It's absolutely appropriate that Joe Biden not pre-announce a short list of SCOTUS nominees, if only to not look like a dangerous radical like Donald Trump, who just short-listed Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz on his own list. 1/
Tom Cotton's first comment after the mention by Trump, by the way. 2/
I mean, honestly, the idea that Trump will get to name at least 1 new SCOTUS justice in a second term is sufficient reason to vote him out. Proposing Cotton or Cruz should have folk literally throwing money at the Biden campaign. 3/
That said, these kind of pre-announcements are only a positive if they rile up a goodly portion of the base. Because, as demonstrated, they are just as likely to rile up a goodly portion of the opposition. 4/
And that assumes this is even a quasi-honest suggestion by Trump, vs. a whim, a transactional favor, or simply a means of distraction. 5/
I mean, it's not like Trump wouldn't love a serious distraction. Like the drum beat of tell-all books and new scandals and accusations toward Trump coming out daily. Or, of course, 190K people dead of #COVID19 under Trump's denialist watch. 6/
One thing I will say in favor of Trump's recommendations: I think it's high time that we had some high-ranking politicians on SCOTUS again. Senators, Governors, etc., used to be part of the mix there, and they arguably brought a pragmatic perspective to cases. 7/
Just to be clear, Donald Trump has decided his lie that mail-in ballots are, on the face of it, fraudulent, means he can challenge them in Republican-controlled state legislatures and in federal courts stuffed with his appointees, including the Supreme Court. 1/
He has long asserted that he will clearly, obviously, massively win any election, even the last one he was in. Thus, if he loses, it's because his opponents are cheating, and so he should be made President, anyway. 2/
This is not beating around the bush. This is not an offhand joke or mangled malapropism. This is Donald being very clear about his plans, about his argument, and about his willingness to pursue this to the bitter end. 3/
There seems to be this weird myth going along amongst the anti-maskers, anti-distancing, anti-treating-#COVID19-as-a-serious-public-health-threat crowd, that their "opposition" are getting some special joy out of seeing people do all this stuff. 1/
This is not just wrong, this is not just insulting, but this is maddeningly offensive. 2/
I hate this. I hate *all* of this. Wearing masks. Treating my mom and in-laws like precious china and restricting myself to things that wouldn't threaten them. Not traveling on vacation. Not having folk over for game day, or BBQs, or (99% likely) Thanksgiving. I HATE it. 3/
Pretty sure Churchill didn't declare the Luftwaffe a Liberal hoax, insist he had shut them down before they could enter England, or demand Londoners bring their kids *back* from the countryside as bombs were falling. 1/
Churchill, while insisting victory would come, pulled no punches about how powerful and menacing the enemy were, or what it would take to defeat them. He didn't deny that bombings were all that bad, or that, someday, miraculously, the Reich would just disappear.
Also, pretty sure Donald never spoke -- publicly -- about any need for "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" to defeat the enemy. Or insist the nation would fight *as a whole* against the their enemy.
Meanwhile, Churchill didn't blame UK cities for being bombed. Or go golfing.
The Trump Administration's work in cobbling together a brief respite in the Middle East, twisting the arms of two close allies that owe him a lot of favors to make at least temporary nice is not nothing, but it's also an example of a bare minimum of effort. 2/
Especially since every other aspect of his foreign policy in the Middle East has consisted of (a) giving Israel support for all their actions, (b) hanging out with petro-autocrats, and (c) periodically threatening war with Iran. 3/
So the story here appears to be that (1) there are insufficient Catholic priests in the Chaplain Corps, (2) the Navy has in the past spent money to contract for additional Catholic priests, but (3) they have decided not to do so any more for US bases. 1/
This is not discrimination against Catholics. The US Navy is not obliged to provide ministers of any given faith or denomination to its sailors, particularly those based at US bases where there are presumably civilian resources for them to go to. 2/
For Navy personnel aboard ships and at overseas bases, Catholic priests will still be provided. I suspect that any US Navy bases in the US have communities with Catholic churches in them. 3/
The question to ask is not has Trump given performative support to the troops, but has he shown any real sign of personal, emotional support for them? Has he made sacrifices in time and effort toward them? Has he spent political capital on them? 1/
Or has he just signed off on std pay raises? Signed an EO encouraging federal agencies to hire military spouses? Implemented an Obama-era VA reform bill? Spent a shit-ton of money on new weapons? Pulled money from military bases & schools to spend on his Vanity Wall? 2/
When a political opponent has been a vet, has that ever softened his vitriolic attacks? Has he ever granted any credit to *their* service, before sorrowfully, but respectfully, differing from their opinion? 3/