here is a closer look at what the Biden administration has done, and how his overall performance compares with his predecessors. (Biden’s 100th day in office is Thursday, if you count his half-day in office on Jan. 20.)

The Coronavirus Pandemic and Health Care

Experts said it’s possible that the vaccine rollout would have ramped up no matter who was president, but they added that Biden deserves credit for taking certain steps. He pushed manufacturers to increase vaccine production, provided federal support for mass vaccination sites and ensured that a vaccine is accessible within 5 miles of almost every American.

“He’s done a really good job,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association for Immunization Managers. “The first thing he did when he came into office was set a tone and goals, and that was important to have a benchmark.”

Biden has also met two goals he’d set for his first 100 days in office — first, 100 million covid vaccine doses, then, after achieving that goal on the 58th day of his presidency, 200 million doses. On April 22, eight days before his 100th day, that goal was achieved, too.

“At the end of the day, the proof is in the results,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “More than half of the population having had at least one shot means they’ve been extraordinarily successful.”

Biden also notched a victory on health insurance. Part of the $1.9 trillion relief package was a provision that no one must spend more than 8.5% of what they earn on insurance premiums, which experts say is among the most significant changes to the affordability of private insurance since the ACA.

And he kept other promises that he made on the campaign trail, such as rejoining the World Health Organization and restoring the White House directorate for global health security. (PolitiFact is tracking 100 of his campaign promises on the Biden Promise Tracker.)

In addition, “restoring the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to a place of prominence, having scientists speaking to the general public on a regular basis, this is all evidence that science is clearly a priority for the federal government and for the White House,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security.

Other promises on health have been more difficult to keep, such as mandating masks nationwide. While Biden did implement a mask mandate in areas where the federal government has authority, such as federal buildings, airplanes and other types of transportation, Republican governors in states such as Texas and Alabama have rolled back their mask mandates in recent months. We rated this promise as a Compromise.

The administration faces challenges in getting the remainder of the U.S. vaccinated. There are indications that the number of daily vaccinations is slowing, and some people tell pollsters that they are unwilling to get vaccinated at all.

“The challenges ahead include continuing to adjust the vaccination effort in order to get the next 20% of people vaccinated,” said Hannan. “And we’ll eventually need to get vaccinations to kids, too. We will just have to keep adjusting our efforts for different populations.”

Biden’s progress in containing the pandemic has also paid dividends for the economy, boosting consumer activity that had been restrained during the pandemic.

Key elements of the American Rescue Plan included unemployment assistance, a temporary expansion of the child tax credit, an increase in food stamp aid and aid to state and local governments for public health, housing and education. Those items “deal squarely and forthrightly with the economic calamities that have stuck working-class and poorer Americans as a result of the public health crisis,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

Critics have expressed concerns about the plan’s size and timing, saying it was passed late in the pandemic, when an upturn was in sight. “There’s a danger of overheating the economy” from injecting so much spending, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum.

Comparing Biden With His Predecessors

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 100-day accomplishments remain head-and-shoulders above any of his successors, experts agree. Roosevelt signed 15 major bills to overhaul the economy and fight the Great Depression. Harry Truman navigated the post-World War II rebuilding of alliances, economies and stability. Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. Barack Obama authorized a nearly $800 billion stimulus package to combat a devastating recession.

“Biden compares quite favorably with every other president after Franklin Roosevelt,” said Max Skidmore, a University of Missouri-Kansas City political scientist.

Biden has faced arguably fiercer partisan polarization than any of those predecessors — no congressional Republican voted for the American Rescue Plan, and most GOP lawmakers have expressed reservations about other aspects of his policy agenda. In addition, Biden’s party has narrow majorities in the House and Senate.

Experts believe that the narrow margins in Congress will push Biden to continue using executive orders and other administrative actions to advance his agenda. Biden has so far used executive orders on the coronavirus, immigration and gun policy. In some cases, Biden was able to overturn executive orders signed by Trump, who, like Biden, turned to executive orders when he was unable to get some of his priorities through both chambers of Congress.

“All recent presidents seek legislative change if they can get it, but most have spent the bulk of their terms with divided government,” Frendreis said. “Even when they have unified government, they rarely enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority. President Biden is no different on this score.”

KHN’s Emmarie Huetteman and Victoria Knight as well as PolitiFact’s Amy Sherman and Miriam Valverde contributed to this report.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Evaluating President Joe Biden’s First 100 Days in Office published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[stephenmccull]

Evaluating President Joe Biden’s First 100 Days in Office

In the first 100 days, new presidents try to turn campaign promises into quick legislative victories, defuse lingering crises, set themselves apart from their predecessor and set a leadership tone for the next four years — all while avoiding blunders that could destroy their momentum.

This story ran in partnership with PolitiFact. It can be republished for free.

So how is President Joe Biden doing as he approaches this mark?

Not bad, experts say, given the scale of the crisis he’s tackling and the political opposition he faces in Congress.

“I think there are three accomplishments that stand out so far: the ramped-up coronavirus vaccine distribution, the passage of the American Rescue Plan and the return to the Paris Climate Agreement,” said John Frendreis, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

When Biden took office, the seven-day rolling average for vaccinations was 777,000 a day, but that number rose under Biden to about 3 million a day. As his 100th day approached, about half of the 16-and-older U.S. population had received at least one dose of vaccine. In addition, more than 80% of seniors had received at least one shot, and 25% of American adults were fully vaccinated.

The American Rescue Plan was a $1.9 trillion bill aimed at both providing additional funding for fighting the pandemic and helping the economy through the resulting recession. The measure included aid to state and local governments, increased unemployment insurance, support for vaccination efforts, education aid, refundable child tax credits and housing assistance.

“Few presidents have passed anything as consequential as the relief package” in their first 100 days, said John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

Beyond these items, our partners at PolitiFact provide a detailed accounting of other actions taken by Biden during his early tenure.

Other moves have been more intangible, but no less significant, experts said. “One word sums it up: normality,” Pitney said. “We can now skip the news for a day or two without worrying that we’ve missed a scandal or a crazy presidential tweet. Biden has made mistakes, such as having to backtrack on refugee policy, but they are the kind of mistakes that presidents normally make early in their term.”

Here is a closer look at what the Biden administration has done, and how his overall performance compares with his predecessors. (Biden’s 100th day in office is Thursday, if you count his half-day in office on Jan. 20.)

The Coronavirus Pandemic and Health Care

Experts said it’s possible that the vaccine rollout would have ramped up no matter who was president, but they added that Biden deserves credit for taking certain steps. He pushed manufacturers to increase vaccine production, provided federal support for mass vaccination sites and ensured that a vaccine is accessible within 5 miles of almost every American.

“He’s done a really good job,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association for Immunization Managers. “The first thing he did when he came into office was set a tone and goals, and that was important to have a benchmark.”

Biden has also met two goals he’d set for his first 100 days in office — first, 100 million covid vaccine doses, then, after achieving that goal on the 58th day of his presidency, 200 million doses. On April 22, eight days before his 100th day, that goal was achieved, too.

“At the end of the day, the proof is in the results,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “More than half of the population having had at least one shot means they’ve been extraordinarily successful.”

Biden also notched a victory on health insurance. Part of the $1.9 trillion relief package was a provision that no one must spend more than 8.5% of what they earn on insurance premiums, which experts say is among the most significant changes to the affordability of private insurance since the ACA.

And he kept other promises that he made on the campaign trail, such as rejoining the World Health Organization and restoring the White House directorate for global health security. (PolitiFact is tracking 100 of his campaign promises on the Biden Promise Tracker.)

In addition, “restoring the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to a place of prominence, having scientists speaking to the general public on a regular basis, this is all evidence that science is clearly a priority for the federal government and for the White House,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security.

Other promises on health have been more difficult to keep, such as mandating masks nationwide. While Biden did implement a mask mandate in areas where the federal government has authority, such as federal buildings, airplanes and other types of transportation, Republican governors in states such as Texas and Alabama have rolled back their mask mandates in recent months. We rated this promise as a Compromise.

The administration faces challenges in getting the remainder of the U.S. vaccinated. There are indications that the number of daily vaccinations is slowing, and some people tell pollsters that they are unwilling to get vaccinated at all.

“The challenges ahead include continuing to adjust the vaccination effort in order to get the next 20% of people vaccinated,” said Hannan. “And we’ll eventually need to get vaccinations to kids, too. We will just have to keep adjusting our efforts for different populations.”

Biden’s progress in containing the pandemic has also paid dividends for the economy, boosting consumer activity that had been restrained during the pandemic.

Key elements of the American Rescue Plan included unemployment assistance, a temporary expansion of the child tax credit, an increase in food stamp aid and aid to state and local governments for public health, housing and education. Those items “deal squarely and forthrightly with the economic calamities that have stuck working-class and poorer Americans as a result of the public health crisis,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

Critics have expressed concerns about the plan’s size and timing, saying it was passed late in the pandemic, when an upturn was in sight. “There’s a danger of overheating the economy” from injecting so much spending, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum.

Comparing Biden With His Predecessors

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 100-day accomplishments remain head-and-shoulders above any of his successors, experts agree. Roosevelt signed 15 major bills to overhaul the economy and fight the Great Depression. Harry Truman navigated the post-World War II rebuilding of alliances, economies and stability. Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. Barack Obama authorized a nearly $800 billion stimulus package to combat a devastating recession.

“Biden compares quite favorably with every other president after Franklin Roosevelt,” said Max Skidmore, a University of Missouri-Kansas City political scientist.

Biden has faced arguably fiercer partisan polarization than any of those predecessors — no congressional Republican voted for the American Rescue Plan, and most GOP lawmakers have expressed reservations about other aspects of his policy agenda. In addition, Biden’s party has narrow majorities in the House and Senate.

Experts believe that the narrow margins in Congress will push Biden to continue using executive orders and other administrative actions to advance his agenda. Biden has so far used executive orders on the coronavirus, immigration and gun policy. In some cases, Biden was able to overturn executive orders signed by Trump, who, like Biden, turned to executive orders when he was unable to get some of his priorities through both chambers of Congress.

“All recent presidents seek legislative change if they can get it, but most have spent the bulk of their terms with divided government,” Frendreis said. “Even when they have unified government, they rarely enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority. President Biden is no different on this score.”

KHN’s Emmarie Huetteman and Victoria Knight as well as PolitiFact’s Amy Sherman and Miriam Valverde contributed to this report.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Evaluating President Joe Biden’s First 100 Days in Office published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Records show fervent Trump fans fueled US Capitol takeover (AP) The mob that showed up at the president’s behest and stormed the U.S. Capitol was overwhelmingly made up of longtime Trump supporters, including Republican Party officials, GOP political donors, far-right militants, white supremacists, members of the military and adherents of QAnon. The Associated Press reviewed social media posts, voter registrations, court files and other public records for more than 120 people either facing criminal charges related to the Jan. 6 unrest or who, going maskless amid the pandemic, were later identified through photographs and videos taken during the melee. The evidence gives lie to claims by right-wing pundits that the violence was perpetrated by left-wing antifa thugs rather than supporters of the president. Steven D’Antuono, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, told reporters that investigators had seen “no indication” antifa activists were disguised as Trump supporters in Wednesday’s riot. The AP found that many of the rioters had taken to social media after the November election to retweet claims by Trump that the vote had been stolen.

Parler, Free Speech, and bans (NYT) From the start, John Matze had positioned Parler as a “free speech” social network where people could mostly say whatever they wanted. It was a bet that had recently paid off big as millions of President Trump’s supporters, fed up with what they deemed censorship on Facebook and Twitter, flocked to Parler instead. On the app, which had become a top download on Apple’s App Store, discussions over politics had ramped up. But so had discussions that the election had been stolen from Mr. Trump, with users urging aggressive demonstrations last week when Congress met to certify the election of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. By Saturday night, Apple and Google had removed Parler from their app stores and Amazon said it would no longer host the site on its computing services, saying it had not sufficiently policed posts that incited violence and crime. Early on Monday morning, just after midnight on the West Coast, Parler appeared to have gone offline. Parler’s plight immediately drew condemnation from those on the right, who compared the big tech companies to authoritarian overlords. Parler has now become a test case in a renewed national debate over free speech on the internet and whether tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon have too much power.      (Worldcrunch) The moves by the tech giants didn’t sit well with many, including critics of the president. “We understand the desire to permanently suspend [Trump] now,” Kate Ruane, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in a statement on Friday. “But it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions—especially when political realities make those decisions easier.” French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire went further, telling France Inter radio this morning that he was “shocked” that the social networks could take such action: “The regulation of the digital [space] can’t be carried out by the digital oligarchy itself. The digital oligarchy is one of the threats that weighs on our nations and our democracies.”

Presidential Disqualification (NYT) If the House impeaches President Trump this week, it will still have almost no effect on how long he remains in office. His term expires nine days from now, and even the most rapid conceivable Senate trial would cover much of that time. But the impeachment debate is still highly consequential. The Senate has the power both to remove Trump from office and to prevent him from holding office in the future. That second power will not expire when his term ends, many constitutional scholars say. A Senate trial can happen after Jan. 20. And disqualifying Trump from holding office again could alter the future of American politics. There is a significant chance he could win the presidency again, in 2024. He remains popular with many Republican voters, and the Electoral College currently gives a big advantage to Republicans. If he is not disqualified from future office, Trump could dominate the Republican Party and shape American politics for the next four years.

As spending climbs and revenue falls, the coronavirus forces a global reckoning (Washington Post) Costa Rica built Latin America’s model society, enacting universal health care and spending its way to one of the Western Hemisphere’s highest literacy rates. Now, it’s reeling from the financially crushing side effects of the coronavirus, as cratering revenue and crisis spending force a reckoning over a massive pile of government debt. The pandemic is hurtling heavily leveraged nations into an economic danger zone, threatening to bankrupt the worst-affected. Costa Rica, a country known for zip-lining tourists and American retirees, is scrambling to stave off a full-blown debt crisis, imposing emergency cuts and proposing harsher measures that touched off rare violent protests last fall. Around the globe, the pandemic is racking up a mind-blowing bill: trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue, ramped-up spending and new borrowing set to burden the next generation with record levels of debt. In the direst cases—low- and middle-income countries, mostly in Africa and Latin America, that are already saddled with backbreaking debt—covering the rising costs is transforming into a high-stakes test of national solvency. Analysts call it a “debt tsunami”: National accounts are sinking into the red at a record pace. “I consider the risk to be very high of an emerging-market debt crisis where a lot of countries run into problems at once,” said Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “This is going to be a rocky road.”

Schools shut as Madrid clears record snow (AP) Schools in Madrid were closed on Monday while most trains and flights resumed as the Spanish capital tried to return to some form of normalcy after a huge snow storm on the weekend. While many in Madrid enjoyed the rare snow fall, skiing right at the heart of the city and holding mass snowball fights, a cold spell was set to turn the snow into slippery ice this week, and authorities rushed to clear more streets. With most streets still covered in snow, many workers stayed home. A Reuters reporter saw a number of empty shelves at several central Madrid supermarkets.

Pope, in new decree, allows more roles for women in Church (Reuters) Pope Francis, in another step towards greater equality for women in the Roman Catholic Church, on Monday changed its law to allow them to serve as readers at liturgies, altar servers and distributors of communion. In a decree, the pope formalised what already has been happening in many countries for years. But with the change in the Code of Canon Law, conservative bishops will not be able to block women in their diocese from those roles. But the Vatican stressed that the roles were “essentially distinct from the ordained ministry”, and were not an automatic precursor to women one day being allowed to be ordained priests. In a big shift last August the pope appointed six women, including the former treasurer for Britain’s Prince Charles, to senior roles in the council that oversees Vatican finances. Francis has already appointed women as deputy foreign minister, director of the Vatican Museums, and deputy head of the Vatican Press Office, as well as four women as councillors to the Synod of Bishops, which prepares major meetings.

Populist, Prisoner, President: A Convicted Kidnapper Wins Kyrgyzstan Election (NYT) A populist politician and convicted kidnapper won a landslide victory on Sunday in a snap presidential election in Kyrgyzstan triggered by a popular uprising against the previous government. Sadyr Japarov, the winning candidate, got nearly 80 percent of the vote, according to the central electoral commission of the mountainous country, the only democracy in Central Asia. More than 80 percent of voters also supported Mr. Japarov’s proposal to redistribute political power away from Parliament and into the president’s hands. In September, Mr. Japarov, 52, was still in jail, serving a lengthy term for orchestrating the kidnapping of a provincial governor, a charge he denounced as politically motivated. A violent upheaval that erupted in October over a disputed parliamentary election sprung Mr. Japarov from a prison cell to the prime minister’s chair. A few days later, he assumed the interim presidency before resigning to run for that office. The country’s main investigative body quickly canceled Mr. Japarov’s conviction. A landlocked former Soviet republic of 6.3 million people, Kyrgyzstan has suffered recurrent political strife. Three of its presidents, including Mr. Japarov’s immediate predecessor Sooronbay Jeenbekov, have been toppled in violent revolts since the country’s independence from Moscow in 1991.

A Year After Wuhan, China Tells a Tale of Triumph (and No Mistakes) (NYT) At a museum in Wuhan, China, a sprawling exhibition paints a stirring tale of how the city’s sacrifices in a brutal 76-day lockdown led to triumph over the coronavirus and, ultimately, rebirth. No costs appear to have been spared for the show, which features a hologram of medical staff members moving around a hospital room, heart-rending letters from frontline health workers and a replica of a mass quarantine site, complete with beds, miniature Chinese flags and toothbrush cups. But the exhibition is also striking for what is not included. There is no mention of the whistle-blowing role of Ai Fen, one of the first doctors to sound the alarm in Wuhan, where the virus is believed to have originated, or the decision by Zhang Yongzhen, a Shanghai doctor, to share its genome with the world against official orders. Visitors are invited to lay a virtual chrysanthemum at a wall of martyrs that includes Li Wenliang, the ophthalmologist at a Wuhan hospital whose death from the virus led to nationwide mourning. But missing from his brief biography is a crucial fact: that Dr. Li was reprimanded by the government for warning colleagues about the virus from which he later died. China has spent much of the past year trying to spin the narrative of the pandemic as an undisputed victory led by the ruling Communist Party. The state-run news media has largely ignored the government’s missteps and portrayed China’s response as proof of the superiority of its authoritarian system, especially compared to that of the United States and other democracies, which are still struggling to contain raging outbreaks. Those efforts have taken on new urgency as the Jan. 23 anniversary of Wuhan’s lockdown draws closer. In recent weeks, the government has deployed an army of censors to scrub the internet of critical coverage of the Wuhan outbreak.

Daily Low Flying Israeli Jets Over Lebanon Spreading Jitters (AP) Israeli military jets carried out several low flying flights over Beirut as reconnaissance drones also buzzed overhead Sunday in what has become a daily occurrence. Israel regularly violates Lebanon airspace, often to carry out strikes in neighboring Syria. On Christmas Eve, Israeli jets flew low late into the night, terrorizing Beirut residents who are no strangers to such flights. They were followed by reported Israeli strikes in Syria. The frequency of low flying warplanes over the capital has intensified in the last two weeks, making residents jittery as tensions run high in the region on the final days of President Donald Trump’s administration. “Of all types of panic I experienced in life in Beirut, the panic that accompanies the Israeli warplanes flying this low in Beirut is very special,” Tweeted Rudeynah Baalbaky, who said it brought back memories of the 2006 war with Israel. “When the drone leaves, the warplanes come. When the warplanes leave, the drones return. They have seen us in our PJs, filmed us in our PJs and surveilled us in our PJs. Now what,” quipped Twitter user Areej_AAH.

Lebanon tightens lockdown, imposes 24-hour curfew, as hospitals buckle (Reuters) Lebanon announced a tightening of its lockdown on Monday, introducing a 24-hour curfew from Thursday as COVID-19 infections overwhelm its medical system. The new all-day curfew starts at 5 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Thursday and ends at 5 a.m. on Jan. 25, a statement by the Supreme Defense Council said. Lebanon last week ordered a three-week lockdown until Feb. 2 that included a nighttime curfew from 6 p.m. to 5 a.m. But tighter measures were now necessary as hospitals run out of capacity to treat critically ill patients, President Michel Aoun said in the statement.

In Trump’s final days, Netanyahu orders more settler homes built (Reuters) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered construction plans advanced on Monday for some 800 Jewish settler homes in the occupied West Bank, anchoring the projects in the final days of the pro-settlement Trump administration. Palestinians condemned such construction as illegal. The timing of the move appeared to be an attempt to set Israel’s blueprint in indelible ink before Joe Biden, who has been critical of its settlement policies, becomes U.S. president on Jan. 20. Moving ahead with the projects could help shore up support for Netanyahu from settlers and their backers in a March 23 election, Israel’s fourth in two years, in which the conservative leader faces new challenges from the right.

Saar, longtime Netanyahu ally, emerges as his top challenger (AP) For years, Gideon Saar was one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most loyal and vocal supporters, serving as Cabinet secretary and government minister. Now, the telegenic Saar, armed with extraordinary political savvy and a searing grudge against his former boss, could prove to be Netanyahu’s greatest challenge. After breaking away from the Likud Party to form his own faction, Saar is running against Netanyahu in March elections and has emerged as the long-serving leader’s top rival. A secular resident of culturally liberal Tel Aviv with a celebrity news anchor wife, Saar, 54, is a hard-line nationalist long seen as an heir to the Likud Party leadership. After unsuccessfully challenging Netanyahu in a leadership race and then being denied a government position as retribution, Saar last month broke out on his own. He said his aim was to topple Netanyahu for turning the Likud into a tool for personal survival at a time when he is on trial on corruption charges. Saar’s chances of becoming prime minister in the next elections are far from certain and polling forecasts his New Hope party coming in second place after Likud. But his entry into the race reconfigures the playing field and could complicate Netanyahu’s task of forming a coalition government, perhaps sidelining the Israeli leader after more than a decade at the helm.

Pompeo Designates Houthis as Foreign Terror Organization (Foreign Policy) The U.S. Department of State designated Yemen’s Houthis as a terrorist organization on Sunday, potentially complicating efforts by an incoming Biden administration to bring an end to a war that has become the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Because the Houthis don’t appear to have foreign bank accounts, a terrorist designation will do little to affect the group’s operations. The designation is likely to complicate and at best delay humanitarian relief efforts, however, with charities and international groups wary of facing prosecution for working in Houthi-controlled territory. Pompeo’s statement attempted to head off humanitarian concerns surrounding the designation, adding that the U.S. Treasury Department is “prepared” to issue licenses for “certain humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen” and “certain transactions and activities.” Scott Paul, Oxfam America’s humanitarian policy lead, is skeptical that the State Department has done its homework. “No responsible humanitarian agency or private business can afford to rely on these assurances. We’ll need to prepare for the worst,” Paul wrote on Twitter.

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

Cnn news Leader of Iran's elite Quds Force killed in airstrike: Reports

Cnn news

Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran's elite Quds Power, became killed uninteresting Thursday in a U.S. airstrike that centered a convoy near the main airport in Baghdad.

Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis furthermore died in the airstrike, Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for Iraq's Well-liked Mobilization Forces umbrella grouping of Iran-backed militias, confirmed to ABC Files.

Officers with the U.S. Division of Defense confirmed in an announcement to ABC Files that U.S. forces had been accountable for the assault.

"On the route of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to guard U.S. personnel in a foreign nation by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Power, a U.S.-designated International Terrorist Group," the observation be taught. "Total Soleimani became actively creating plans to assault American diplomats and restore members in Iraq and for the length of the issue."

Following the strike, the U.S. Tell Division issued an alert early Friday morning urging U.S. voters to leave Iraq and to steer clear of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

"Attributable to heightened tensions in Iraq and the issue, we urge U.S. voters to leave Iraq straight," the alert stated. "Attributable to Iranian-backed militia assaults on the U.S. Embassy compound, all consular operations are suspended. U.S. voters must still now not technique the Embassy."

Soleimani and the Quds Power "had been accountable for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition provider members and the wounding of thousands more," stated the Division of Defense observation explaining the strike. "He had orchestrated assaults on coalition bases in Iraq over the final several months -- along side the assault on December 27th -- culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel."

One U.S. civilian contractor became killed and several other provider members had been wounded in the Dec. 27 rocket assault on the K1 military spoiled outdated college by U.S. and coalition forces in northern Iraq. The assault ended in retaliatory U.S. military strikes in Iraq and Syria Sunday in opposition to the Iranian-backed militia the U.S. blamed for the Dec. 27 assault, which in flip led hundreds of pro-Iranian protesters to strive to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Fresh twelve months's Eve.

Thursday's strike in opposition to Soleimani "became aimed at deterring future Iranian assault plans," the U.S. observation continued. "The US will continue to take all well-known action to guard our other folks and our pursuits wherever they are across the enviornment."

In Iran, Supreme Chief Ayatollah Khamenei promised retribution for the strike.

"Years of genuine, brave efforts combating in opposition to the devils & villainous in the enviornment & yrs of wishing for martyrdom on the path of God eventually took the dear Commander of Islam, Soleimani, to this lofty spot," Khamenei tweeted. "His efforts & path would perhaps well well now not be stopped by his martyrdom, by God's Vitality, somewhat a #SevereRevenge awaits the criminals who have stained their hands with his & the assorted martyrs' blood final evening. Martyr Soleimani is an Intl resolve of Resistance & all such other folks will search revenge."

"Concentrated on & assassinating Total Soleimani -- THE finest force combating Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al -- is extremely harmful & a silly escalation," Iranian International Minister Javad Zarif stated on Twitter. "The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism."

Officers in the greatest U.S. cities stated they had been marshaling resources following Thursday's military action.

"Own spoken with Commissioner Shea + Dep Commissioner Miller about immediate steps NYPD will take to guard key NYC areas from any strive by Iran or its terrorist allies to retaliate in opposition to The US," Fresh York Metropolis Mayor Bill de Blasio stated on Twitter, relating to Fresh York Police Division Commissioner Dermot Shea and Deputy Intelligence Commissioner John Miller. "We can must be vigilant in distinction threat for a in point of fact very prolonged time to approach."

"Whereas there is no credible threat to Los Angeles, the LAPD is monitoring the events creating in Iran," Los Angeles Police Division officials tweeted. "We can continue to keep in touch with issue, native, federal and global regulations enforcement partners concerning any well-known intel that would perhaps well honest fabricate."

U.S. reaction to the strike became largely split down occasion lines.

"Qassem Suleimani became accountable for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and his death gifts a possibility for Iraq to resolve its hang future free from Iranian preserve a watch on," Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate International Household Committee, stated in an announcement. "As I if truth be told have previously warned the Iranian authorities, they have to still now not mistake our cheap restraint in accordance with their outdated assaults as weak spot. The U.S. will in any respect times vigorously defend our pursuits and allies in the face of terrorist conduct and provocations."

"The defensive actions the U.S. has taken in opposition to #Iran & its proxies are per drag warnings they've bought," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), but one more International Household Committee member, posted to Twitter. "They chose to brush apart these warnings on epic of they believed @POTUS became constrained from appearing by our home political divisions. They badly miscalculated."

"Soleimani became an enemy of the United States. That is now not a ask," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who's furthermore on the International Household Committee, tweeted. "The ask is this - as reports recommend, did The US appropriate raze, with none congressional authorization, the 2d most highly effective individual in Iran, knowingly environment off a seemingly big regional battle?"

"Trump Admin owes a fleshy clarification of airstrike reports -- the overall facts -- to Congress & the American other folks," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), who's on the Senate Armed Services and products Committee, stated on Twitter. "The present authorizations for philosophize of military force in no formulation duvet initiating a that it's seemingly you'll well well seemingly also factor in fresh battle. This step would perhaps well well bring the most consequential military confrontation in a protracted time. My immediate field is for our brave Americans serving in effort's formulation."

ABC Files' Elizabeth McLaughlin, Matt McGarry and Megan Hughes contributed to this story.

[crookedmediatranscripts]

Pod Save America - Episode 79

09.14.2017 “Amnesty Don”

“The Democrats reach a tentative deal on DACA with Trump, and 16 Democratic Senators sign on to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan. Then New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand joins Jon and Dan to talk about health care and the future of the Democratic Party, and Ana Marie Cox discusses Trump’s voter fraud commission.”

[MUSIC]

0:00:01

Jon Favreau: The presenting sponsor of Pod Save America is Blue Apron.

Jon Lovett: Blue Apron.

JF: Which now offers 30 minutes meals. In parentheses, that's meals every week that take 30 minutes or less to cook.

JL: I don't if you- if you didn't understand 30 minute meals, you shouldn't be operating a fucking stove.

[Laughter]

JF: But keep listening. Which are designed with your busy schedules in mind and made with some flavor and farm fresh ingredients you know and love. Get 30 dollars off your first meal, with free shipping by going to blueapron.com/crooked. Blue apron is a better way to…

JL: Trump is Rubio now.

JF: Cook.

[Laughter]

0:00:35

[MUSIC]

0:00:42

JF: Welcome to Pod Save America. I’m Jon Favreau.

Dan Pfeiffer: I’m Dan Pfeiffer.

JF: On the pod today, we have New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. And later the host of Crooked Media’s With Friends Like These, Ana Marie Cox. Also, this week on Pod Save the World, Tommy talks to Representative Will Hurd, Republican from Texas. First elected Republican on the show- on a Crooked Media show.

DP: Probably not great for him in the long run, is my guess.

JF: [Laughs] Poor Will Hurd. Career was going well until he joined a Crooked Media podcast. And Lovett or Leave it is on tomorrow. I actually don't even know who his guests are. So, sorry Lovett, didn't send me your guests.

[Laughter]

JF: Okay, so where should we start today, Dan? Let's start with- what did you think of the Hillary Clinton interview?

DP: You guys did a great job.

JF: Sweet.

DP: I’m not just blowing smoke up your ass.

JF: I’m just looking- I asked that, I was just fishing for compliments, really.

DP: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys did do a great job. I knew you were taking it seriously when I saw the photo, and you and Tommy both had collared shirts on [JF: laughs] and Lovett was not, as far as I could tell, wearing a logo t shirt.

JF: No, Lovett was wearing his Senator Sweater. That's what he... [laughs]

DP: Yeah, you look like actual serious- you look like interns on your first day of work. No, I thought that was great.

JF: [Laughs] Yeah, no. It was- I thought it was good. Have you read the book yet?

DP: I am probably...50 pages in. I started last night, or the day- yesterday I started. It's- there is a great -- and you guys sort of hit on this in the interview, and you can see it- and you can hear it in her voice. And this is probably a microcosm of the entire Hillary Clinton experience in politics -- is there is great diversions between the book itself and the way the book is covered and talked about.

JF: Right. Completely symbolic.

DP: You know. And if you were to read- yeah, if you were to read the coverage you would think it was this bitter diatribe of casting blame on other people and... refusing to accept any responsibility at all for her loss. And it's pretty much...the opposite of that. And I- like, it's not an easy read. Because it's like, those are really dark times for everyone and, like reliving election day or Hillary Clinton's speech, which I watched in a gift shop in Dulles airport [JF: chuckles] with people crying all around me-

JF: Yeah, it was so awful.

DP: Those were hard things to think about. Or inauguration day, and putting yourself in her shoes. That's- it's honest, it's an honest- the parts I’ve read are, like an honest, very open, raw take on an absolutely brutal experience.

JF: Well yeah, I mean- and she does plenty of taking responsibility for her own mistakes. But it makes you- reading the book makes you realize, again, that we all made mistakes- we're all responsible for this. And I don’t know, I thought it was interesting that, you know- basically the point of the book is- or one use of the book is to learn from 2016 so we that don't repeat 2016. And, you know I think some of that is grappling with challenges that no candidate- no one candidate or campaign can control. Propaganda, whether that's Russia or Breitbart or Fox, like, you know political media that's obsessed with scandal more than policy, and sexism, racism, voter suppression and all that. And I think she does a great job of laying all that out. Some of what we need to learn is obviously grappling with challenges that candidates and campaigns can control. And that's your message, your policy, sort of like the career and life decisions you make prior to the campaign. Making sure your messages break through. And I think she's- in the book she does a really good job of acknowledging all those. I think she has less to say about how to change those things going forward. Because I think she honestly is not sure, you know? And neither are we clearly.

[Laughter]

DP: Exactly. Anyone who listens to this podcast knows those answers aren't clear. And it's not clear how applicable those lessons are to...any other situation other than Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. Because-

JF: Right.

DP: You know, like- I was talking to someone this morning about the book and I was saying how open and honest it felt, and raw, right, as I said, in the early pages. And the person said to me - if that Hillary Clinton had shown up in the campaign, would she have won? And your initial thought is, “Yes, of course.” Which is the- just the greatest trope of post-election coverage.

JF: I know.

DP: If the Al Gore who gave his final press conf-speech had shown up, then he would have won. It's- the thing about Hillary Clinton, though, is it's impossible. If she had- in- been sort of that casual and honest and human-like on the campaign, it would've been covered and treated as if it was a cynical political play to be in authentically more authentic. Like it's not- like there are- because of the way Hillary Clinton is covered and treated in the political conversation is just fundamentally different than anyone I can think of in my time in politics. It's just- you know you thought about this in the -- like when the book was coming out. My initial take was, “[Groan] I do not wanna relive the 2016 primary.”

JF: Yeah.

DP: And then there's this huge debate over, should Hillary Clinton write a book? Why is she writing a book? Why is she distracting us from 2018? It's like, that conversation only happens about Hillary Clinton, no one else.

JF: Right.

DP: Right, like, Bernie Sanders wrote a book.

JF: Yeah.

DP: No one said that about Bernie Sanders. [Laughs] So- John Kerry stayed on the political stage after he lost, no one complained about that. And it's just, just there is something about Hillary Clinton -- not herself. Not the person Hillary Clinton. The incorrectly wrongly unfairly vilified political persona of Hillary Clinton - which is, automatically turns every political conversation stupid. And I think that that- you sort of can understand- when you see the reaction to the book, it also helps you understand why the task before her in running for President was- not that she didn't make some mistakes, she certainly did - but the task before her was more challenging in reality than it probably was on paper. Because of- just the things that certain politicians have available to them are not available to her because people do not give- the political conversation does not give her the permission structure to actually do those things.

JF: Yeah, and I think the challenge was somewhat obscured by the fact that...she leaves the State Department with like a 60 something percent approval rating. Very well liked, higher approval rating that Barack Obama at the time, you know? And so, you think, “Okay, maybe all the problems that we've had in the past are in the past.” And they certainly were not. What'd you think about the Sanders stuff? The Bernie Sanders stuff? That was another...cause- I mean, look, it's funny when I said that- when I asked her the question about Sanders, I specifically phrased it so that she wouldn't have to talk about Bernie or attack Bernie. I wanted to know about this going forward as a party, are we a party that needs fundamental reform or change in our policy and our message? Or are we a party that almost won and needs some tweaking? So, I thought she would answer that and she used the occasion to go back and take a few shots at Bernie again.

[Laughter]

DP: Yeah. I mean, that was as aggressive as I have seen- well I mean, that's not fair. I don't wanna say it that way. But- I’m even hesitant to answer this question because...

JF: It's so scary, isn't it?

[Laughter]

DP: Yeah. we're- well, we're just- I mean it's scary for whoever- whatever side of the debate is going to, just, go right up in our mentions.

JF: Yeah.

DP: But, it- but even beyond that, it's just there- it is important and that this book and Hillary in the interview and in her larger press tour -- all of which is less consequential than her Pod Save America interview -- is in some part about learning the lessons, right? And it's the lessons about specific Democratic strategies. It's the lessons about...that America’s not exactly, in some ways, what we thought it was coming out of the Obama era. That sexism is, and I wanna get to that in a minute, is more- is a bigger force in politics than I think a lot of people imagined. Hillary Clinton was probably not one of those people who imagined that, given what she's been through in her life, and a lot of women, like Senator Gillibrand, have experienced.

JF: Right.

DP: But- so there's a whole host about it that are important for us to just understand what happened because it is a... seminal moment in American history. And hopefully we recover from it. But, the Bernie part- I understand her raw feelings and I...as I said to you earlier, I can only imagine how we would've felt, if we had gone through that long, bitter primary with Hillary Clinton, and then lost to John McCain. 

JF: Hm.

DP: I can imagine that we would have hat- carried- had a lot of grudges about that. So, I am sympathetic to the emotions behind that. And I do believe that many of Sanders' attacks on Hillary Clinton were unfair. And they were at their heart, pretty deep character attacks. But that also, that- he was not wrong- he had a case to make, he was running for President, he can make that. They weren't out of bounds, but they were tough. But I am not sure that Clinton’s assessment of Sanders' role post-primary is fair. He- I was in the convention when- hall when he put her name in a nomination. I-

JF: Which is interesting because she mentions that in the book. She's actually a bit more charitable to him in the book than she was during our interview and has been covered in the press. And she did not choose to emphasize those more charitable moments that she wrote about.

DP: You know- cause when she says, he should have argued with his supporters...I think what that- I don't- that doesn't mean -- I could be wrong -- but I don't think that means, like his prominent elected official endorsers or his former campaign staff, like Jeff Weaver or Tad Devine or some of the people we came to know on the campaign. Cause in my recollection they followed Bernie Sanders' endorsement and did what they could to help Sanders get out there and campaign for her. I think she means the quote-unquote “Bernie Bros” on Twitter. I’m just not sure...I’m not sure how he would have achieved that goal.

JF: I don't think he could have. I also think it's like- yeah, I mean...look to me this- what matters more than sort of the personal animosity that lingers between them is, you know, the policy message implications going forward. And it's interesting, in the book, and this was Ezra Klein’s first question to her, which I figured it would be. You know at one point in the book she talks about Democrats needing to bolder on their policies. And she starts talking about how they almost proposed universal basic income that was paid for with, you know, some tax on any company that makes money from natural resources -- so oil companies, and some telecom companies. And it's this extremely progressive policy. She talks about taxing net worth instead of income and all these things that, you know, I didn't even hear Bernie talk a lot about during the race and you can sort of imagine a race where she decided that she didn't want him to outflank her on the left and she started proposing these policies. But then again, you know, as she said to us, she has this responsibility gene and she always expects that once you get into the general election someone says, “How do you pay for all this?” And she felt like she couldn't make the numbers work. And you know that's just a very, it's a very Clinton thing.

DP: And I think it is- it's both, she has a responsibility gene and I have no doubt, having worked on campaigns and that the internal view was, we are probably gonna win this primary. It may be tougher than we thought but, you know you look at the delegate math and they were in pretty good shape, Super Tuesday on. Just a question of when they were gonna close it out, and there was also I’m sure, political fear about running in the general and some of these left-wing- these more progressive policies. Left-wing was the wrong term. I don't agree with that political analysis. I think the more progressive populist approach would have worked, but- I understand that. But I also understand her calculus in the primary is- let's say she went to, you know, “x” tax rate on the wealthy. Sanders- there's no world in which she can outflank Sanders.

JF: Yeah.

DP: He can always go to the left of her. Because he did not feel as compelled as she did to make the math work. And she- he was not running, at least until the- he did not think he was gonna be President so he was not- he was running an issues-based campaign to move the Democratic agenda and the political conversation of the country to the left. And he succeeded in that, and which we'll get to in a minute, with- he had great success in that. Hillary Clinton was worried that she was- you were accountable- we know this, you are accountable for your campaign promises when you get there. So, she gets elected and it’s like, “Where's your universal basic income plan? How are you gonna get it passed? What- is it gonna be in your first budget? Talk about it in the State of the Union-“ Like, she was thinking through governing and if you're thinking through governing it can be limiting principle in what can do in the campaign. And someone who does not feel limited by that reality can always get, always outflank you.

JF: Yeah. I mean look- I think if there's one silver lining to 2016, it is that both the primary and the general showed us that we all need to rethink what is- what does electable mean? What does politically feasible mean? And sort of expand the boundaries of what's possible and not be caught up in, you know, being too cautious or worrying about the politics of something. You know, try to go with the biggest, boldest policy goal that you can and then, you know don't make it too unreasonable and don't lie to people, but, you know set a big goal. And don't worry so much about, oh well this isn't politically possible. Well we'll get into this too when we get into our single payer conversation. Before we get to that, we should talk about what happened last night. So, during the campaign, Donald Trump said that young, undocumented Americans known as Dreamers, quote “Have to go.” And last week Jeff Sessions announced Trump would be ending the Obama-era program designed to protect these Dreamers from deportation. A few weeks before that, Trump threatened to shut down the government unless Congress funded his border wall. Last night at the White House, over Chinese food, President Trump reached a tentative deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to offer about 800 thousand young, undocumented Americans a pathway to citizenship in exchange for more border security, but no border wall. Art. Of. The. Deal. And of course, this morning he tweeted that no deal was made. But then he tweeted that Dreamers shouldn't be deported and that the wall would come later. Which is essentially the deal. Dan, what d'you think caused the change?

DP: He said no deal and then laid out all the provisions of the deal that Schumer and Pelosi announced last night. Once again rendering his press secretary, who tweeted there was no deal, looking like a fool in- out the world.

JF: Yep. That's right. So, what d'you think changed here? What do you make of this?

DP: I... I think...you asked me last week why Trump agreed to the debt ceiling deal with the Democrats. And my answer was, “He's dumb.” That is also still my answer today. [JF: laughs] And I- like when Trump talked during the campaign in an interview with Chuck Todd about the Dreamers and when you read the answer that he gives, it's entirely clear that he has no idea who the Dreamers are, what DACA is, what a change in policy means. He's just erring on the side of fewer brown people in America, which is like his default position.

JF: Yeah.

DP: Without thinking about it or anything else. And now- so he goes- this is a pretty simple Pavlovian response, I think. Which is- let's do all the pieces of this. Trump has enjoyed the press coverage that he has received from the world since his fairly minor deal with the Democrats a week or so ago. Trump still remains mad at Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for screwing up health care and just being terrible at their jobs. And three, he was offered a way out of a problem and he took it without thinking about it. When you really boil this down, Trump is bad at deal making. Which I get the irony that the guy who ran as a great deal maker and wrote- had a book ghost written for him called “The Art of the Deal” is bad at deal making. But he's taking- like we said last week, he's buying his cars at sticker price. It is- he's taking the first offer and not even using a negotiating tactic where you're gonna demand the wall, and then you're gonna trade the wall for this other thing the Democrats wouldn't otherwise give you. So-

JF: Yeah.

DP: I say all that. I will add that I think this is good for the world. And I’m glad it's happening -- if it proceeds on the path that we hope it does.

JF: I think it is great. It is great all around. I mean, most importantly, it is good for the world and it is good for these young undocumented Americans. This is a win for actual people if- if it happens. We don't know. I mean, we have a long way to go, we should say, before this becomes law. You know, Paul Ryan has said before he's not doing any immigration measure in the House unless he gets a majority of Republicans on board. Now, he has also in the last couple days, he's spoken favorably about protecting Dreamers. So, you know unless there's a revolt in the House that sort of threatens Paul Ryan’s job, you know you could see him cobble together enough Republican votes. Then you know you get of course, just about every Democrat in the House will vote for this so you don't need a ton of Republicans, but he probably needs a good chunk of his caucus in order to save face. So, you can see this getting done but we're not there yet. But if it gets done it is, you know a huge policy win. It's a win for the Dreamers. Also- the other thing that’s a win is that Trump's base is so angry right now. [Laughter] So, some of media reaction last night, we're gonna actually- it- basically the MAGA media reaction is split here. Breitbart ran a headline that just said, “Amnesty Don.” Which is awesome. Ann Coulter said, “At this point who doesn't want Trump impeached.” Laura Ingraham was critical and Steve King, renowned racist from Iowa, said, quote “Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair.” It's just- I couldn't get enough of these tweets last night. It was so enjoyable to read these. The only people who are still with him of course are the biggest fucking lackeys in the whole universe, the crew on Fox and Friends and Sean Hannity. Those are the only people who stuck by him. Sean Hannity said, “McConnell failed so miserably with health care that now POTUS has to deal with Dem leaders.” So, he went with the “look what Mitch made him do” line of attack. [Laughter]

DP: I mean he's not wrong.

JF: Right. [Laughter]

DP: I mean, sort of. First and last time I’ll say that about Sean Hannity.

JF: But to twist this around like Donald Trump makes a deal with Democrats. And some of his support- the Fox team, who are basically just White House employees who aren't getting paid by the government - are like, “he's not- it's not his problem he made a deal to this amnesty deal. It’s Mitch McConnell’s fault because he didn't pass health care.” It is a little bit of a bank shot, there.

DP: [Giggles] Yeah. They are twisting themselves into a pretzel to- to stick with Trump. Look, I do not like it when Trump gets good headlines. Like, that makes me unhappy. But if Donald Trump is going to do the exact same thing that President Hillary Clinton was gonna do, I’m cool with that. Because this is the exact deal that Hillary Clinton would have struck with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell -- presuming they stayed in the- Republicans stayed in control of Congress -- to pass the DREAM Act.

JF: Yeah.

DP: It's been sitting there- this is a deal that's been out there for a long time. Republicans did not wanna do it with Obama because...they don't like to do things- because they were gonna- they were hoping they would win an election and get to do something about it and end the program and now...Trump is gonna do Hillary’s bidding. Which is...fucking wonderful.

JF: Yeah, I mean- look, Trump is a- a clear and present to the globe. [Laugh] And we need to, you know, elect him out of office or get him out of office as soon as we can, but while we're waiting for that moment, it's great if he will do things that we agree with. It's very simple to me. It's not like this is something that needs to like twist Democrats in a knot, you know, like “Should we be happy for Trump or not?” It's not about Trump. You're right that he's gonna- he will get some good headlines from traditional media and all the people in DC and the DC pundits and stuff like that. And it'll drive some of us crazy cause it'll be like, you know “Trump, the bipartisan independent deal maker blah, blah, blah.” But, like I said, it's both- substantively this is good, but also politically, I think- you know, one thing we missed a lot of during the campaign is how much conservative media sort of drives that base. And, I’ll say something else pretty crazy,  Steve Bannon- what Steve Bannon said on 60 minutes is right, in that this DACA decision, if it goes forward and they enshrine DACA into law, it will cause a civil war in the Republican party and you're seeing it already. Like, Breitbart and Coulter and some folks lining up on one side, very much against this decision, and then the Fox and Friends and Hannitys of the world still favoring Trump. I mean, this is gonna cause a huge political problem in their party which is also good for us. So, I think this is excellent.

DP: In the last 7 minutes or so, we have applauded something Donald Trump’s done, [JF: laughs] agreed with Sean Hannity, and affirmed a statement of Steve Bannon.

JF: What is-

DP: Our iTunes rankings are about to go in the toilet.

JF: [Laughs] What is happening today? Anyway, so, we'll see. I mean, look, I- the other question is, you know, how long does this new Trump last? Do we trust him? You know...I don't know.

DP: Approximately 7 minutes because immediately after the deal was announced, Trump went on a tweet storm against Hillary Clinton criticizing her for her book. So...

JF: Yeah, no. He's playing the hits there, you know...

DP: We are not- the independent, bipartisan, new, freshly pivoted Trump is bullshit. We will take this deal, presuming it comes to conclusion, any day of the week and twice on Sundays, but let's not pretend we have a new President. I will say one thing after having listening to you guys on Monday, as you know I shared your outrage about all of the ridiculous coverage overselling a- the simple moving of a debt ceiling vote as some sort of...Reagan-Tip O’Neil style tax reform-

JF: Yeah.

DP: Deal. But this is- and the argument was, he gave- there was no progressive principle- conservative principle that he sacrificed in order to do that deal. This is actually one where you can say he gave Democrats something they wanted, even if he also somewhat agreed with it, in exchange for almost nothing. But you know, we'll see. But there is an actual subst- this in an actual substantive bipartisan deal if it comes together. And the other thing was...good for Democrats but stupid.

JF: Well, yeah. I just don't wanna separate intention from result here. Like, the result is that he- he stumbled ass backwards into a great partisan deal. It certainly was not some strategy or intention or- you know, he just- everything is impulse. Like you said, he likes coverage when it's good for him, he doesn't like it when it's bad for him. He makes decisions about life and death and the country based on, you know, Fox and Friends versus Morning Joe. And also, he has some personal grudge with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell now so he thought he'd piss them off by having Chuck and Nancy over for Chinese. And suddenly we have a deal! [Laughter] So it's like...you know.

DP: That's- that is the best part of the whole thing-

[Laughter]

DP: Is that someone reported that...Trump believes that the policy issue on which he and Senator Schumer are closest is Chinese trade. So, they served Chinese food.

JF: It's problematic on so many levels. So many levels.

DP: It's just it's so...simplistic that it is just mind boggling. Like I would like to know what they'd serve for dinner if, like, Medicare reform was their closest issue. Or, I mean- it's just, it's so good. It’s so good.

JF: It's pretty great. Okay let's talk about health care. Speaking of health care. Two bills introduced yesterday. Let's actually start with the last-ditch attempt by the Republicans to repeal and replace ObamaCare. This is a piece of legislation from Lindsay Graham, Bill Cassidy, Dean Heller -- dirty Dean Heller -- and Ron Johnson. In some ways, this is actually the worst of all Republican health care plans, this last one standing. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but...basically this plan cuts the Affordable Care Act by 20 billion dollars and then it gives the rest of the money to the states to spend on whatever health care programs they want. But 20 states, mostly large populated states, also blue states, will lose anywhere from 35 to 60% of the funding they currently get from the Affordable Care Act because of a formula in the bill that gives sparsely populated red states more money. States could also get waivers that let insurers charge sick patients higher premiums and stop covering essential benefits like maternity care, prescription drugs. The estimate here is that 32 million people lose their coverage in 10 years, including 11 million on Medicaid, and premiums spiking 20%. So, no one thinks they ha- the good news is no one thinks they have the votes right now. McConnell didn't promise to bring it up. He told them to go find 50 votes on their own. Cornyn, who's the whip, the vote counter, said he didn't see the votes. Ted Cruz said they have about 44, 45 votes right now. We got Rand Paul as a no. And then the big thing is their deadline on this is September 30th. Once we pass September 30th, they go back to needing 60 votes to pass any kind of ObamaCare repeal and replace. And they can't do the reconciliation that only allows them- that only gives them 50 votes. What do you think of this, Dan? How worried should we be?

DP: Because I am not worried, we should probably be very worried. 

JF: Cool, cool.

DP: Like, I think we should- the odds are long for them and there doesn't seem to be a ton of appetite for it, but we thought the same thing the first time the House took it up. We thought the same thing when Dean Heller and others killed health care, then health care came back, then it was killed again, then it became finally killed- like, up until the clock strikes midnight on September 30th, we should maintain a healthy level of paranoia about the Republicans’ desire and ability to snatch health care away from people so they can give tax cuts to millionaires. Like, that's not gonna go away.

JF: Yeah. We're favored by the calendar here. And it seems like from Trump to McConnell to Ryan to all the rest of the Republicans, except the ones who introduced this bill, more of them are focused on tax reform and getting that done than they are on one more attempt at ObamaCare- at repealing ObamaCare. But, you know, once you get to a deadline suddenly all kinds of deal making starts happening. So, you know, everyone should be on the lookout.

DP: Yeah, I would say a not encouraging sign for the Republicans on this is when they had their press conference, they invited Rick Santorum, who-

JF: Why did they do that?

DP: Left the Senate a decade ago. No idea. I think they were like, short a Senator and they were like, “This guy was once a Senator, let's bring him along and maybe people forgot.” He got his ass kicked by Bob Casey in 2006.

JF: Yeah, here we are with former Senator Rick Santorum. He's gonna really- he's gonna juice this proposal. Alright, let's talk about single payer. So, Bernie Sanders introduced his Medicare-for-all bill yesterday, which is co-sponsored by 16 Democratic Senators. That's about a third of the caucus, including Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Al Franken, and our guest for today, Kirsten Gillibrand.

DP: Quick question, Jon, what do all of those people have in common?

JF: They may, possibly, be running for President in 2020, Dan.

DP: I was gonna say, other than Bernie Sanders, they are- have all been on the podcast.

JF: Oh! Good for us, huh? [Laughs] Yeah, by the way Bernie Sanders, come on the podcast.

JL: It's Lovett.

JF: [Chuckles] He’s here right now

JL: I think that there was something wrong with my email to the Bernie Sanders people. I think it's my fault. I think that I was try- in my attempt at raproshma, I think that I may have...not been the best person to reach out

JF: [Snickers]

DP: Did you send it to info@berniesanders.com?

JL: I did.

[Laughter]

JL: Was that not right? That's how people get us here.

DP: That's how Michael Cohen reaches the Kremlin, so it'll work for you, too.

[Laughter]

JF: Okay, so within 4 years, under this plan everyone in America would transition to a universal health care plan run by the government, just like Medicare is now. This is an extremely generous plan. More so than any single payer plan in the world right now- than other countries, more generous than Medicare itself. You would pay no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no nothing. It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, medical lab services, maternity care, prescription drugs, vision, dental, the whole shebang. Also, importantly, it would aim to bring down costs, the cost of health care overall. We know now that the Medicare program is currently cheaper than private insurance. The government helps hold costs down. We have this screwed up system in America where we pay doctors and hospitals based on how much care they provide, and not necessarily the quality of the care they provide and the outcomes that we get. That's something that the Affordable Care Act tried to change. Medicare obviously has a lot more power to change this because of their bargaining power because of how many people are insured there. The deal with Bernie’s plan is, everyone would get about 4 years to transition from their current insurance plan to this new plan. How much? Hugely expensive. Sanders did not lay out the details on that. He did have a separate white paper that offered some possibilities for paying for it, including higher tax rates on high income people, a 1% federal wealth tax on the net worth of the wealthiest one tenth of 1%. All of these tax options add up to about 16.9 trillion dollars over a decade and... still not sure if that would be enough to pay for this. One thing I should say that's important is, higher taxes- you know, don't have to mean higher health care spending since no one would be paying premiums or copays anymore, so. Dan, what d'you think about this? How big is this?

DP: I mean, it's hard to overstate how fast...the politics have shifted on this. In 2009 when we were trying to pass the Affordable Care Act… two things. One, Max Baucus, who was a Senator from Montana who was in charge of the finance committee that was writing the bill, refused to hold a single hearing on single-payer on the belief that it was too politically toxic and would endanger passage of the Affordable Care Act. In the Affordable Care Act was a public option, which is a bridge to something like Medicare-for-all or single payer. And... conservative Democrats- there were not 60 votes in a time which Democrats had 60 votes to include that in the bill and it was stripped out, to the objection of many people -- including President Obama and the people on this podcast. And to go from that to the world in which every Democrat who is thinking about running for President believes that it is- that are willing to put their name on this bill, is a pretty stunning- stunningly quick change in the political firmament. What d'you think of the politics of it?

JF: It's interesting, I think that the politics of it are...good. I mean, you can start with, you know something like 64, 65% of Democrats now believe we should have a single payer plan. I think overall the politics are pretty good. I think telling people that instead of, you know, spending all this money in this country on you know, insurance companies and insurance CEOs, and prescription drug companies, and instead we're gonna spend care on people and people aren't gonna have to pay for care and we're gonna hold down the cost of health care. I think those are all good messages. I do think that...if you're an advocate of single-payer, if you're an advocate of this bill, which I am, you do need to think through how you're gonna pay for it and be honest with people about how you're gonna pay for it. And not take questions about how you're going to pay for it as... “Oh, well you're against this and you just must be in the pocket of insurance industry and you know, you're a shill and blah, blah, blah.” Like, we have a responsibility that if we're gonna put forward this plan, to tell people, “We want this. This is the best way to go. This is the best way to have health care in America. This is the best way to insure everyone and here's the way we pay for it and we're not afraid to talk about that.” So, that's what I think.

DP: So, if you were running the campaign of a 2020 candidate, would you tell them to put all the details out? In the course of a campaign, I’m not saying they have to do it in the run-up. So, you're out there, you're gonna give your, you know mandatory speech rolling out your healthcare plan, you think you gotta do the pay force?

JF: I think you gotta give the, some options for the pay- I think what Bernie did, which was a have a separate white paper that had a bunch of options for pay force, is a good idea. I would probably, like, if I was running a campaign, narrow those down, pick some, and go around and- and that would be the message, you know. I mean, at least you wanna get in the ballpark. I don't think you have to have this fucking scored, like the CBO would score it, while you're running for President. But I do think you need-I mean it's just part of the message, you know. It's one thing to just have ads that talk about this, it's one thing to go out there on the stump. At some point, you're gonna get in a debate, or you’re gonna get an attack and someone's gonna say, “Well, how do you plan to pay for this?” And you know you need to be able to give a reasonably good answer that's believable and you need to have a follow up when someone gives you a follow up. I think that's- that's all you need. And I think that's doable.

DP: Do you think you'd do that even if you're running against Trump?

JF: Oh, I think you do that especially if you're running against Trump. I think that's- I mean it's so funny. This is what we talked about with Hillary Clinton and she had this...like, I think it's mistaken to think that you need to have every detail worked out. But I think if you're running against Trump, it is an equally good message to say that you're going to pay for this by raising taxes the richest people on this country.

JL: Dan, it's Lovett.

JF: I knew he wasn't gonna be able to fucking...sit quiet for 5 minutes.

JL: It's 10! it's time for ads!

DP: The danger of moving the studio within 10 feet of his desk.

JF: The master of single payer over here.

JL: First of all- first of all, it's 10 o clock. I’d be talking at the studio too. This is how it goes. Isn't this one of the lessons though, that Republicans have spent a long time separating politics from policy, you know. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney can run around talking about all the things they're gonna do to cut taxes. But when it comes time to paying for it, they're extremely vague or they just lie about it. Trump’s even worse. I mean isn’t one of the lessons of 2016 that-

JF: That we should be extremely vague and lie about it?

JL: No! Not that we should lie about it! But that- that we can- we can simply go back to you know, as a country we spend “x” on healthcare. We can make up for this by cutting what we spent on health care and by making people pay their fair share and leave it at that.

JF: Do you have numbers that make that work?

JL: What I’m saying, isn't what Hillary Clinton told us is, she was like, “I was waiting for the point where someone asked me do you have the numbers to make that work and in 2016 it didn't happen.”

JF: But she wasn't afraid about putting out the numbers. She was afraid about the political consequence about what the numbers would mean.

JL: But no, I’m not just talking about single payer. I’m saying that she put out all the numbers for her policies and she found that no one ever gave a shit.

JF: Well, if she didn't put out the numbers she certainly would've gave- don't you think the press would've been even tougher on her, if she didn't have any numbers to back up her policies? My thing is like- look-

JL: I don't know.

JF: If we're gonna advocate single payer, we have to be ready to defend the cost of it. And be proud of that.

DP: Let me say a couple things about this. One - the question is, do you wanna just win? And have no chance of passing single payer? Or do you wanna win and try to pass single payer? If you wanna win and try to pass single payer, you have to put enough details out that it is a reasonable proposal. If you were just gonna run on a vague notion of Medicare-for-all and just take the win and let the next President deal with it, then the more Bernie in the primary, Trump in the general election approach makes sense. I think on the larger politics of this, we shouldn't pretend that these politics are easy. Because you are at the end of the day, gonna move 90% of Americans off their current health insurance plan and onto another one. And convincing them, as we know from the Affordable Care Act, that even if people don't love their health insurance, the fear of the unknown exceeds their discomfort with the known.

JL: It's also true, Dan, that the- that you know we are watching a cautionary tale of this right now which is- they spent 8 years campaigning on a lie about health care but when it came time to govern, it's another matter.

JF: Yeah.

DP: That's right. I also think- I think the politics on this are tough. If you can't pass single payer in California or Vermont, passing it nationally is gonna be very challenging. But Democrats are 100% right to do this. It's the right thing to do. If we're ever going to get it done, people have to run on it and try to convince the nation it's the right thing to do. No one has- other than Bernie Sanders in the primary, no one has run on single-payer in decades, or made it the centerpiece of a presidential campaign.

JF: Yeah.

DP: We were able to shift the- one of the reasons why Trump feels compelled -- besides just enjoying Morning Joe commentary -- to do this DACA deal, is that we ran on immigration reform in 2012 and moved the political conversation from being largely anti-immigrant to looking for a comprehensive solution. And if Democrats wanna actually solve this problem, they have to run on it. And so, there's risks to it. But -- to the point you made earlier, Jon -- the traditional ideas of what we think about electability and how policy plays into electability and how resume and biography play into electability are out the window. And so, doing the right thing and being authentic and being bold about it is as best- as good an idea to win an election as we have out there.

JF: Yeah. I also think...the reason I like what Bernie did is it is an opening bid. And the opening bid is far to the left, so that you can sort of move back. And one of my lessons from the Obama years is, you know, the stimulus package, right? We started off with a stimulus package that we thought we could- that was not just the right policy but that we thought we could pass. And we also thought we needed a third of it to be tax cuts because we thought that would get Republicans and blah, blah, blah. And if we had to do it over again, I wonder, it's like- if we put out the stimulus package that we wanted -- that was the biggest, boldest, stimulus package possible, and then we negotiate it down to what we ended up with at our opening bid. Like if we- if we end up with instead of the extremely generous single payer plan that Bernie Sanders has laid out yesterday, if what we end up with is a robust public option that ultimately so many people choose because it's much better than private insurance, and the private insurance industry eventually just goes away because the public option is so popular-

JL: [Murmuring] Which we're not gonna say when we get behind that.

JF: Well- what we got behind yesterday says we're gonna eliminate the private insurance company- industry together all at once, so- you know, we gotta be comfortable with the rhetoric here. Then- you know, then that's pretty great, right? I think the important here is the goal at the end of the day is to get every single person covered, to bring down costs, and to make sure people can pay for health care in America. And we're saying, “This is the north star. This is what we wanna get to and let's figure out how to get there.”

DP: I think, to sort of boil this down, when you don't- when the politics for the things you want to do are not good- go change the politics, right.

JF: Right.

DP: The Democratic Party and the presidential candidates have agency here. They can make a- they can go to the country and convince them to do this and... that is the better way to do it than- it's better to decide what the right thing to do is and convince the country of that than...ask the country what they want and then just give that to them, right. So, you shouldn't dumb down your proposals to do the most politically expedient thing.

JL: Can I ask you both a question about this, which- so Chris Murphy has his version of a public option. It's a strong, public option where companies and individuals could buy into Medicare. Do you- I mean I- I wonder if that's not where we would ultimately land, right? It's kind of a more- it gives people the option and people can stay in their current health care if they want it. Do you think that we're sort of making these things too far apart, rhetorically? We've sort of made Medicare-for-all one thing, and the public option another. But part of me wonders if we can just say, we're for Medicare for all, whether it's a Bernie plan where everybody has- everybody is in it, or a Chris Murphy plan where everybody can buy into it or have access to it with a subsidy if they want. I mean, do you- like I’m just wondering if we've kind of made these things too far apart.

JF: I don't even know if we have made them far apart. When you dig into Bernie’s plan yesterday, it's a four-year transition. The first year just starts with the lowering the age to 55, which is like-

JL: Which Joe Lieberman stopped.

JF: Which is Sherrod Brown's plan. The second year is, you know, raising the age for young people and it kind of goes and meets them in the middle at the final year where it's like 35 or 45, right? And so even Bernie’s plan has this transition. And so, it is- I don't wanna exaggerate the differences as long as you're someone who's proposing, you know, a robust public Medicare plan that more and more and more and more Americans can buy into.

JL: Right.

DP: I mean the ultimate solution here is probably a transition period. Right? Where it's like, we're gonna do the public option and Medicare buy in that will transition into Medicare for all. As opposed to- it seems unlikely that we're gonna pass a bill and we’re gonna- two years later everyone's gonna be on Medicare and private insurance will be eliminated in this country. You will need to transition into it and -- because of what we tried to do with the public option and what we tried to do with the Medicare buy in that Liebermann killed -- we sort of know what the interim steps are. And every one of those steps is a huge benefit to the individuals who would take part in that program and the overall- and reducing costs and quality- and improving quality of care across the health care system.

JF: Yeah. Okay. When we come back, we will talk with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

 0:45:33

[MUSIC]

 0:45:38

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Squarespace.

JL: Squarespace.

JF: Squarespace is for people who are setting new goals-

JL: [Gasp]

JF: Starting businesses, changing careers, or launching a creative project. Squarespace gives people a powerful and beautiful online platform from which-

JL: It's new words!

JF: To make their next move-

JL: Ohhh. Spoke too soon.

JF: Into the world. With Squarespace people can lock down their next move idea with a unique domain, create a website to launch their idea, a portfolio to get their project out there, or an online store to officially open for business and more.

JL: If you wanted to open a moving company. You'd make your next move move with a moving website-

JF: You got it.

JL: with Squarespace.

JF: I think you got it.

JL: Make your next move move. 

JF: With moving.

JL: You're moving. With Squarespace.

JF: Whoo. Squarespace provides award winning 24/7 customer support and a unique domain experience that's fully transparent and simple to set up. There's nothing to install, patch, or upgrade ever. Make your next move move!

JL: If you were a jazz record store, you'd make your next move groove move with Squarespace.

JF: Use offer code CROOKED for 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's offer code CROOKED for 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Make your next move-

JL: If you sold chew toys, you'd make your next move hoove[?] move with Squarespace.

JF: With Squarespace.

 0:46:55

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Sonos.

JL: Sonos.

JF: Tell your own Sonos story.

JL: I mean, where to begin.

JF: You got anything?

JL: Honestly, I was born. 

[Laughter]

JL: I lived. I like Sonos a lot. 

JF: Yeah.

JL: I have a Sonos in different rooms in my house.

JF: So, do we.

JL: I have the play base on which my television sits. I’ve been playing a video game called Prey. Now I will say that I-

JF: The Sonos ads always become more about your video games.

JL: That's fine.

JF: Talk about the rich sounds. Talk about the easy set up.

JL: Honestly when I’m being hunted by a nightmare in the game Prey, it feels like there's a nightmare in the room with me.

JF: It is very nice to walk from room to room -- [emphasizing pronunciation] Room to room --

JL: But then I use my glue gun, but it doesn’t work-

JF: And all you hear-

JL: Because the nightmare is immune to it.

JF: And all you hear is the same stuff because Sonos. It's like- it's great.

JL: Beautiful music or the sound of a squealing alien in the game Prey. Which is fantastic, if a little derivative of, you know, some of its inspirations.

JF: For the first time ever, Sonos is offering the listeners of Pod Save America 10% off one order of 1,000 dollars or less for any product on sonos.com. This offer is available for a limited time only and cannot be combined with other discounts or promotions. Use the promo code PSA10.

JL: Promo code PSA10!

JF: Capital P-S-A one zero at sonos.com to receive this exclusive offer. Lovett, it's sad that you don't have the Wi-Fi password so you can't control the Sonos in our new house anymore.

JL: Did you change the Wi-Fi password?

JF: We did. We did.

JL: That's a shame. I’ll get it from Emily

JF: Yeah. [Laughs] 

JL: Emily and I were talking about getting a Soothe massage, the other-.

JF: Oh, that's-

JL: The next time you're not around.

JF: Just gave out the milk for free there.

[Laughter]

JL: Don't say “give out the milk for free” again.

[Laughter]

JL: Anyway, this is about Sonos.

[Laughter]

JL: And you get 10% off- how much? 10% off 1,000?

JF: I thought you said that the other day, but it was Tommy. Tommy used that saying the other day.

JL: Don't milk the Soothe if you're gonna get the Sonos for free.

JF: I mean, you know, maybe it's a whole thing there. Yeah, I understand. Okay! Sonos!

JL: Sonos.

JF: Go get it!

JL: Get Sonos. What was it? 10% off? 1,000?

JF: 10% off. PSA10

JL: 1,000? That's a lot.

JF: Yeah.

0:48:49

[MUSIC]

0:48:53

JF: On the pod today, we are very lucky to have with us New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, thanks for coming on the pod!

KG: You're welcome. I’m really excited to be on.

JF: We're glad to have you. So, yesterday you signed on to Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all act. And you've actually been a proponent of Medicare for all since your first Congressional race back in 2006. So, it seems like there are two big challenges here with this bill- with this legislation. One is figuring out how to pay for it. And two, just something- you know, we all worried about during the Affordable Care Act debate, persuading the 90% of Americans who have health insurance that we can transition them to a Medicare plan with, you know, little to no disruption in their lives. So, how do we meet these challenges?

KG: Well, I think the most important thing is to give people the opportunity to buy into a not for profit public option. I think it's really important to recognize that so much of the cost in health care today is the fact that we have these middle men called insurance companies that are for profit companies that have very high profit margins, fat CEO salaries, and quarterly obligations to their shareholders. And their goal in life is to make money, as they should be. That's what they are. They're for profit companies. We need someone who's running this that actually cares about people and puts people before profits and puts the health and well-being of Americans first. And so, you need at least a not for profit public option. And so over the 4 years under our bill -- and this is the part that I worked on to write – is, let people buy into Medicare at a price they can afford. And do it over 4 years so people can be eligible each year to buy in. And it lets people see how much less it costs if you're not guaranteeing fat CEO pay and profits for these insurance companies. Over time I think people will then begin to see it's not only less expensive, but it's higher quality care. And so, the reason why Medicare for all is so important is because you have to move away from a for profit system into a not for profit system. You cannot get, in my opinion, to universal coverage and affordability at the same time. And that's why states that have one or two providers are struggling. Because they might have a low population, they might have an older population, they might have a sick population. And so, those insurance companies can't make enough money and that's why they're not there. So, while ObamaCare did a lot to get us in the right direction, it protected kids up until 26, it said you can't be dropped coverage because of preexisting conditions. It made all these changes that really matter. It's still based on a for profit system and so it's still too expensive for a lot of middle class families, for a lot of small businesses. It's still too expensive. And so, to really get cost down you need to be able to take the insurance companies out of the equation and you need to be able to negotiate in bulk for the lowest cost for drugs. You have to be able to take on the drug companies and say, we deserve to be able to buy in bulk through Medicare or Medicaid and get lower prices for people.

JF: So- it's interesting, you mentioned adding a nonprofit- a not for profit public option. That was actually the plan that Hillary Clinton proposed in the 2016 election, adding a public option. And even though her and Bernie fought quite a bit over her plan versus his single payer plan, do you think those differences were over blown? Because, you know, you're talking about adding a public option and then ultimately transitioning to a Medicare for all single payer plan. Do you think this is just sort of a- a difference in how we transition, how fast we transition – what do you think about that?

KG: Well I think our goal has to be single payer. We have to get to a place where all Americans are covered no matter what, and that health care is a right and not a privilege. And that has to be the goal for all of us. But I think the buy in is the best way to transition because honestly if you give people a chance to have Medicare -- I can't tell you how many people when I’ve traveled around the state who've said to me, you know, “I’m 55 years old, I just got laid off, I don’t know why, you know I have to be in poverty to be eligible for Medicaid, it's not fair. Why can't I be eligible now for Medicare or Medicaid?” And it's just- it's what people want and it's not partisan. And as you mentioned, when I ran in 2006 I ran on Medicare for all. I said you need at least one not for profit public option. I said people should be able to buy in. And people liked it and that was a very Republican district. And so, it makes sense. It's really common sense. And it's all about where the money goes and the money should be going entirely towards health care, not to overhead, not to profits, not to CEO pay. And to your question of paying for it. People are gonna buy into this and it's going to be less than they're paying their insurance company. So, people are gonna save money and America’s gonna spend less money on healthcare and you're gonna get to the fundamental cost that's driving the fact that we spend so much more on health care in this country than other countries that have universal health care.

DP: Senator, like all things, this is a question of both policy and politics. What lessons, or- do you take, or concerns do you have about the fact that two of our most progressive states, Vermont and California -- where Jon and I live -- have tried to do single payer and run into great struggles politically? What lessons do you take from that as you think about how to do this nationally? In, you know, obviously a much different environment than California and Vermont?

KG: I think people just have to understand what it's about. When you really simplify it and say, should money be going to insurance company CEOs or insurance company profits, or should money be spent directly on your health care? It's really obvious to most voters. And so, when you present it like that, they say, of course I’d rather the money go to health care. I don’t need to fund insurance company profits. And so, it's- it's simplifying the system and then it's making all health care available to all people. And that's why having single payer, that's why having Medicare for all is really a very elegant solution that solves our greatest problem that too many people are priced out of health care today. It's really, in some circumstances for the most privileged among us, and it's just not right. It's morally wrong. So, I think if you talk about it in that way around the country, they're gonna support this. You know the debate sometimes becomes very toxic and misleading. And so if you really just speak truth to power, I think it's gonna work. And I think people want to have Medicare for all. I think they really- they know their grandparents or their parents are on Medicare. They know they generally like things. They'd like drug prices to be cheaper. We need to deal with that as a cost measure. And then you can begin to create a healthcare system that's not focused on fee for service, but is actually focused on well-being of patients.

JF: So, we interviewed Hillary Clinton on Monday and -- you know, you've been a strong supporter of her and you were in 2016 -- I asked her if she had any advice for women who are interested in politics, who are running for politics now- running for office now, on how to grapple with the kind of sexism she faced in the campaign. What kind of advice would you give to women who are running for office for the very first time? The thousands who have signed up to run since 2016.

KG: Well the first thing I would tell them is to believe in themselves and to make sure they know that their voice will make a difference. I started “Off the Sidelines” about 6 years ago to create a call to action to ask women to do exactly this. To run for office. If they didn't want to run for office, then to support another woman who shared your values, to vote, to become advocates, to be heard. And what we’ve seen since this President was elected is a resurgence of women who desperately want to be heard. And it all started in the Women's March. I mean, I don't know if you participated in any of the marches around the globe, but-

JF: Oh yeah, right here in LA.

KG: Millions- yeah millions of people came out and said, “I want to be heard.” And what was so brilliant about the March was its intersectionality, the fact that it didn't matter what you marched for. You could certainly march for women's reproductive freedom, but you could also march for Black Lives Matter, or you could march for immigration reform, or clean air clean water, or LGBT equality. It didn't matter. It was the first time for a lot of people to just put what they felt most strongly about and put it on a sign and carry the sign. And it was an action that I think really was a process in democratizing democracy in a way that was powerful and certainly meaningful for me and really inspiring. So, for all the women who are thinking about running, please run! We need you! And we need your voice. We need your perspective. You have a very different life experience than most people serving in government. As you know, we only have 20% in the Senate, 18% in the House. And it's not enough. It's just not enough. And so, issues that overwhelmingly impact women and families sometimes don't even get on the top 10 list. It's outrageous that we don't have national paid leave in this day and age, when every other industrialized country has it. We don't even have equal pay for equal work yet. And other things that, you know, perhaps because women see the world differently, having affordable day care or universal pre-k. These kinds of changes would make a difference. So, I just- I believe that we need women. We need the diversity of our country representing our country. And we just don't have it. We need more women of color, we need more African American and Hispanic, Latinas. We need more people running who are different than what we have today. And so, I’m hoping that women really feel this, intensely, that not only are they qualified but they're differences in life experience is what makes them more effective, more powerful, and more relevant for some of the problems we need to face today.

DP: Senator, I wanted to ask you about the deal -- or alleged deal -- that Senator Schumer and Leader Pelosi struck with Trump. And not- I guess I’m curious, not necessarily about the details of the deal, but how you think about Democrats working with Trump, while at the same time believing that he is an existential threat to a lot in this country. Is there a danger that he gets normalized by this? Or we're helping him out politically in ways that Senator McConnell certainly was not willing to do for President Obama?

KG: I don't think some of President Trump's hateful policies will ever be normalized and can never be allowed to be normalized. So, when he's objectifying and discriminating against transgender troops, you stand boldly against him and you say, why? That's immoral. When he wants to say that kids that are here under DACA can't stay, you stand up against him. But if he wants to do something good and his desire is to actually help people, there’s no reason you shouldn't do it. And in fact, it would be immoral if you didn't do it. If he wants to make sure we pass the DREAM Act tomorrow, I will be the first one to say, I will work with you to pass the DREAM Act tomorrow. So, we have to do both. When he does something that’s toxic, wrong, and immoral, we have to stand strong and fight hard. And if he wants to do something that helps people, that is our job- to work with him to help people. That is why we are here. We are public servants first. And if people let politics get in the way of helping people, they're not doing their jobs.

JF: So, you're someone who used to have a more conservative position on immigration when you first ran for Congress. Now, you know, you're one of the strongest advocates for a path to citizenship for undocumented Americans. Talk a little bit about your evolution on this issue, and also, you know, how you think Democrats should approach immigration policy going forward.

KG: Well, as an upstate House member, I just didn't have enough experience understanding the traumas that families face who are dealing with immigration in this country. My district was maybe 98% white and I didn't take the time to understand why this issue was so important and how harmful anti-immigration policies are. And so, when I was appointed to the Senate and was given the job of representing the whole state, I spent time with families all across the state to hear from them about what their lives were actually like. And I have to say I was horrified that I hadn't been sensitive enough, that I hadn't understood how difficult and challenging some of these hateful politics can be for a family. And I can't imagine what it's like to be a child whose parents could be shipped away at any moment. Like, I can't imagine the anxiety that they feel. And so, I feel so strongly now that we have to work much, much harder to protect these kids, to protect these families, and to really make the case about how important the history of immigration is in our country. I mean, we are a country founded by immigrants. Part of the strength of our democracy is because of our diversity. Part of the strength of our economy is because of our diversity. And I’ve met with refugee populations, with immigration populations, across our state who, when they come here all they do is grow the economy. They start businesses, they start families, they invest. And so, we need comprehensive immigration in this country. We need pathways to citizenship. We have to protect the kids who are under DACA and who are Dreamers. So, I just feel like our country- it's not about tolerating diversity, it's about the strength the diversity caused. Our country is stronger because of our diversity.

DP: Senator, we wanted to ask you about the amendment you're working on with Senator Collins, about protecting transgender troops. What would that do to address the situation of the new Trump policy? And what are the prospects, do you think?

KG: The prospects are very strong that we can actually pass our amendment. Senator Collins and I have worked on issues that affect military personnel for many years now. She and I worked together on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. And we, you know, nobody thought we could repeal that policy. Even the advocacy groups were afraid to vote on that. But we did. And we pushed it because it was the right thing to do and goodness prevailed on that day. I think the same is true here. We don’t know how many votes we have, but we've just convince Senator McCain to support our amendment. Which is fantastic because he's seen by many Republicans as the leader on all things military. And so, what our bill will do is protect any transgender troops who are serving today and make sure that they cannot be discriminated against because of their gender identity.

JF: Senator, one thing we learned this week after interviewing Hillary on Monday is, you know from some of the responses, here's still a lot of deep divisions within the party between Bernie supporters, Hillary supporters. What are your thoughts on a message and policies that might unite the Democratic party in 2018, 2020, and beyond?

KG: Well certainly policies that really affect people deeply. Like Medicare for all. I think being willing to take on the drug companies and getting health care costs down is one of the biggest drivers of economic insecurity in this country today. I think focusing on rewarding work. Just listening to the challenges workers face across this country and then working so much harder to meet their needs. So, focusing on ways that reward work, such as obviously raising the minimum wage. But also investing in manufacturing, seeing ‘Made in America’ again. Making sure we invest in the kind of training and education that gets people right into the jobs that are available today. Having structural changes like paid family leave. I can't tell you how many people are forced to leave the work force because of an urgent family crisis, if they can even afford to do so. So being bold, being aggressive, speak about the vision for the party. I think free education is something we should absolutely fight for. Especially for these worker training issues. Like if you get laid off and your mid-career and you just need 6 months of training to get that job at that manufacturer, you know five miles away, that should be available at any community college, any local state school, for free. And so, the kinds of things we could do to level the playing field for workers and restructure the economy to reward work again. I mean this is a long conversation but, you know we have had an economy that is overwhelmingly dominated by shareholder value. It's overwhelmingly dominated by who owns things. And so, if we wanna refocus it towards who works in the economy, who actually are the people that build things, it's gonna take some really structural challenges. And I think if you incentivize companies to do things like profit sharing or employee ownership or creating a workplace policy that support workers first. Really investing in B corps and saying, if you're gonna focus on sustainability and have pro worker, workplace policies, you're gonna get a tax advantage, you know. If we're gonna do tax reform, let's increase tax benefits for companies that create their companies this way. And then support our unions. Our unions are our greatest voices for workplace fairness and to get higher pay for workers. And really help communities understand that if they have someone negotiating for them, they're gonna be more powerful. So really renew our commitment to helping unions be strong. Cause they- they put people first. And so, it's just this question of what do you do first, people or profits? And we are a capitalist country, we believe in capitalism, but we don't believe in greed. And that is the difference. That has been the divergence for the last several decades. And so, we have to reward good companies that wanna create jobs, reinvest in the middle class, and reinvest in their workers. And make it more profitable for those kinds of companies to succeed by investing in them.

JF: Awesome. Thank you so much, Senator Gillibrand for joining us. And please come back again.

KG: Thank you guys so much! I really appreciate you including me.

JF: Oh, absolutely. Take care!

KG: Take care, bye!

JF: Bye.

1:06:34

[MUSIC]

1:06:39

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Parachute.

JL: Parachute.

JF: What do you think?

[Laughter]

JL: I think Parachute is just terrific. We are back to using Parachute as the giveaway at Lovett or Leave It, for people who win the games. Sadly, we've not had a lot of people lose the games and I’m trying to figure out how to make them harder.

JF: Yeah. I could win any of those games.

JL: Well that's because you're a news junkie. That's because you’re a fiend. A Twitter fiend.

JF: Yeah. I’m gonna help you come up with the fake- the- you know how it's '”too fake to be true” or whatever that game is that you guys play? I’m a casual listener.

[Laughter]

JL: Too stupid to be-

JF: Two truths and a false?

JL: Too stupid to- don't- it's called “too Stupid to be true.”

JF: Too stupid to be true. I think- [giggles]

JL: Parachute.

JF: Parachute.

[Laughter]

JL: Parachute.

JF: We need more Parachute stuff. So, we have a pool at our new home and Emily-

JL: Must be nice.

[Laughter]

JF: And Emily wants robes, Parachute robes, for everyone who comes over-

JL: She mentioned robes to me-

JF: For when they come out of the pool.

JL: Separately.

JF: She wants to give our guests Parachute robes.

JL: Honestly, you know, it's ridiculous. Anyway- you- you know, look- you don't have to-

JF: It's cause they're comfortable!

JL: You don't have to live like the Sultan of Brunei to enjoy Parachute products whenever you want them.

[Laughter]

JL: We like Parachute. We need to take a trip. We need to do a Sunday trip-

JF: [While laughing hysterically] Sultan of Brunei!

JL: I don't where that- I don’t even know anything about the Sultan of Brunei. Maybe they sleep on a- maybe they sleep on very low count thread sheets that are uncomfortable.

JF: It's just one of those dog pools you fill up with a garden hose.

[Laughter]

JL: It's like the pool on the roof at the start of Weekend at Bernie’s.

JF: That’s right.

JL: You know what I’m talking about. Anyway-

Both: Parachute!

JF: You get towels. You get robes. Go get some!

JL: And sheets and bedding!

JF: Oh! There's something we're supposed to say, visit parachutehome.com/crooked for free shipping and returns. That's parachutehome.com/crooked for free shipping and returns. They offer a 60-night trial. If you don't love it, you just send it back no questions asked.

JL: No questions asked!

JF: Zero questions.

JL: Zero questions.

JF: Parachute.

JL: Parachute.

JF: Go get some.

1:08:30

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by the Cash app

JL: The Cash app. I, Jon, have ordered my Cash app card.

JF: Yes!

JL: And I signed it and personalized it and it will be coming in the mail.

JF: Can't wait. 

JL: We all can't wait. On bated breath, we wait for the arrival.

JF: You're gonna be throwing around that thing like it's nobody's business.

JL: And it is nobody's business. It's my business.

JF: but it is- [laughs] Who you send and receive money from.

JL: The point is, we're switching to Cash app.

JF: We're not using the other apps anymore.

JL: We're not using those other ones anymore.

JF: So, download it. Put in the code PODSAVE.

JL: PODSAVE.

JF: You get 5 dollars.

JL: You get 5 dollars.

JF: 5 dollars is going to hurricane relief.

JL: 5 dollars going to hurricane relief.

JF: That's Harvey and Irma. There’s many people in need. This is very important. So, download the Cash app if you haven’t already, or get your friends to. That's it.

JL: That's it.

JF: That's all we have to say about that.

JL: You have a group of friends and you're going out to dinner and you're going bowling and you're going roller skating and you're going to escape rooms. And the question becomes how do we settle up? You know?

JF: You're not exchanging wads of cash.

JL: Like animals. We're doing it with this Cash app.

JF: Code PODSAVE.

1:09:31

JF: Pod Save America is brought to you by Postmates.

JL: Postmates.

JF: Download the app. 100 dollars in free delivery credit.

JL: Download the app. 100 dollars in free delivery credit.

JF: Use it within 2 weeks.

JL: Within 2 weeks.

JF: Stuff comes to your house. It's food-

JL: I got a poke bowl last night-

JF: It could be electronics-

JL: On kelp noodles.

JF: Whatever there is in stores around you, the Postmate will bring it to you. That's the point.

JL: I saw this option that said, “Do you want your poke bowl on kelp noodles?” And I said, “Let's give it a shot. What's the worst that could happen? It's one meal.”

JF: I don't know what the worst that could happen. What is the worst that could happen?

JL: I don't know what the worst that could happen because I had a great time. Because you know what? Turns out, lesson learned from Postmates, I enjoy kelp noodles.

JF: Postmates.

JL: Postmates.

JF: Download today, use the code CROOKED. Get 100 dollars in free delivery credit.

JL: End of ad.

1:10:07

[MUSIC]

1:10:11

JF: On the pod today, we have the host of Crooked Media's with Friends Like These, Ana Marie Cox. Welcome!

Ana Marie Cox: Hello, guys.

JF: Hi, there. You just did an interview with our pal, Rembert Browne, right?

AMC: I did and if I do say so myself, it was fantastic. It was good for me. I hope it was good for him. I hope listeners appreciate it as well. We did a really deep dive into the piece that came out this week that he wrote that is a profile of Colin Kaepernick with a missing piece. Which is an actual interview with Colin Kaepernick, but in a way- like, just as a magazine nerd and as a writing nerd, I’m sure you guys appreciated this about the piece as well, which is that one of the things it's about is that it's not Colin Kaepernick's job to be a celebrity and be in profiles. And it's not his job to be interrogated by people about his beliefs.

JF: That is true.

AMC: He has a job. And he's doing it. Which is that he's an activist now, you know. He's not at the beck and call of reporters or other people that- that want to question him. Like he's doing what he needs to do.

JF: That's an interesting angle on it. I like that.

AMC: And it's just a great piece and obviously it's really current right now. Not just because we are, you know, in the middle of one of the most politically charged football seasons that we've seen in a while. But obviously, Jemele Hill at ESPN tweeted some truths about Donald Trump, including the fact he's a white supremacist. And not only did ESPN discipline her in some unspecified way, but Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked ESPN to fire her. From the podium of the White House. What's your guys' take on that -- as far as like, using the White House podium to ask for people to get fired?

JF: I mean it's fucking absurd, you know.

[Laughter]

JF: When- when reality television star Donald Trump ran around calling Barack Obama and others racist, we didn't call for his firing from the White House podium. But we could've.

AMC: Yeah.

DP: Perhaps we should have.

AMC: Yeah, you guys could've really nipped this in the bud. I think that's actually the real lesson here, right?

DP: Seriously. This is the- this is the baby Hitler question as relates to Trump.

[Laughter]

AMC: So, that's super ugly in, you know, race news this week. Other stuff too, what did you guys wanna talk about? What do you got left on the list?

JF: What we have left on the list is...we didn't talk about the antics- the Kris Kobach antics this week with Trump’s voter fraud commission. Kobach wrote a piece in Breitbart where he said that Hillary Clinton and Maggie Hassan won in New Hampshire because of illegal voting by out-of-state residents. This is, of course, false. Most of these are out-of-state college students who had every legal right to vote in New Hampshire. What's the deal with this dog and pony show here?

AMC: Well, in a way it encapsulates- it's a microcosm of everything that's wrong with the Trump administration. Which is to say that it's a poorly formulated idea that was poorly executed, that will have very few real-world ramifications beyond just re-solidifying bad ideas.

JF: Yeah.

AMC: Like Kris Kobach himself has said that he's not sure if anything is gonna come from this commission. But as you guys know, propping up the idea that voter fraud is something that is a real thing that we need to do something about, is itself a powerful idea. You know, that's a powerful tool to broadcast to the nation, that there is such a thing as massive voter fraud and that it's done on behalf of Democrats. The thing itself was almost literally a joke. Like, at one point they brought out antique New Hampshire voting machines to demonstrate? Like...like you would not pay a nickel to go see in a museum, you know?

JF: Yeah. What do you think about some Democrats who are calling on the Democratic members of this commission to resign? And they refused, saying, you know “We need to be here to sort of watch Kobach's antics.” What do you think about that?

AMC: I’m torn. I think that the main reason I would say that they should be there, is that one of the members of the commission - Hans Spakovsky, do you guys know how to pronounce his last name? It's just like one of those complicated-

JF: No, I’m not even gonna try. I have pronunciation issues on the podcast, so-

AMC: You know, eastern European sounding names, I don't know. He's one of the main architects of this voter fraud, fraud. He asked that Democrats not be a part of the commission. So therefore, I think that they should be. If one of the main perpetrators of this lie doesn’t want Democrats there, then I think Democrats should be there. I mean, I’m curious about- you know this is a question for a lot of people on the left right now, is how much you should be working with the other side. I’m sure you guys dived into the DACA thing, you know, should Democrats at all work with Trump or work with Republicans? I mean I think it's probably a case by case basis.

JF: Totally, yeah, I think it's case by case. I think on DACA it's our policy outcome so yeah, of course.

AMC: Yeah, right.

JF: It's not like- we gave up almost nothing. Or it looks like we're gonna give up almost nothing.

AMC: And I do think the Democrats being on Kobach's commission means that there's probably a little bit more transparency there. Like they'll fight for people to be able to come and see the commission’s hearings, at least. And see that they're a joke.

JF: Yeah, well okay, this is- you know I’ve been very critical of some of these folks who are in the Trump administration who are claiming they're there to like save America. And, you know, they're serving for that reason and I think that at this point they should absolutely resign and tell the country what's going on in the Trump administration and that would have a greater impact than them staying in there. Aside from some of those in national security roles like McMaster. But on this one, on the voting commission, I like that there are Democrats on the commission because it's a public commission. And I think that if you have Democrats there, they can speak out and call out Kobach's lies in- you know, to the public while it's going on. And I would imagine that if this commission comes to a conclusion that's insane and wrong, they will certainly not sign on to that and they can use that position to speak out.

AMC: And they will have some weight behind not signed on, right.

JF: Right.

AMC: They'll be able to say, “And this is why we're not signing on.” Rather than speaking from the outside. I do wanna- I mean people who are listening to-

JF: And they're speaking out now and they're not waiting, even. Which is nice.

AMC: Right, right. And I know people listening to this show know this, that voter fraud is not a problem. It doesn't really exist. But this is one of the most pernicious, like, urban legends that exists in America.

JF: Yeah.

AMC: My- my Trump supporting in-laws, you know, again are good example here. Like they earnestly believe that there's some kind of conspiracy around this. And they refuse to be shaken from it. So, the more that we can do to combat this and like just the- you know, the popular narrative, I mean, the better. And the best, the best way to combat it, though, I think is just continuing to fight against the, you know, unfair gerrymandering and just continue to just register people to vote and do voter turnout. There's no, unfortunately, like just make- make the evidence- put the evidence in the votes, if that makes sense.

JF: Yeah, and publicize some of these battles on the local and state level which our friend Jason Kander is doing so well. So, I think- I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

DP: I think it's worth nothing that Hans van whatever, he was on the FEC. He was recess appointed because the junior Senator from Illinois, to much controversy, put a hold on his nomination. So, real prescient move there, Barack Obama.

JF: There you go. Alright guys, well. So, everyone should tune in- so, With Friends like These, your interview with Rembert Browne drops tomorrow-

AMC: Yeah.

JF: So, everyone, make sure you download.

AMC: It'll probably be a little long. I’m just gonna -gonna toss that out there I know people probably- I know some people don’t like when we do those, kind of bonus episode length stuff. But I think it's worth it. I think it's a really good piece.

JL: Ana, hey, it's Lovett. I wanna talk a little bit about salesmanship.

[Laughter]

JL: I would say that there are probable other qualities besides the length of it that people might enjoy. The interesting qualities of the conversation, the fascinating insights the Rembert brought to the table. Perhaps- perhaps long is a better thing because you'll be so engrossed in it you won't want to stop listening. Maybe you'll-

AMC: I think time will fly. I think people won’t even realize.

JL: Maybe you'll sit in your car-

AMC: I’m not even gonna say how long it's gonna be. Because people aren’t gonna know. Cause they’ll- they're sense of time will be warped by the investment that they'll have while they're listening

DP: I don’t know if you've been in a McDonalds recently but Americans like more.

[Laughter]

DP: More podcasts, less- same price.

JF: Guys, I think, I think we've bled right into the outro here.

[MUSIC BEGINS]

JL: We're in the outro.

JF: We're- it's here. Now we are. Because this episode is now long.

JL: And, music!

[Laughter]

JF: Also, guys-

DP: Can I add- can I add two minutes to this intro before we go?

JF: Sure.

DP: So, I was on a podcast last week called The Rights to Ricky Sanchez, which is the premiere Philadelphia of 76ers podcast.

JF: Oh yeah, I saw that.

JL: That's my favorite Philadelphia of 76ers podcast!

DP: And the host- well- good, because you came up in the podcast. One of the hosts-

JF: Now you've got his attention.

DP: One of the hosts -- yeah, now he's excited -- is a TV writer in LA- in Hollywood. And many years ago, he interviewed to be your assistant on 1600 Penn.

JL: Cool.

JF: Whoa. And now-

JL: How'd it go?

DP: You did not hire him.

JF: [Laughing]How'd it go?

DP: You did not hire him, but you did tell him the main part of the job was to- was to get you French fries whenever you wanted them.

JL: No!

[Laughter]

JL: No! That's exactly wrong!

JF: Yes!

JL: That's exactly backwards and now I’m glad I didn't hire this person-

JF: Elijah, this is the clip that we wanna use on social media.

JL: You can use this clip all you want because I vividly remember what I said, because I ended every interview by saying the same thing: “I am not kidding. If anyone brings me French fries, they're fired.”

[Laughter]

JL: And I’m gonna ask for them.

JF: Seems like there was a lot of firing.

JL: Yeah, we went through- I went through 40 people.

[Laughter]

JF: Alright guys, well that's all we have for today. We still have tickets to Pod Save America, which- which?

JL: Ann arbor.

JF: Ann arbor!

JL: What kind of operation is this?

AMC: That's where I’m gonna be! That's the show I’m in.

JF: Where Ana’s joining us.

JL: Where Ana is.

AMC: Yeah!

JF: It's crooked.com/tour. Also, you know Santa Barbara still in December, but that's a couple months away. But Ann Arbor! Ann Arbor's gonna be in October and we have a second show, so we still have tickets to the second show. Excellent. All your friends will be there.

AMC: Come see us, guys.

JF: We'll all be here. Alright guys, we will- we'll talk to you all on Monday. Take it easy.

JL: Take it easy?

DP: Bye, guys.

JL: End of show.

JF: Good night and good luck.

DP: Just mixing it up on the outro.

[Laughter]

JF: And that's the way it is!

[Laughter]

JL: Courage.

[Laughter]

1:20:53

[pharmaphorumuk]

Improving HCP participation in primary market research

The decline in numbers of healthcare professionals (HCPs) willing to contribute to market research could have a detrimental effect on the quality of data provided to pharma. John Aitchison reports on why fewer are willing to join in and offers five changes that need to be made to improve uptake.

I count myself lucky as my ‘bread and butter’, primary market research1, has been popular with pharma for decades: informing pre- and post- launch brand strategy; tracking market progress; and guiding on the various tactical decisions that arise as stories unfold.

However, primary market research is becoming slower, costlier and, arguably, less credible because of declining numbers of health professionals (HCPs) willing to take part2. In short, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain a sufficiently large and representative sample to answer business objectives with confidence. Data quality is threatened to such a degree that many of us are concerned about the potential for primary market research findings to mislead pharma’s decision making, rather than supporting it.

I know from personal experience that the opening five minutes of any results presentation, where the assembled marketing and brand teams are reminded of the sample size and its composition, are often hard work. Yet, dry as these may be, they are the foundation for good research and demand proper scrutiny. Buyers making assumptions about quality may be making a mistake.

Why the decline?

A group of pharma market researchers, under the auspices of our professional body, the British Healthcare Business Intelligence Association (BHBIA), recently investigated the issue from the perspective of HCPs themselves, pinpointing their most serious concerns and making recommendations for improvement. As you’d expect, we were diligent as to sample3, making sure, for example, to include HCPs whose participation had lapsed, as well as those who had previously shown little interest. We wanted to know what was putting them off and what would encourage them to participate, so that others might follow suit.

The first finding was that it’s not about how much we pay them. What matters more is delivering a research experience that shows respect for their time and expertise, thus preserving the participant goodwill upon which all market research rests. And therein lie the problems. Their major frustration is with ‘screening’ – the preliminary questions we must ask to determine whether the HCP we’re inviting has a speciality, background, and caseload relevant to the objectives. The HCP view is that this takes too long and is too stringent, and fixing it heads the top five changes we must make:

Improve screening. Fieldwork companies4 must get better at profiling and targeting HCPs, so that we can reach our sample more effectively, minimise the time spent answering qualifying questions, and reduce the proportion that fail them. Research buyers and their agencies must stop trying to get ‘free’ data by adding questions to the screener that are non-consequential to qualifying, and allow participants to screen out as early as possible rather than forcing them to answer extra questions once non-relevance to the study has been established. And should fieldwork prove more challenging in practice than on paper, it pays to build a sensible amount of slack into the sample specification, so recruiters are not left chasing the proverbial one-armed, ginger-haired, haematology professor from north Norfolk.

Be honest about timings. Participants reported feeling commoditised, misled, or even cheated when research tasks take longer than advertised. The temptation to add one last question is one we must resist. Amidst the cut and thrust of getting a research project turned around as quickly as possible it is easy to forget that, for pharma, the disgruntled research participant and the valued customer may very easily be one and the same person.

Improve research design. We can’t eliminate bad questions but as researchers we can improve and intensify training and ‘call out’ repetitive or boring designs. Research buyers must also recognise that designing a survey to capture every data point that may be relevant to the objectives leads to respondent fatigue, which in turn leads to poorer data quality. The better approach is to include only what you really need.

Pay promptly. The frequency with which HCPs reported delayed and even non-payment of remuneration was alarming. A common reason for delay is that data needs to be quality checked and signed off, and sometimes that doesn’t happen until the buyer is happy with the deliverables, which can mean a long wait. Most HCPs would be satisfied to receive remuneration within two weeks of participation, which is hardly unreasonable.

Make participation more convenient. Many doctors tell us that they’d be open to participating later in the evening, after 9pm. While this may be less popular among researchers and any buyers who wish to observe, it would enable more HCPs to participate and demonstrate that we care about them.

At least three of these five suggested changes have their roots in a breaking down of the goodwill between market researcher and participant, and rebuilding that is our top priority.

Beyond that, many other improvements need to be made, and while most of these fall to the supply-side, pharma needs to play its part along the lines suggested above.

Beyond that, why not share media stories about how primary market research has played a role in delivering better treatment with the HCP? While it is true that market research wouldn’t be viable without remuneration, willingness to participate is also heavily driven by curiosity about what is going on in pharma, and a desire to contribute to clinical developments.

Although much of what we ask in our studies is obviously client confidential, some contextual findings are arguably not commercially sensitive, and would fascinate and inform if fed back to HCPs post project completion.

I leave those who commission primary market research among HCPs with this summary advice:

–          Tune in to sample: have mastery of the specification, and be proactive and constructive during fieldwork. Encourage the direct involvement of the fieldwork provider in briefing discussions/progress updates and listen to their recommendations and concerns.

–          Examine the scope of your objectives, and test-drive the resultant questions. Are they focused on what you really need?

–          Respect the HCP market research participant as you would a valuable customer – they are one and the same! Would the questions asked command your attention?

For more, download the BHBIA’s full report, its accompanying summary, and newly-developed guidelines on ‘screener’ best practice via the BHBIA website.

References:

Primary market research is the process of capturing data direct from HCPs themselves, to answer specific questions, whereas secondary market research is the process of compiling and analysing the data and findings of others, often using a variety of different sources.

The incontrovertible evidence for declining HCP participation lies in the digital records of fieldwork companies, the testimony of independent recruiters, and in ever-lengthening fieldwork periods.

The BHBIA sponsored a programme of qualitative (face to face) and quantitative (online survey) research amongst a mix of UK based primary care and secondary care physicians, nurses and pharmacists. The qualitative work comprised one group discussions and 15 depth interviews, and the quantitative work fielded an online questionnaire of 20 minutes duration, amongst n=UK 423 clinicians of mixed specialty. Fieldwork was conducted in late 2016 and early 2017.

Fieldwork companies are those who have direct (personal or online) contact with HCPs to conduct the market research interviews (the fieldwork phase); they are often sub-contracted to a separate market research agency who is accountable to the pharma client.

About the author:

John Aitchison is co-Chair of the BHBIA Response Rate Task Force and managing director, First Line Research. He has over 20 years’ experience in healthcare business intelligence and enjoys applying good ideas from beyond the sector.

First Line Research specialises in quantitative online research and techniques inspired by behavioural science.

The post Improving HCP participation in primary market research appeared first on Pharmaphorum.

from Pharmaphorum https://pharmaphorum.com/views-and-analysis/market-research-improving-hcp-participation-primary-market-research/

[sweetangelnakshtra]

The most important lesson of the 1918 influenza pandemic: Tell the damn truth - News Buddi “The government lied. They lied about everything”: a historian on what went wrong in 1918. “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” That was President Trump’s response when asked by a CNBC reporter on January 22 whether he was worried about the coronavirus. Almost two months later, with the threat too large to ignore, the president’s tone has shifted dramatically (even as his press briefings continue to be models of incoherence and inaccuracy). The contradictory messages about the virus, and the dishonesty motivating them, is dangerous right now. Refusing to tell people the truth will cost lives because it undercuts our efforts to flatten the epidemic curve with practices like social distancing. It also erodes the public’s trust in government — and that’s a huge problem. The biggest lesson of the 1918 influenza epidemic, according to historian John M. Barry, is that leaders have to tell the truth, no matter how hard it is to hear. Barry, who wrote an influential book on the 1918 pandemic, says that lying about the severity of the crisis in 1918 created more fear and more isolation and more suffering for everyone. “Trust in authority disintegrated, and at its core, society is based on trust,” Barry wrote in a recent New York Times column. “Not knowing whom or what to believe, people also lost trust in one another. They became alienated, isolated. Intimacy was destroyed.” I spoke to Barry by phone about the costs of lying to the public in 1918, if he thinks we’re repeating the mistakes the government made back then, and how leaders should balance the tension between telling people what they need to know and trying not to induce mass panic. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows. Sean Illing Is the coronavirus the closest thing you’ve seen to the 1918 influenza pandemic in your lifetime? John M. Barry Nothing else even begins to approach it. At the beginning of the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, there were real fears that it could be bad, but of course it turned out to be fairly mild. If it weren’t for molecular biology, it would never have been noticed at all. So nothing we’ve seen since 1918 even comes close to what’s happening. If this is merely a once-in-a-generation virus, we’ll be lucky. Sean Illing How is our situation today different from the situation we faced in 1918? John M. Barry The biggest difference is the target demographic. In 1918, the overwhelming majority of people who died were 18 to 45. Maybe two-thirds of the deaths were roughly in that age group. Back in 1918, well over 90 percent of the excess mortality was in people younger than 65. So obviously the elderly in 1918 had experienced a mild virus in their youth that was close enough to the 1918 virus that they had a lot of protection against it from natural immunity. Another difference is the incubation rate. Influenza’s average incubation rate was two days, almost never longer than four. The average for the coronavirus is more than twice as long and can stretch quite a bit longer than that, which is both a good and bad thing. The good thing is it allows time to contact, trace, isolate, and things like that, which was almost impossible during the influenza epidemic. The bad thing is that that means this virus may stretch out over a much longer period of time and infect more people. It seems to be considerably more contagious than influenza. Here’s one positive difference: Despite the contagiousness of this, the case fatality rate seems much lower than the 1918 influenza. The fatality rate in 1918, in the West at least, was about 2 percent. In other parts of the world it was much, much higher. Something like 7 percent of Iran’s entire population died. Perhaps as much as 5 percent of Mexico’s population died. [Author’s note: There’s some scholarly debate about the actual fatality rate of the 1918 flu.] That’s how we ended up with 50 to 100 million total deaths in 1918. Sean Illing What would you say was the biggest, most consequential mistake made in 1918 — by governments, by local communities, by individuals? John M. Barry The government lied. They lied about everything. We were at war and they lied because they didn’t want to upend the war effort. You had public health leaders telling people this was just the ordinary flu by another name. They simply didn’t tell the people the truth about what was happening. Sean Illing How long did it take for reality to explode those lies? John M. Barry Not long. People noticed pretty quickly what was up when their neighbors started dying 24 hours after symptoms first appeared. People were in the streets bleeding out of their noses, bleeding out of their mouths, bleeding out of their eyes and ears. It was horrific. Everyone understood very quickly that this was not an ordinary flu. Sean Illing And what were the consequences of all that lying? John M. Barry It was a disaster. People lost faith in everything — in their government, in what they were being told, in each other. It just isolated people even further. If trust collapses, then it becomes everyone for themselves, and that’s the worst instinct in a crisis of this scale. In most disasters, communities come together. And that was the case in some places and cities where the largest social structures were fraying. But in my book, I wrote about the gradual disintegration of trust at every level of society and cascade of breakdowns that resulted from it. But there were also practical consequences. For example, the lack of trust made it harder to implement critical public health measures in a timely way, because people just didn’t believe what they were being told. And by the time the government was forced to be transparent about the situation, it was mostly too late. The virus was already widely disseminated. So the lying and the lack of trust cost a lot of lives. Sean Illing You quote a scientist at the time who said we were a few weeks away from civilization “disappearing from the face of the earth.” How bad did it get on the ground? John M. Barry Bad. Some places managed much better than others, of course. But the Red Cross reported instances of people starving to death in rural communities because everybody was afraid to bring them food — the panic and the fear was that intense. It stretched society to the absolute brink. Sean Illing After researching the 1918 pandemic, how do you think about this difficult tension between telling the public what they need to know and trying not to induce mass panic? John M. Barry Well, that’s always the question. I don’t have scientific studies confirming that I’m right, but my own view is that people can deal with reality and the truth a lot better than they can deal with the uncertainty. If you’re watching a horror movie, your imagination always makes the monster more scary. Once the monster appears onscreen, no matter how horrible, it’s less scary once it’s concrete. This is why I hate the phrase “risk communication,” because it implies managing the truth. In my view, you don’t manage the truth. You tell the truth. Sean Illing President Trump’s initial response to this crisis was to downplay its seriousness, dismissing criticisms as a “hoax.” Fox News continued to downplay it until fairly recently. I think everyone’s tone has basically shifted at this point, but did these early missteps cost us dearly? John M. Barry Absolutely. There’s no question whatsoever that it cost us. And the bizarre thing is that it was always in Trump’s self-interest to be candid. There’s no doubt he was being told the cold, hard truth about the situation behind closed doors. But he minimized it publicly, and that cost us in ways we can’t really quantify yet. Sean Illing How does our collective response to this moment measure up to the response in 1918? John M. Barry Well, in 1918, you couldn’t really say there was a collective response. It varied so much from city to city. But, look, we had people here essentially saying this virus was a Democratic plot to undermine the presidency. Nobody’s saying that now, of course. But it remains an open question whether we will collectively meet this challenge. We’re only at the beginning of this thing. We’ve botched the early testing, and it’s not clear the public has responded seriously enough to the calls for social distancing. But things are changing quickly. What the public does moving forward, how much it complies with the recommendations of public health experts, is going to determine how bad this gets and how fast. Countries like South Korea have managed to beat this back pretty effectively. I don’t know if we’ll have the same success. It’s just too early. #Spanish flu of 1918 #how did the spanish flu spread #1918 flu death records #spanish flu 2019 #spanish flu vaccine #is the spanish flu still around #spanish flu mortality rate #2009 flu pandemic #spanish flu of 1918 timeline

http://newsbuddi.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-most-important-lesson-of-1918.html

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Soon after President Trump was inaugurated, FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver laid out 14 possible paths his presidency might take — ranging from him shifting to the middle and emerging as a fairly popular unifier to him resigning in disgrace or being impeached.

And while going through all 14 paths at this point is a little overwhelming, it’s still a useful way to think about the trajectory Trump finds himself on now. For instance, there’s a real question of whether the economy will have sufficiently recovered from a recession (Scenario 9) by November. But by the same token, it seems pretty unlikely that Trump cedes control to anyone in his administration in any meaningful way (Scenario 5). If anything, the fact that former National Security Advisor John Bolton is the latest former administration official to speak out against him underscores just how comfortable Trump is with not listening to anyone.

So maybe the answer is Trump is verging on some hybrid version of Scenarios 1 and 6, where he defies conventional norms and jeopardizes democratic values (firing Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York, is just the latest example). But will it be in a way where he still manages to appeal to enough of the electorate to win reelection? His approval rating and recent polls would suggest this may not be a winning tactic, but with his recent rally in Tulsa, we’re definitely in full-swing reelection phase.

So what path is Trump on now?

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): So I think we should start with the caveat that, clearly, Trump isn’t on any one specific path. The last three and a half years have just been too unpredictable. But I think there are elements of several of Nate’s paths that have come true.

For example, “1. Trump keeps on Trumpin’ and the country remains evenly divided” seems pretty accurate, but Nate’s supposition that that path would “sort of work” and would “make for a very competitive 2018 and 2020” does not seem to be coming true.

sarah: That feels like … a cop-out.

nrakich: LOL, Sarah, have you met me?

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I am here to out-cop-out Nathaniel and point out two important variables in the 14 scenarios: Trump himself, and the rest of the political environment.

And I don’t think they play an equal role in each scenario. So I would actually adjust Nate’s original framework to think about how the Trump administration has shaped up and also what’s happened in the rest of politics.

That being said, I think we should still consider the “things fall apart” genre and why what’s happening now looks a bit different, as well as Nate’s original Scenario 8 — “Trump is consumed by scandal.”

nrakich: Exactly, Julia. Trump has faced a lot of scandals. He has presided over a pandemic and civil unrest. He has routinely violated democratic norms and values. He was impeached. But Trump’s popularity hasn’t cratered in response (although it is dipping).

Nate’s scenarios kind of assumed that if bad things happened under Trump’s watch, he would become extremely unpopular. But that hasn’t happened in these polarized times. (He’s only pretty unpopular.)

sarah: I agree. Scenario 8 in Nate’s original article implied scandal would sink Trump, but it really hasn’t. That said, as you’re saying, Nathaniel, it doesn’t mean Trump’s approval rating is indestructible — even if it is weirdly steady. This passage from Geoffrey Skelley’s piece on Trump’s latest dip in his approval rating has really stuck with me.

The downward movement in his approval rating belies the notion that nothing matters when it comes to public opinion of this president — his actions and events can, in fact, affect his standing. And for that reason, his reelection chances could now be in real danger.

julia_azari: Right, so things have kinda fallen apart: We have a recession. We have a pandemic. A few weeks ago we had national protests with curfews and Trump making some very authoritarian statements.

And at one point, I think Trump might have entertained going fully authoritarian — which was a path in Nate’s original scenarios — but the rest of the political system pushed back.

I don’t mean to suggest that anyone is here to save norms, but one thing we’ve seen in the Trump presidency is that systems are resistant to change, and a lot of people have incentives to push back against changes. The political system has worked largely as expected, too. For instance, party loyalty kicked in as we expected during the impeachment process.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): That’s key here — congressional Republicans and the party overall have been so loyal to Trump.

Trump has had scandals and mistakes that I think rival or perhaps even top George W. Bush’s. His handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Everything with Ukraine.

But my perception is that prominent Republicans have been less willing to criticize Trump than they were with Bush. Party loyalty under Trump has been extremely strong. He is fairly unpopular overall, but very popular within the Republican Party. For instance, Trump is way down in the polls right now, yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking the same stance as Trump on Confederate monuments — that too many of them are being taken down.

This is not a great position for a party trying to win elections.

julia_azari: Right, the party environment has changed.

nrakich: (Yeah, as a side note, I was thinking about this chat we did in December 2019 about the most consequential episodes in Trump’s presidency. That was only six months ago, and yet it feels like the list we settled on is totally defunct.)

sarah: Something I think we’re all dancing around now is that Trump has fewer paths to choose from, right? Initially, Nate had outlined 14 potential paths, but Trump’s options feel far more limited now.

julia_azari: Yeah. I mean, the path where Trump pivots is not happening — which was evident very early on.

nrakich: The Trump-controlled part of his path seems to be more or less decided at this point. The thing that’s left is the political-environment-controlled part.

And, of course, whether he wins reelection, which will be a part of how we assess whether Trump’s path “worked.”

Although I would quibble with even that characterization. If something doesn’t work for 3.5 years but then we have a fast economic recovery or something and he hits 47 percent approval just in time to win reelection … did his path really “work”?

julia_azari: So in one of the pivot scenarios, Nate wrote that maybe one conclusion from the 2016 election was that Trump is actually pretty good at politics. I think this deserves some unpacking — Trump is clearly good at building a base, but I think he’s bad at legislative coalition-building, national politics, etc.

perry: Trump has been brilliant in terms of consolidating power within the Republican Party.

For example, he basically pushed Sen. Jeff Flake out of the Senate. He has interjected himself into gubernatorial primaries to get his favorites to win.

He has forced people out of his administration who would not do his bidding. Being a Republican is about being loyal to Trump in a way that being a Democrat was not about being loyal to Obama from 2009 to 2017.

julia_azari: Right. But then when you take out the Republican Party, the results fall apart pretty quickly.

perry: In a country this divided, I would argue being good at base politics is quite important.

The media and other institutions in American politics, like the courts, are always trying to remain nonpartisan. So Trump’s approach basically forces out intra-party critics. It means the media can’t easily say, “Even Republicans think Trump is doing something strange here.” That gives him more power. He has been great at accumulating power within the Republican Party.

julia_azari: Right, but power to do what?

Trump governs mostly by executive order, in part because Congress is divided and in part because even when it wasn’t, no one could clarify an agenda and turn slogans into an actual governing coalition.

nrakich: I agree that Trump may care most about being loved by a segment of the population and having Republicans depend on him for their political livelihood. But I think Trump is bad at politics. He’s good at building a loyal personal following (this was always true, by the way — it was his MO as a reality TV star!), but that’s not the same as governing effectively or winning elections.

perry: And for three and a half years, he was close to maintaining power for eight years in America.

julia_azari: So I think the sum total of what you’re both saying is that Trump has mostly succeeded at his goals, and those goals were pretty tangentially related to governing.

perry: Yes. Trump has been fairly effective at what Trump wanted to do, which is hold power.

nrakich: I think we need to be more specific than just “power.” That word can mean a lot of things. But I get what you’re saying.

perry: What I’m saying is pre-pandemic, Trump was at slightly below 50/50 odds of winning reelection. And that was not because he was good at governing — as defined as achieving policy goals — but because he commanded 100 percent loyalty with 50 percent of the electorate or so.

So if Trump is only going to lose reelection because of the pandemic and the recession, then that means he wasn’t too bad at politics.

nrakich: Perry, we’ve had this discussion before, but I think Trump was an underdog even before the pandemic.

sarah: Yeah, I was going to ask… how much do we actually think the pandemic, the recession and now the protests have altered Trump’s reelection odds? They definitely don’t seem to have helped him at this point.

nrakich: The events of the last month — which are probably impossible to disentangle — seem to have meaningfully hurt Trump’s reelection odds. We don’t have a model yet, but I can give it to you in terms of a polling average. On May 24, Biden led by 5.8 points in national polls. As of Tuesday, he led by 9.3 points.

perry: Trump’s reelection odds, it seems to me, went from like 45 percent earlier this year to 20 percent. In April, The New York Times’s Nate Cohn, who is a great elections analyst, wrote about Trump’s strength in swing states. And the entire Democratic primary seemed to be, “Who can beat Trump,” which suggests to me not everyone perceived him as easy to defeat. So it really does seem to me that the pandemic and the resulting recession have rewritten his entire presidency. Trump was running on economic success, which he claimed credit for even if he had little do to do with it. And that was an argument that was kind of working.

So in some ways, Trump’s path was to do crazy things but focus on the economy and say, “Whatever I tweet, I get things done.”

And that was a decent path until COVID-19.

nrakich: I think the fact that electability was such a big deal during the primary reflects the perception — among Democrats, maybe you’d call it paranoia — that Trump would be a formidable opponent. But he basically spent all of 2019 down by around 6 points to Biden.

(Now is the part where I insert the caveat that everything is still subject to change with more than four months until the election, regardless of whether Trump is down 9 or 6 points.)

sarah: Huh, so maybe Trump isn’t that bad at politics. Maybe the external environmental factors have just become too much for Trump to course-correct in any real way?

nrakich: I certainly agree with Perry that the pandemic and recession have rewritten Trump’s presidency. But things have just gone from bad to worse for him. The economy used to be a plausible thing for him to campaign on, although it was really the only arrow in his quiver. Now he doesn’t even have that.

perry: Trump is not great at politics — he barely won in 2016. But he if loses in a landslide in 2020, that may be more about COVID-19 than his political skills.

julia_azari: Right. I think it’s worth noting that Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton would all be struggling politically right now. They probably would not have dismantled the unit in the National Security Council dedicated to pandemic preparedness and might have had a more coherent response, but presidents have limited control over events like the political environment, particularly when a recession is involved.

That’s an interesting question, Nathaniel. What could change between now and November?

nrakich: Seems to me like quite a bit? The pandemic could be totally under control and the economy could be roaring back. Or we could be in the middle of a second wave and the unemployment rate could be in the 20s.

Not to mention, all the possibilities that exist in a normal year: A bad debate. A scandal. God forbid, a terrorist attack.

sarah: So how much does Trump’s path matter moving forward? Do external factors matter more?

nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I think at this point external factors matter more. Trump has shown us who he is and how he’s governing.

perry: I think the most important thing is not any actual event, but rather how many Republican elites and voters decide to break with Trump. Will more of each say “this incident was the last straw” even if the incident was similar to something Trump did in 2017?

I don’t think Trump will do anything different, but I think people might react differently to his behavior, with four more years of his presidency looming.

julia_azari: Yeah. I agree that this is a big variable, and not the focus of the original paths.

perry: If it’s clear the ship is going down, people will want to get off of it.

Loyalty to the king does not matter if the king is going to be dethroned.

[bountyofbeads]

Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.html

Thank God Trump didn't listen to the hawks like John Bolton.

Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly Mistake

By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Thomas Gibbons-Neff | Published June 21, 2019 | New York Times | Posted June 22, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president’s best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

However much weight that advice may or may not have had, the sentiments certainly reinforced the doubts that Mr. Trump himself harbored as he navigated his way through one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions of his presidency. By his own account, the president called off the “cocked & loaded” strike on Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.

The concerns that Mr. Trump heard from Mr. Carlson reflected that part of the presidential id that has always  hesitated at pulling the trigger. Belligerent and confrontational as he is in his public persona, Mr. Trump has at times pulled back from the use of force, convinced that America has wasted too many lives and too much money in pointless Middle East wars and wary of repeating what he considers the mistakes of his predecessors.

As Mr. Carlson and other skeptics have argued, a strike against Iran could easily spiral into a full-fledged war without easy victory. That, Mr. Trump was told, was everything he ran against. And so the president struggled into the early evening, committed to taking action to demonstrate resolve right up until the moment he decided against it and called off the warplanes and missile launchers.

“To those who want to criticize the president, I would say they ought to be thankful they’re not the ones having to make that decision,” said Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who was among the lawmakers at the White House that day. “I watched him really agonize over this.”

At 3 p.m., Mr. Trump hosted congressional leaders in the Situation Room to brief them about the episode and outline the alternative responses. At least some of those in the room left assuming that he was likely to order a strike.

Mr. Trump was given a list of at least a dozen strike options generated this month after there were attacks on tankers in the region. The list was then narrowed down to at least two alternatives. Among the targets would be facilities like radar and missile batteries.

Administration officials said on Friday that the president’s national security team was unanimous in favoring a response and all agreed with the final option recommended to Mr. Trump. But several military officials said General Dunford cautioned about the possible repercussions of a strike, warning that it could endanger American forces and allies in the region. A 6 p.m. meeting in Mr. Shanahan’s office at the Pentagon including General Dunford was described as particularly tense.

As for Mr. Pompeo, he argued during meetings at the White House that sanctions were having a powerful effect by slashing Iran’s revenues from oil sales, according to a senior administration official familiar with the discussion. While he expressed support for a pinpoint military response, he stressed that the sanctions were having the long-term effect the administration had hoped. Some of Mr. Trump’s aides wondered whether a strike would upset a strategy that was already working.

As of 7 p.m., senior American officials were told the strike was on and would be carried out between 9 and 10, or just before dawn in Iran. Within an hour, it was called off.

On Twitter and in an interview with NBC News, Mr. Trump attributed his change of heart to a desire to avoid casualties.

“I want to know something before you go,” he said he asked his generals. “How many people would be killed, in this case Iranians?”

The generals, he said, replied that about 150 people would die.

“I thought about it for a second, and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead,” Mr. Trump told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

But an administration official informed about the discussions privately disputed that account. The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that, the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime, when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the military planned.

That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared with Mr. Shanahan or General Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the strike.

Pentagon lawyers are typically involved in casualty and collateral damage estimates, charged with considering the worst possible outcome. Such numbers are fluid and almost always a rough guess, as it is almost impossible to know who or what will be at the site of an attack when it occurs.

But the lawyers’ involvement was seen by some of Mr. Trump’s aides as an attempt to circumvent Mr. Bolton and Pentagon leaders to influence the president. In effect, whether intended to or not, the casualty estimate played to the concerns that Mr. Trump had shared with Mr. Carlson and other skeptics of military action in the Middle East.

Gen. Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chairman who is close to the Trump White House, said another factor came into play during the deliberations — the president was told that the attack on the drone was really a mistake, as Mr. Trump had publicly suggested to reporters early in the day.

“The president got some additional information that the Iranian national leaders were frustrated or furious with the tactical commander who made the decision to shoot down the American drone,” General Keane said in an interview. Among those who were said to be angry, he said, was Qassim Suleimani, the powerful commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force.

General Keane said it was unclear whether the commander who ordered the downing of the drone was operating within his authority or was a rogue figure. But either way, he said, it impressed upon Mr. Trump that he would be risking a dangerous escalation over what was not intended to be an attack by Iran’s top leaders.

“I don’t think that’s what was decisive for the president,” General Keane said, but it contributed to the decision, which he said was mainly driven by the casualty concern. “What was decisive for him was the comparison for him, compared to destroying missile batteries and killing people, of shooting down a drone.”

By this point, time was running out. Mr. Graham, who had pushed for a strike, was on an airplane heading to the West Coast and out of touch. Mr. Trump scrubbed the mission.

The decision made, the military ordered ships and planes in the region to stand down. At the White House, Mr. Trump turned on his television to watch the opening of Mr. Carlson’s 8 p.m. show, where he heard what surely must have sounded like vindication. Onscreen, Mr. Carlson declared that “foreign wars have ended in dismal failure for the United States.”

While no decision had been announced yet, Mr. Carlson praised Mr. Trump for resisting military intervention in Iran. “The same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago are demanding a new war, this one with Iran,” he said. “The president, to his great credit, appears to be skeptical of this — very skeptical.”

If he kept the television on, though, Mr. Trump would have heard a radically different message from another friend on Fox at 9 p.m. With the news of Mr. Trump’s decision still not public, Sean Hannity declared that Mr. Trump may have “no choice” but to “bomb the hell out of them.”

For one night, at least, that would not be true. But the battle for Mr. Trump’s ear is not over.