But when you're a senior writer at a publication strongly opposed to any federal voting rights legislation during a period with the worst vote suppression since the Johnson administration, it sure is a useful strawman!
In addition to being bad on its face, it doesn't work on its own terms. Republicans want to make it easy for voters in white suburbs and rural areas to vote and very hard for voters in urban areas to vote, in both cases irrespective of their political knowledge
The obvious analogy is to arbitrary abortion restrictions that do nothing to ensure that women will have abortions for the "right" reasons, but just severely limit access to women with fewer resources or unfavorable geographic locations. It's all a shell game.
Yup, the fact that purported Republican concerns about the security of voting by mail vanish when it's used by Republican constituencies (like older voters or the military) is more dispositive evidence of their bad faith
You know how for years the rest of the AFC East managed their personnel like they carefully studied what Belichick did and decided to do the exact opposite? The latest de facto GM to try this approach appears to be...Bill Belichick
I mean, yes, he had a fairly nifty year as a change-of-pace deep threat last year. He'll also be 28 and was available on a cheap one-year deal last offseason for a reason. Letting other teams overpay for career years is how the Pats dynasty was built
The Senate is 50/50. Typically, there is at least some change in the partisan composition of the Senate during a term, and there are six Dem Senators over the age of 70 who would be replaced by a Republican governor
The Supreme Court is ALREADY dominated by the country's minority faction, which has essentially stopped even trying to attract national majorities. Not even being to replace Breyer with a Democratic nominee would be catastrophic
National Review's editorial strongly opposing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act/HR 1 is certainly carrying on the long tradition established by Bill Buckley
One of the strongest points of Allen v. Farrow, IMHO, is its argument that the Yale/New Haven report asserting that Dylan wasn't credible is pretty much junk (which was also the conclusion of the judge that ruled against Allen in his paternity suit.)
Even leaving aside the Catch-22 that structured the analysis -- inevitable inconsistencies over 9 (!) interviews mean she's lying, consistency means she's been "rehearsed" -- destroying the interview notes leaves no way of verifying the claims in the report
And there's other circumstantial evidence that they were in the tank for Allen:
The withdrawal of the good seasons of Law & Order from all streaming services is the 21st century burning of the Library of Alexandria, my forthcoming essay for the Atlantic Month...
Not only is Homicide -- one of the greatest shows in TV history -- not streaming anywhere, the out of print DVDs (which I fortunately own) will cost you 400 bucks
We could go on like this for a while. The Larry Sanders Show, one of the greatest TV comedies ever, was unavailable for streaming for years, and is available now only because Garry Shandling proactively made a deal from his deathbed
He's just another orthodox Reaganite spawned by Rush Limbaugh, and his politics have precisely as much substantive populist content (i.e. absolutely none) nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/…
The *real* distinguishing feature of Hawley's career, though, is that he's intensely interested in getting the cv-polishing jobs made available by the Federalist Society affirmative action network, and has zero interest in actually doing any work when he gets them: