You're hitting a lot of my erogenous zones this morning, Charlie.
First, I'm a Nebraskan. I'd encourage anyone who wants to understand the collapse of the Democratic Party in rural states to read the NYT piece Charlie quotes. Primary day is today and I'm preparing myself to have to go thru the same emotions that I experienced on election day 2016. Being a low population state, Herbster has flown under the radar nationally. But he is truly a lunatic's lunatic.
Second, the graph showing the dwindling confidence in science on the right. What is science but the most disciplined exercise of humanity's ability to reason? The Republican Party is becoming a cult of action in pursuit of irrational goals - Power for power's sake.
"Here’s a tip: If you are going to force everyone to take a meaningless messaging vote for public-relations purposes, consider choosing a bill that hurts the other party’s popularity, not your own!".
Exactly. The abortion issue should be a homerun for Democrats, but the party is being pushed around by it's most radical elements. This is the "defund the police" debacle, part 2.
Fourth. I hope to hell someone is planning political messaging around all the statements about Trump's unfitness by former Trump high officials.
You *cannot* talk about anti-science conservatism without discussing religion--Evangelical Christianity in particular. Evangelical Christianity and anti-science positions practically go hand in hand. Once the religious stopped listening to science on the origins of humans (evolution) in favor of Christianity's Adam & Eve theory, it was only a matter of time before all else followed. "Conservatism" is to conserve, and our scientific model of understanding came into continuous conflict with religion over time as it discovered more and more things in the bible that were flat out false and disprovable. We are nearly a century past the Scopes Monkey Trial, and you still have *a lot* of Christians--particularly evangelicals--who flat out deny evolution. Witness the Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky and you'll see all the pseudoscience you need to understand where the modern conservative rejection of science came from. Climate Change, LGBTQ+ social integration, evolution, immigration, etc. The conservative movement's position on all of these issues are wrapped up in religious denial of science and expertise. It is the through-line to a whole lot of Trumpism because Trumpism revolves around fighting the culture wars, and religious faith is integral to conservative positions on culture war issues (national identity via Christian nationalism).
"Most Republicans remain unmoved. Esper is only an author. Trump spearheads a movement."
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that most of these "authors" wait to tell their stories until well after, when they can profit from it. They decry trump's lack of principles and seem to conveniently overlook their own.
All of the tape of all of the former officials should be spliced into one tape and aired as much as possible before the midterms. Adding on Trump holding the bible would be a nice touch at the end. Then quote Jesus about false prophets.
When Donald Trump is infallible, then all of his critics become the Deep State, or the "Enemy of the People" media. And somehow, a pretty transparent conman has convinced about 40% of the country that he is both infallible and endlessly persecuted by people who hate him, and who, by extension, hate the 40% of Americans who love them some Donald Trump. Eric Greitens isn't some violent pervert. Madison Cawthorn isn't some silly frat boy with no business being in Congress. They are victims of a vicious media out to get them and stop their noble efforts to make America great. Never mind that there are pictures! It's the same with this fellow in Nebraska. The Republicans are always innocent of the things they did while the Democrats are always guilty of things that were just made up.
I suppose if you can convince yourself that Donald Trump is an honest man, you could just as easily convince yourself that Hillary Clinton and Podesta were running a child sex trafficking ring out of a DC pizza joint.
On a somewhat related note, Sarah Longwell's unfiltered Focus Group podcast on Monday was very unnerving. It was a group of Republican Trump voters from North Carolina, only the group was meant to be composed of people who either changed their GOP registration or didn't vote Trump in 2020 (I forget which it was), so either they lied when they filled out their questionnaires, or they didn't understand the questions they asked. In short, they were a bunch of Let's Go Brandoners who had very strong opinions and had no idea what they were talking about most of the time. One who stood out to me was the lady who said she voted for Romney as a vote against Obama, because she thought he lacked experience, having only been in Congress for a couple of years. Democracy only really works when voters are paying attention, and can think critically.
"To the delight of Republican senators, Schumer plans to make Democratic senators vote on abortion legislation that is both unpopular—it would legalize abortions through all nine months of pregancy, a position most Americans disapprove of—and hopeless, since it does not have the votes to pass.
Here’s a tip: If you are going to force everyone to take a meaningless messaging vote for public-relations purposes, consider choosing a bill that hurts the other party’s popularity, not your own!"
Schumer is worthless. He can never speak off the cuff without looking down at his notes constantly, just reading them. He lacks passion, not to mention the political acumen of prior Senate Majority Leaders such as McConnell or LBJ.... This seniority mentality in the Democratic Party is killing us.
I haven't voted for a Republican in 20+ years and don't see it happening anytime soon, but imho, Schumer is an idiot, always has been.
All of the men that have "found religion" post Trump by cashing in on their book deals and making the TV rounds are proving who they are, having always been, will always be. Integrity can't be circumstance dependent. Maybe if all these sycophants could have found the spine to stand up earlier, we could have prevented Jan. 6th. As it is, they may have helped create a future country where Jan. 6th is celebrated.
Talking about malpractice, think of what Shumer could have brought up. Expansion and permanence of the child tax credit or monthly payments for children under 5. Child care expansion. Some sort of free contraception. Instead they are pushing this whole abortion legal until birth position, which is completely insane.
Charlie - you are being disingenuous when you state the bill allows abortion for all nine months without adding that the only exception is if the mother's life is in danger. Here is the language in the bill. Right there number 9. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
The focus on the SCOTUS house protests are really revealing about our media landscape. In 2021, when angry crowds were encircling the homes of local public health officials and local school board members, the mainstream press did cover it. I read a number of articles in various places about how threatened these public servants felt. I read with worry that many of them would be resigning or even moving. Threats were made against them and their children. It was concerning. But it was covered in the context of there being a lot going on in a difficult period, in a fractious populace where opinions - informed or not - were hardened and polarized. But there was so much to cover - inflation, covid, vaccines, Afghanistan, jobs reports, schools and offices establishing a new normal, and on and on. It's a big, complicated world.
I don't have a TV, but I gather that what Fox and other right wing outlets are doing is effectively pushing every other story from that big, complicated world out of the way to play videos of protests on a loop and talk about how awful and threatening it all is. I don't disagree - I would feel quite threatened, but so did those normie school board members and local health officials.
It brings up the old "nut-picking" idea, where instead of cherry picking something, you build your coverage around a focus on (what you can portray as) the craziest stuff from the other side. The media I consume, in general, doesn't do this. I'm a partisan Democrat who subscribes to The Bulwark, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and The Atlantic, among others. I want a broad spectrum of ideas in my news diet, with information about my community, my nation, and my world.
Right wing viewers don't appear to want that. I don't know what to do about that. But it does feel like it's destroying us.
Charlie, I want to thank you and Will Saletan for yesterday's podcast. It was easily the most balanced discussion of the abortion issue I've ever heard in the media. Listening to MSNBC types talk about abortion (only one side presented) these days make me almost want to switch to Fox. Almost. Kudos to you for such an excellent, balanced presentation of this most contentious issue.
I was particularly impressed by Will. Will is pro-choice, but he dismissed the absurd pro-choice trope that the pro-life side only wants to control women's bodies and aren't truly concerned about the unborn. He likewise dismisses some on the left who insist a fetus is just a meaningless blob of cells, a claim that just doesn't hold up in light of modern science. But having honestly recognized the pro-life position, Will said he is pro choice b/c of his emphasis on a woman's right to body integrity.
And that's okay.. What makes the abortion issue so difficult is that both sides have legitimate arguments. You have to recognize the legitimacy of both sides before we can reach meaningful compromise. I have long said the issue is not when life begins, but rather at what stage developing life has reached the point where it needs to be protected. It's obviously not one month. It's obviously not 9 months. Roe drew the line at 6 months (then viability), but the problem with that line is that the fetus is fully developed by that point and second trimester abortions are, well, incredibly gruesome. Most countries have opted to draw the line months earlier than what Roe did.
The obvious compromise that I can see most states adopting, eventually, is to draw the line at the 3rd or 4th month. About 95% of abortions happen during the first four months. Do the Democrats really want to fight about second trimester abortions? It's not a winning argument given a strong majority of Americans don't support abortions that late, and they sure don't support them in the third trimester. And Republicans are eventually going to have no choice but to concede that first trimester abortions have to be allowed.
Charlie doesn't believe democracy can decide this issue. I don't agree. I do agree however that it's going to be a bitter and ugly fight. But it's a fight that's long overdue. I think at the end, compromises are going to be reached and the fight will be cathartic. The country will be better off without Roe, which caused such division in this country and kept us from ever getting public consensus on the issue.
I'm no horse racing fan, but that footage of Rich Strike's run is up there for drama with Franz Klammer's downhill at the '76 Winter Olympics, my favorite sports moment.
It sure would have been nice to see Bannon in prison instead filling the zone with shit on a daily basis.
You're hitting a lot of my erogenous zones this morning, Charlie.
First, I'm a Nebraskan. I'd encourage anyone who wants to understand the collapse of the Democratic Party in rural states to read the NYT piece Charlie quotes. Primary day is today and I'm preparing myself to have to go thru the same emotions that I experienced on election day 2016. Being a low population state, Herbster has flown under the radar nationally. But he is truly a lunatic's lunatic.
Second, the graph showing the dwindling confidence in science on the right. What is science but the most disciplined exercise of humanity's ability to reason? The Republican Party is becoming a cult of action in pursuit of irrational goals - Power for power's sake.
"Here’s a tip: If you are going to force everyone to take a meaningless messaging vote for public-relations purposes, consider choosing a bill that hurts the other party’s popularity, not your own!".
Exactly. The abortion issue should be a homerun for Democrats, but the party is being pushed around by it's most radical elements. This is the "defund the police" debacle, part 2.
Fourth. I hope to hell someone is planning political messaging around all the statements about Trump's unfitness by former Trump high officials.
You *cannot* talk about anti-science conservatism without discussing religion--Evangelical Christianity in particular. Evangelical Christianity and anti-science positions practically go hand in hand. Once the religious stopped listening to science on the origins of humans (evolution) in favor of Christianity's Adam & Eve theory, it was only a matter of time before all else followed. "Conservatism" is to conserve, and our scientific model of understanding came into continuous conflict with religion over time as it discovered more and more things in the bible that were flat out false and disprovable. We are nearly a century past the Scopes Monkey Trial, and you still have *a lot* of Christians--particularly evangelicals--who flat out deny evolution. Witness the Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky and you'll see all the pseudoscience you need to understand where the modern conservative rejection of science came from. Climate Change, LGBTQ+ social integration, evolution, immigration, etc. The conservative movement's position on all of these issues are wrapped up in religious denial of science and expertise. It is the through-line to a whole lot of Trumpism because Trumpism revolves around fighting the culture wars, and religious faith is integral to conservative positions on culture war issues (national identity via Christian nationalism).
"Most Republicans remain unmoved. Esper is only an author. Trump spearheads a movement."
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that most of these "authors" wait to tell their stories until well after, when they can profit from it. They decry trump's lack of principles and seem to conveniently overlook their own.
All of the tape of all of the former officials should be spliced into one tape and aired as much as possible before the midterms. Adding on Trump holding the bible would be a nice touch at the end. Then quote Jesus about false prophets.
When Donald Trump is infallible, then all of his critics become the Deep State, or the "Enemy of the People" media. And somehow, a pretty transparent conman has convinced about 40% of the country that he is both infallible and endlessly persecuted by people who hate him, and who, by extension, hate the 40% of Americans who love them some Donald Trump. Eric Greitens isn't some violent pervert. Madison Cawthorn isn't some silly frat boy with no business being in Congress. They are victims of a vicious media out to get them and stop their noble efforts to make America great. Never mind that there are pictures! It's the same with this fellow in Nebraska. The Republicans are always innocent of the things they did while the Democrats are always guilty of things that were just made up.
I suppose if you can convince yourself that Donald Trump is an honest man, you could just as easily convince yourself that Hillary Clinton and Podesta were running a child sex trafficking ring out of a DC pizza joint.
On a somewhat related note, Sarah Longwell's unfiltered Focus Group podcast on Monday was very unnerving. It was a group of Republican Trump voters from North Carolina, only the group was meant to be composed of people who either changed their GOP registration or didn't vote Trump in 2020 (I forget which it was), so either they lied when they filled out their questionnaires, or they didn't understand the questions they asked. In short, they were a bunch of Let's Go Brandoners who had very strong opinions and had no idea what they were talking about most of the time. One who stood out to me was the lady who said she voted for Romney as a vote against Obama, because she thought he lacked experience, having only been in Congress for a couple of years. Democracy only really works when voters are paying attention, and can think critically.
"To the delight of Republican senators, Schumer plans to make Democratic senators vote on abortion legislation that is both unpopular—it would legalize abortions through all nine months of pregancy, a position most Americans disapprove of—and hopeless, since it does not have the votes to pass.
Here’s a tip: If you are going to force everyone to take a meaningless messaging vote for public-relations purposes, consider choosing a bill that hurts the other party’s popularity, not your own!"
Schumer is worthless. He can never speak off the cuff without looking down at his notes constantly, just reading them. He lacks passion, not to mention the political acumen of prior Senate Majority Leaders such as McConnell or LBJ.... This seniority mentality in the Democratic Party is killing us.
I haven't voted for a Republican in 20+ years and don't see it happening anytime soon, but imho, Schumer is an idiot, always has been.
All of the men that have "found religion" post Trump by cashing in on their book deals and making the TV rounds are proving who they are, having always been, will always be. Integrity can't be circumstance dependent. Maybe if all these sycophants could have found the spine to stand up earlier, we could have prevented Jan. 6th. As it is, they may have helped create a future country where Jan. 6th is celebrated.
The only one that disappointed me was Mattis.
Talking about malpractice, think of what Shumer could have brought up. Expansion and permanence of the child tax credit or monthly payments for children under 5. Child care expansion. Some sort of free contraception. Instead they are pushing this whole abortion legal until birth position, which is completely insane.
Charlie - you are being disingenuous when you state the bill allows abortion for all nine months without adding that the only exception is if the mother's life is in danger. Here is the language in the bill. Right there number 9. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
The focus on the SCOTUS house protests are really revealing about our media landscape. In 2021, when angry crowds were encircling the homes of local public health officials and local school board members, the mainstream press did cover it. I read a number of articles in various places about how threatened these public servants felt. I read with worry that many of them would be resigning or even moving. Threats were made against them and their children. It was concerning. But it was covered in the context of there being a lot going on in a difficult period, in a fractious populace where opinions - informed or not - were hardened and polarized. But there was so much to cover - inflation, covid, vaccines, Afghanistan, jobs reports, schools and offices establishing a new normal, and on and on. It's a big, complicated world.
I don't have a TV, but I gather that what Fox and other right wing outlets are doing is effectively pushing every other story from that big, complicated world out of the way to play videos of protests on a loop and talk about how awful and threatening it all is. I don't disagree - I would feel quite threatened, but so did those normie school board members and local health officials.
It brings up the old "nut-picking" idea, where instead of cherry picking something, you build your coverage around a focus on (what you can portray as) the craziest stuff from the other side. The media I consume, in general, doesn't do this. I'm a partisan Democrat who subscribes to The Bulwark, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and The Atlantic, among others. I want a broad spectrum of ideas in my news diet, with information about my community, my nation, and my world.
Right wing viewers don't appear to want that. I don't know what to do about that. But it does feel like it's destroying us.
"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821
So much for science, so much for civilization.
45 really set the maturity level of this country way back to overtired toddler level. Truly depressing.
@Charlie - Thanks for including the Rich Strike - Kentucky Derby aerial video. Made my day. Amazing run by Rich Strike.
Charlie, I want to thank you and Will Saletan for yesterday's podcast. It was easily the most balanced discussion of the abortion issue I've ever heard in the media. Listening to MSNBC types talk about abortion (only one side presented) these days make me almost want to switch to Fox. Almost. Kudos to you for such an excellent, balanced presentation of this most contentious issue.
I was particularly impressed by Will. Will is pro-choice, but he dismissed the absurd pro-choice trope that the pro-life side only wants to control women's bodies and aren't truly concerned about the unborn. He likewise dismisses some on the left who insist a fetus is just a meaningless blob of cells, a claim that just doesn't hold up in light of modern science. But having honestly recognized the pro-life position, Will said he is pro choice b/c of his emphasis on a woman's right to body integrity.
And that's okay.. What makes the abortion issue so difficult is that both sides have legitimate arguments. You have to recognize the legitimacy of both sides before we can reach meaningful compromise. I have long said the issue is not when life begins, but rather at what stage developing life has reached the point where it needs to be protected. It's obviously not one month. It's obviously not 9 months. Roe drew the line at 6 months (then viability), but the problem with that line is that the fetus is fully developed by that point and second trimester abortions are, well, incredibly gruesome. Most countries have opted to draw the line months earlier than what Roe did.
The obvious compromise that I can see most states adopting, eventually, is to draw the line at the 3rd or 4th month. About 95% of abortions happen during the first four months. Do the Democrats really want to fight about second trimester abortions? It's not a winning argument given a strong majority of Americans don't support abortions that late, and they sure don't support them in the third trimester. And Republicans are eventually going to have no choice but to concede that first trimester abortions have to be allowed.
Charlie doesn't believe democracy can decide this issue. I don't agree. I do agree however that it's going to be a bitter and ugly fight. But it's a fight that's long overdue. I think at the end, compromises are going to be reached and the fight will be cathartic. The country will be better off without Roe, which caused such division in this country and kept us from ever getting public consensus on the issue.
I'm no horse racing fan, but that footage of Rich Strike's run is up there for drama with Franz Klammer's downhill at the '76 Winter Olympics, my favorite sports moment.