US Politics November 2017

dunno if this toobin article was posted here but it's in much the same vein as that frank rich's post trump trumpism new york mag piece

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/13/is-tom-cotton-the-future-of-trumpism

Roby Brock, who hosts the leading public-affairs television program in Arkansas, told me, “From the beginning, Tom could play to both the establishment and the Tea Party. Everyone recognizes he’s got a firm set of conservative principles, but that makes him a polarizing figure. There are a lot of people here, too, who hate him and think he’s the Antichrist. The only thing everyone agrees on is that he wants to be President someday.” To make that next leap, Cotton expresses the militarism, bellicosity, intolerance, and xenophobia of Donald Trump, but without the childish tweets. For those who see Trump’s Presidency as an aberration, or as a singular phenomenon, Cotton offers a useful corrective. He and his supporters see Trump and Trumpism as the future of the Republican Party.
---
Recently, at his Little Rock office, Cotton presented several medals to the family of George Anderson, a Second World War veteran who had died in 2006. Cotton began with a solemn introduction, but then, unexpectedly, Anderson’s family members, most of whom were elderly, took over the proceedings and began telling stories about George, who had made his living running car washes and coin-operated laundries. Cotton’s staff members and the assembled local reporters began chuckling at the rambling accounts of how George stacked his coins. A more deft politician might have joined in the fun, but Cotton just stood there, seemingly paralyzed by the deviations from good order. The ceremony came to a close when George Anderson’s surviving sister turned to Cotton and said, “As for you—you keep standing up for our President.”

I’m totally OK with the future of the GOP belonging to WW2 veterans and their siblings

Recently, at his Little Rock office, Cotton presented several medals to the family of George Anderson, a Second World War veteran who had died in 2006. Cotton began with a solemn introduction, but then, unexpectedly, Anderson’s family members, most of whom were elderly, took over the proceedings and began telling stories about George, who had made his living running car washes and coin-operated laundries. Cotton’s staff members and the assembled local reporters began chuckling at the rambling accounts of how George stacked his coins. A more deft politician might have joined in the fun, but Cotton just stood there, seemingly paralyzed by the deviations from good order. The ceremony came to a close when George Anderson’s surviving sister turned to Cotton and said, “As for you—you keep standing up for our President.”

it's arrested development

Note that @SenatorLeahy's suggestions don't include "stop dropping bombs on people." https://t.co/fp1dNoyNRG

— Nima Shirazi (@WideAsleepNima) November 24, 2017

bombing people creates jobs

JOBS

INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK

ugh that Tom Cotton piece. What a shit. Conservatives think they recognize someone with brains because he reads...Robert Bork?

Spymaster (ret) Hayden going ham today

If this is who we are or who we are becoming, I have wasted 40 years of my life. Until now it was not possible for me to conceive of an American President capable of such an outrageous assault on truth, a free press or the first amendment.

— Gen Michael Hayden (@GenMhayden) November 26, 2017

Steve Coll:

Trump occupies the White House in an era of heightened Presidential powers. He may be constrained by his unpopularity outside the Republican Party, as well as by the professionalism of the F.B.I., the judiciary, and the press. But, as Archibald Cox observed just before he was fired, “Eventually, a President can always work his will.” In all probability, the country’s most dangerous trials during the Trump Administration lie ahead.

i could conceive of one, General

maybe cuz Nixon was president when i was eight

Conyers quits leadership post

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-annoyed-ivanka-over-her-213413193.html

I endorsed Luther Strange in the Alabama Primary. He shot way up in the polls but it wasn’t enough. Can’t let Schumer/Pelosi win this race. Liberal Jones would be BAD!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 26, 2017

a stirring and nuanced examination of the roy moore race. "Liberal Jones" not really up to his usual nickname standards though.

when i was home on thanksgiving break i listened to a christian radio station that seamlessly morphed into a conservative politics show. in that show, the host made the case that although moore's actions were potentially regrettable - but not proven, let's keep that in mind, only alleged at this point - it would be an absolute catastrophe for a democrat to win the seat. bad for the tax bill, bad for obamacare repeal, bad for abortion, you name it.

so far, pretty standard arguments for a trump supporter. but then it was funny because a key part of his argument was that whoever wins - moore or jones - they'll only be holding the seat until the 2018 elections anyway. so, he said, even if you had "moral objections" to moore - and remember, alleged! nothing proven! i thought this country still believed in innocent until proven guilty, alleged! - he was only going to hold the seat for a little less than a year, anyway, and then the 2018 election would give alabama voters a chance to start with a clean slate. so why not vote for moore so that he can be present in the senate for these key votes in the next few months?

of course, that's wrong. the special election is to seat someone through to the 2020 election, not the 2018 election. but whatever, he went on like that for an entire segment. i kept listening to the rest of the show to see if anyone would correct him but it didn't happen. the weirdest part was the transition from a sermon (by Charles Swindoll, from a 16-part series on Paul, apparently) to this political show, which imbued the show with a sense of religious guidance and sponsorship, even though they barely mentioned anything spiritual. instead, it was just talking points in the form of misleading fragments of facts and outright lies, spoonfed to the listener in repetitive steady doses. if you ever wonder how evangelicals end up being the biggest supporters of someone like Moore, at least part of the answer is in the absolute garbage they apparently listen to

i got a lib-er-al jonnnnnes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlhWPVJNAOo

if you ever wonder how evangelicals end up being the biggest supporters of someone like Moore, at least part of the answer is in the absolute garbage they apparently listen to

That and being stupid.

the collective cognitive albedo of the southern evangelical / prosperity gospel hive mind exceeds matte black and edges into stealth bomber territory. No reflection is possible without specialized, highly calibrated instruments.

I've read numerous interviews with seemingly reasonable people who vote exclusively for anti-abortion candidates, even when those candidates are otherwise terrible people. With such a low bar, calling him Liberal Jones is probably effective enough.

/ if you ever wonder how evangelicals end up being the biggest supporters of someone like Moore, at least part of the answer is in the absolute garbage they apparently listen to/

That and being stupid.

the collective cognitive albedo of the southern evangelical / prosperity gospel hive mind exceeds matte black and edges into stealth bomber territory. No reflection is possible without specialized, highly calibrated instruments.

I’m confused. I admit I was being obtuse with my phrasing but what did you think I meant?

i just keep hearing it to the tune of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDRaKC53DGA

1/ The NYTimes is densely defending their article by claiming it was intended to shed light on the normalcy of racism in American society.

I agree this is a worthy topic of discussion.

So, let’s talk about all the things the Times could have *actually* achieved this. . . . pic.twitter.com/9ZsHMxsz8p

— Mangy Jay (@magi_jay) November 26, 2017

^^ thread

Dunno if this shit NYT piece was covered or not. But boy, was it a shit piece.

That worthless, reprehensible article is just begging for it.

"Nazis: they're just like us!"

"Yeah, I know they have an abhorrent racist ideology, but what are they like ... as people?"

"He might be a Nazi, but he mows the lawn like anybody else. And that lawn is impeccable."

Otm. Might me my twitter bubble, but NYT deserves all the scorn and tbf to be hanged for this next level type of normalisation imo.

'Nazi's wipe their asses, too. Who knew all that time that nazi's... are just like you and me.'

Libs will always give a pass to the NYT. I doubt they lost any subscriptions/money/clicks over this piece, which was basically trolling their readership.

I actually thought about that and then figured we didn't delve into it here because discussing the useless mendacity of the NYT in covering basically anything at this point is kind of deserving of its own thread, like the ILE edition of the track-by-track Billy Joel thread, except way harder on the participants

have you heard "Storm Front"

oh hey xpost! Fuck you, we unsubscribed from the NYT in 2009. Who's getting a pass from who?

writer in the nyt
normalizing nazis

Are those Paul Simon lyrics?

Tombot, it would probably be more like the equivalent of the 'Is the Guardian worse than it used to be' thread?

Idk over 'ere NYT is still revered and looked at/up to by all the "srs press". Not saying that changed all of a sudden, but boy was this a terrible normalising piece.

people get really worked up about one article huh

that was my other thing, this one about the Hovaters is kind of a drop in the bucket given how fucking horrid that birdcage liner has been since feels like forever, as this quartz piece cheekily suggests in the opening paragraph: https://qz.com/1138080/the-problem-with-the-new-york-times-normalizing-profile-of-nazi-sympathizer-tony-hovater/

when you're getting pwned on the regular by vox and atlantic media staff bloggers, maybe it's time to wonder if maybe jumping on the "color photography" bandwagon in 1997 was the right move!

well they did link to the online store page where you could buy the guy's swastika armband.

but there's also the thrush (RIP for sex pesting) & haberman stenography, this week's new freidman column about how saudi arabia is good, the fact they got rid of the public editor, this thing which doesn't mention that the subject of the article is a known fraud who works with cambridge analytica, etc. also iraq. when the stakes are high it's mostly an extremely bad newspaper.

this is really the quiddity of the NYT:

The NYT's constant stream of lowkey sympathetic portraits of racists and sexists is what happens when you believe, institutionally, that your real audience already possesses all the correct beliefs

— Erin Kissane (@kissane) November 26, 2017

Eh. The editorial page is a cloaca like most newspapers. Dunno what you expect! I still read the news with pleasure every day, always with caution.

I don't think they believe their beliefs are correct. I think they think liberalism is wrong, and the ludicrous puffery about the ruling class that we have a thread dedicated to is of a piece with the fawning profiles of angry scum from flyover exurbs. The entire editorial posture is self-flagellation and kowtowing to the truly right and powerful, mostly scions of resource-extraction economies and those they patronize.

i was not impressed with that Hovater profile, but he still came across as a hateful moron, no?

There might have been too much emphasis on how “normal” and “polite” he seemed, I guess, but they say that about serial killers too.

I don’t think anyone became a racist after reading that.

people get really worked up about one article huh

This is not the first time they've done this.

Or became softer on racism. Who knows, but the idea of “normalization” might need unpacking. Trump was never normalized — the Times treated him as a freak the whole election — and he still won.

i mean the fact is that the NYT produces the world's best reporting and also a bunch of shitty stuff. it sucks but boycotting the paper is probably not the best strategy

People are boycotting it over this????

the Times treated him as a freak the whole election 

And yet they treated many of his most outrageous lies and obfuscations as worthy of serious consideration

I am not boycotting the Times over this fyi, i gave up on them after judith miller

There have been scores of reasons to give up on them over the last few years tbh, anyone here who is surprised hasn't been paying attention

otoh their Magazine a week ago ran an outstanding expose of how our goddamn Military Death Machine in Iraq lies about killing civilians, maybe read that for balance.

yes that was good