you actually don't need a ten-piece special section about all the great things a racist autocrat who is still very much trying to destroy American democracy and incite violence was right about
I'd ask if there's an accompanying "here are ten staunchly pro-Trump writers writing about all the ways he fucked up" section but of course there isn't because this is just more media elite coddling of conservatives
As bad as the COVID news this week is — and it’s real bad — keep in mind how much worse things can get if we give the virus time to mutate into a variant that hospitalizes large percentages of vaccinated folks.
Bigger reasons for Trump’s success: 1. Born rich 2. Unbothered by most constraints (moral, ethical, intellectual, emotional, legal) that most people operate under 3. A media & political environment decades in the making that privileges his characteristics
RE: #3: I remember thinking at some point in 2015 that Trump was running the way you would run if you 1) believed the critiques of our media & political environment many of us had been making for years and 2) were completely without any kind of shame or inhibition.
someone pay me* to edit an anthology of mid-aughts media criticism & lefty blog posts that made clear the path we were on, and the dangers of an outcome much like Trump's presidency
* er ... someone else. this sounds like a lot of work.
Kind of gross to see the Biden Supreme Court Reform Commission post a bio of a panelist that brags about his role in undermining the Violence Against Women Act.
Yes, true: Progressives criticize the Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act, handing a presidential election to the rightful loser, and inviting unlimited corporate spending on our elections, while conservatives criticize the Court for ending school segregation.
Here, Levey just straight-up bullshits the Commission, pretending that Senate confirmation of Anthony Kennedy in 1988 didn’t happen.
Also it isn’t a “norm” if nobody has heard of it until you invent it and even then your own allies misstate it because it’s so convoluted.
Diane Feinstein is a member of a legislative body in which a minority of members representing an even smaller minority of Americans is prevent a majority of members representing an even larger majority of Americans from passing popular legislation.
Diane Feinstein is a member of a legislative body whose work was interrupted by a deadly insurrection in its building, incited by the sitting president in a desperate bid to cling to power voters stripped from him.
The first woman in the entire history of the country to become Vice President is probably not “one of the least talented politicians in the country.”
nobody's ever gonna confuse me for Khive but if you think the first woman, first Asian American, and first black Vice President in America's entire 230-year history is a uniquely *untalented* politician, you're probably a very dim white guy who mistakes his privilege for talent.
claims about a politician's "talent" or lack thereof are classic "what does that even mean?" claims, btw. talent takes many forms.
Rather than asking Manchin/Sinema for the 100th time whether they support dumping the filibuster, maybe reporters should ask them *what they are doing* to win the Republican votes they need in a 60-vote Senate to pass things they say they support.
‘Cause it sure seems like they aren’t doing a damn thing; they’re just A) claiming to support legislation while B) refusing to pass it with only Dem votes but C) waiting for someone else to win over Republicans.
Example: Sinema *says* she supports the For the People Act, though she won’t ditch the filibuster to do it.
OK, @SenatorSinema, what have you done this week to persuade 10 Republican Senators to vote for it? Which of your Republican colleagues have you lobbied? How did that go?
Hi, @nytimes. Seems like an article that attempts to equate a donor to environmental causes with the Koch brothers and includes a quote from a “watchdog group” explicitly equating them should mention that *the watchdog group is funded by the Kochs.* desmogblog.com/capital-resear…
A key difference between the Kochs and Wyss, Arabella, etc etc, is that the Kochs have spent decades and billions of dollars attacking the concept of truth and funding a movement that seeks to destroy democracy, and Wyss, Arabella, etc etc have, you know … not.
This is some spectacular false equivalence by the @NYTimes. The substance of the Kochs’ actions — their goals, and the damage they do to society in order to achieve them — matters.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Justice Breyer’s comments about the importance of trust in the Supreme Court, and the thing is: it’s even more important to have a *trustworthy* Court. And we do not. That’s why we must expand the court. Me, in @crookedmedia: crooked.com/articles/supre…
Democrats have won the most votes in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, and yet two-thirds of Americans were not even born yet the last time the Supreme Court had a majority that was appointed by Democratic presidents.
Nobody can seriously argue this is how things should be
How is a court dominated by America's minority political party for 50 years and counting and that does things like gutting the Voting Rights Act, helping that party impose minority rule, worthy of our trust? It is not. It is a participant in the GOP's assault on democracy.
@nytimes If it was me, I probably would have noted that Edward Glaeser is a senior fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute, but giving readers that kind of context might make them wonder why this article even exists.
Car charging stations are tangible. Water pipes are tangible. Broadband is tangible!
The case against it is that the premise — that there’s something Biden and Democrats could propose that Republicans would agree to — is highly suspect, given everything that has happened for the last thirty years.
Republicans reacted to Bill Clinton — not exactly Bernie Sanders, you know? —becoming president by voting *unanimously* against his first budget. Obama intro’d Mitt Romney’s health care plan and loaded stimulus with GOP-friendly tax cuts. They opposed both. It’s what they do.
This idea that a nontrivial number of Republicans will work with a Democratic president at the beginning of his administration — no matter what he proposes — is just pure fantasy. It’s based on *nothing* but pundits’ desire to pretend the Republican Party isn’t what it is.
Last November it became fashionable in some circles to say that court expansion hurt Democrats in Senate races, based on no evidence whatsoever. People who oppose expansion just asserted it, because they want to scare Democrats out of expanding the court.
Didn’t happen. (2/6)
Here’s the thing: Republicans don’t believe their own assertions about the politics of court expansion. We know that because *they didn’t run ads about it.*
Lemme say that again: *Republicans didn’t run ads about it.*
I’m *pretty skeptical* that if BLM activists spent a month publicly detailing their plans to go to DC to overturn an election by force they’d be allowed to get close enough to the Capitol to brawl with cops on the steps and force evacuations.
It was always pretty clear that the Lincoln Project ads that got a lot of attention were unlikely to be particularly effective wrt actual voters Joe Biden needed. Not because “Twitter isn’t real life” but because Democratic voters aren’t GOP voters. (1/N)
A lot of Democratic activists are perpetually frustrated Democrats aren’t more “aggressive” and “hard-hitting.” (I often share this view!) So they’d see a harsh LP ad and think “See, Republicans know how to throw a punch!” and assume the LP ads were *effective.* (2/N)
(There’s nothing some Democrats enjoy more than assuming Republicans are strategic geniuses.) (3/N)