A few months ago, I told Alyson that Al Franken was the person I thought would emerge as the Democrats' candidate in 2020. As of Thursday, I don't believe that's true any longer. So in the wake of this week's news, I began to wonder who will emerge without Franken running. That made me wonder if it's too early to talk about this — It's three years away, people! But it's not really. Primary debates in the GOP began in the fall of 2015, so candidates have to be "in it" within two years. Heck, Trump announced his candidacy in spring 2015, so it's closer to a year and a half. Then we've got the bigger issue: fundraising and exposure. Candidates have very little time in the grand scale to build their name recognition and donor base before they run. This is not a crazy exercise.
Let me start with a few assumptions: Hillary Clinton will not run again. She, perhaps more than anyone else, has too much baggage. I will also assume Donald Trump has a) not been impeached and b) is running for a second term. Maybe he quits and throws his weight behind Mike Pence? I doubt it. Trump loves power and the appearance of power too much. I drew this list from three good political websites who've done a similar exercise, originally listing 27 people. I eliminated anyone who I've never heard of who does not have an elected job in Washington or is governor (state officials or mayors, essentially). Also, some of these things may apply to other candidates, but I'm trying to cover a ton of candidates, so... cut me some slack, OK anonymous person in my head?
Most High-Profile
Former V.P. Joe Biden — Pros: The connection to Obama without being Obama. As a white male, he's less threatening to the... let's go with "more close-minded" in our country. He's got a heartbreaking background story and wins the George W. Bush Test (Would you rather have a beer with him or his opponent?) against pretty much everyone. Large contingent of "Biden Would Have Won" fans. More of a centrist than a far left liberal. Cons: He'd be 78 on Inauguration Day, even older than then-74-year-old Donald Trump. Age doesn't exactly shout "progressive party of the future." He does carry some of the Obama baggage. Prone to saying something stupid on accident. Verdict: Among the better options for Democrats.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — Pros: Seems to be the flag-bearer for "progressive ideals." He's been practicing his debate skills on various issues against GOP candidates on CNN that I haven't watched. He has his own cheering section: Bernie Bros, the "Bernie Would Have Won" fans. Great baby cosplay. Perceived victim of DNC shenanigans (overblown, but still the perception). Seems to connect to everyday Americans pretty well. Cons: Oldest candidate in the race. He'd be 79 by Inauguration Day 2020. He lost to Hillary Clinton because he couldn't get the minority vote and he still can't. He lost the debates to her because he got destroyed on foreign policy. I don't think his international trade deal stance will look good in 2020, because it's too similar to Trump's positions. Verdict: I think Bernie will be like Moses: Sees the Promised Land, but one of his disciples makes it while he never makes it himself.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mass. — A woman! Who's smart! Definitely in the Bernie "progressives" camp (Quick sidebar: Some Democrats get too hung up on labels, which just hurts their party.). I used to love it when she'd go on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and speak brilliantly against Wall Street — she knew what she was talking about and made it understandable, which is a great trait to have. She is one of the most high-profile, influential voices of Democrats. Cons: She would be in her 70s on Inauguration Day 2020. She might come off as "East Coast liberal snob." Also, there's the Mom Test: My Mom doesn't like her. Mom didn't elaborate on why, but there's something off-putting about Warren for many. Maybe she comes off as badgering or whiny? I don't know. Verdict: Is she the Joshua to Sanders' Moses? She has as good a shot as any listed here, and this might be her only opportunity. I feel others might have a better shot, but she's up there.
A-/B+ Candidates
Sen. Cory Booker, N.J. — Pros: Charismatic minority candidate who isn't Obama. High-profile because of frequent television appearances. He's single, ladies. He's young (51 by Election Day). He's funny. He did a lot of things as Newark mayor that are worthy of praise — selfless, hands-on things, as well as bringing in major donations. Cons: Lots of connections to Wall Street. He's voted or held stances that are arguably too pro-business for Democrats. Liberals don't seem to like him very much. He's for raising the retirement age. For everything he does well, there's somebody on this list that does it better. I don't know whether to put this in Pro or Con: He's vegan. Verdict: Probably a better VP candidate (for a Biden or Warren, perhaps?) than a president on his own.
Sen. Kamala Harris, Calif. — Pros: Younger (mid 50s) than frontrunners, woman, African-American and Indian-American. Positioned herself in opposition to Trump on a lot of issues. Very smart. I expect she's a good debater because of her background. I expect she's Cons: Against the death penalty (more a general election problem than primary problem). Lower name recognition than the folks above. I don't know if this helps or hurts: F rating from the NRA (hurts a little, maybe?), got criticized by John McCain for questioning Jeff Sessions too hard (views on this are typically partisan) and signed on to Bernie's Medicare for All plan (helps a little, maybe?). Verdict: I'm bullish on Kamala Harris. She does everything Booker does, but better.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, N.Y. — Pros: New York senator who isn't Hillary Clinton. Comes off much warmer and less confrontational than Clinton, Warren or Harris. Same age range as Booker and Harris. Makes occasional trips to late night TV shows and comes off well. Started in an upstate New York district, so she knows how to win over rural folks. Started more centrist, but moved more liberal and can convincingly explain why she shifted. Studied in Beijing and China, so has connections there. Sponsored and passed the Zadroga Act (big deal if you know what it is). Cons: Not great name recognition outside those who follow politics. Defended Phillip Morris for a long time as a private defense attorney. Deep connections to Wall Street. Said she doesn't want to run. Verdict: She and Harris are my two favorites right now. I think they're both sharp as a tack and ready to get things done. They both look great in comparison to Donald Trump. But they both need greater name recognition. She'd be great as a VP to Harris, maybe? (Update: Gillibrand said this weekend that Bill Clinton should have resigned over his sexual harassment scandals. To me, this is a) her staking out a moral position and b) getting her name in the news. Both of those are testing the waters of name recognition.)
Middling Candidates
Va. Gov. Terry McAuliffe — Pros: Will be former Va. Gov. in a few months, so has time to run without abandoning his post. Governed effectively in a purple (GOP-controlled state Legislature) state. Raises a hell of a lot of money. Mega ties to the Clintons. Cons: Mega ties to the Clintons. Another nondescript white guy. Verdict: Better behind the scenes than in front of the camera.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio — Pros: Eagle Scout! Elected Democrat from a swing state! Socially progressive. Vocal critic of Chinese policies rather than just yelling "CHINA!" Supportive of veterans and tough on terrorism compared to other Democrats. Has produced some decent bipartisan bills that actually got signed. Perhaps if Dems want to go back to the white male catalog, he's a good choice?Cons: He's got to win re-election in 2018 first, and his seat is on the GOP target list. Spellcheck wants to change his name to Shred. He's about as reliable a liberal as they come, and "liberal" is an epithet in some states he'd need to win. Verdict: VP candidate? He's a decent choice for Democrats, but he's the white Cory Booker: Everyone else can draw the same people, but better.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minn. — Pros: Visited Iowa. Great political origin story about the birth of her daughter. Democrat from the Upper Midwest, so likely knows how to win in Michigan/Wisconsin/Ohio, too. Has liberal bona fides. Cons: Name recognition. Not the most charismatic senator from her own state. Has taken some strange stances for specific companies, like Schwan's and getting pizza counted as a vegetable... yeah. Verdict: Not bad. She's a likable but unknown Upper Midwest Democrat. If she wants to be President, 2020 might be a good trial run.
Sen. Al Franken, Minn. — Three days ago, he'd have been in the tier above. After the photo and allegations, I think he's fallen this far. Pros: Funny as hell, rolls with the punches, smarter than you'd think. Democrat from an Upper Midwest state. Liberal enough for Democrats. If Donald Trump can overcome the Access Hollywood stuff, maybe two years from now, he can too? Cons: That picture and story will cost him. You can't claim moral authority over Donald Trump when you both have gross sexual incidents. Muddled his first attempt at an apology before getting it right the second time. Verdict: He could have been President, but will never be now.
Gov. John Hickenlooper, Colo. — Pros: Democrat from a (typically) swing state. One of the few who is firmly in the moderate and not far left camp. Willing to work with moderate Republicans like John Kasich. Memorable name. Family connections to Iowa. Cons: Low national profile. Probably can't win the primary. I don't know if this helps or hurts: Has evolved to be pro-marijuana use. Verdict: Just A Guy in a year you probably need to be memorable in some way to win.
Lightning Round of Other Candidates Suggested by One of The Sites I Checked
Bill de Blasio/Mitch Landrieu/Eric Garcetti — Pros: Mayors of New York City, New Orleans and Los Angeles, which requires a lot of fundraising, people and electability skills. De Blasio has a mixed-race family. Garcetti is Mexican-American, Jewish and was a lieutenant in the Navy. Cons: Mayors have never successfully run for President without a governor or Congressional stop first. Verdict: Landrieu has no chance. De Blasio has the best name recognition, but Garcetti seems the best bet from this bunch.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, Ore. — I don't know who this is. Verdict: No.
Rep. Seth Moulton, Mass. — Pros: Very young (41 now) former Marine and Harvard Business School grad. Iraq War veteran. Newlywed. Pro-marijuana, pro-infrastructure, bipartisan record but liberal in major legislation. Cons: I've never heard of him. People never win President from the House. Verdict: Not in 2020. Keep an eye on him; he's a rising star among Democrats.
Rep. Tim Ryan, Ohio — Pros: Unsuccessfully ran against Pelosi for chair of House Democrats. Democrat from a swing state. Cons: Not real well known. I dare you to name an accomplishment of his without looking it up. Verdict: Shrug emoji.
Mark Cuban, billionaire — We've already got a billionaire as president. Verdict: Nah, but it'd be fun.
Mark Zuckerberg, billionaire — See above, but less fun.
Jason Kander — You can't win president these days unless you win some other major race first. Close doesn't count.
Sen. Christopher Murphy, Ct. — Sandy Hook changed his stance on guns. Led a Congressional sit-in on the issue. Won a hotly contested race for his Senate seat. Verdict: Slightly higher profile Just A Guy.
Gov. Steve Bullock, Mont. — I don't know him. Centrist from a red state, but I don't know him and I don't think anyone else does, either. Verdict: Not unless Montana gets a lot more popular.
Rep. John Delaney, Md. — He's the first to officially enter the 2020 Presidential race. I have never heard of him. Outside of my few Maryland readers, I bet you haven't, either. Verdict: Future Martin O'Malley-type Remember That Guy?
Gov. Roy Cooper, N.C. — Well, he's a democratic governor, so... some people are just throwing darts at the board. Verdict: New governor, who dis?
Julian Castro — former San Antonio mayor and former HUD director. Well-liked Hispanic with halfway decent name recognition. Verdict: He and Eric Garcetti are the most likely from this group to make a decent run.
On Al Franken and Sexual Allegations
There are distinctions between Al Franken and GOP figures like Roy Moore and Donald Trump. Franken is accused by one (1) person of inappropriate behavior, and none of the accusations involve him revealing his genitalia. Also, he has apologized and his accuser has accepted his apology. Moore and Trump each have multiple accusations of inappropriate or lewd behavior, corroborating evidence, and — as these things go — are accused of doing worse than Franken. Moore is said to have done terrible things to underage girls. Trump is said to have committed rape and more graphic sexual assaults. If you can find a Moore or Trump apology for any of those, please give me a link.
But those distinctions don't really matter once you get into the realm of "sexual misconduct." Then you have false equivalency arguments being thrown about, and that puts people on the defensive... it gets messy, is the point. And if, like me, you liked Al Franken before this, you suddenly don't have much of a desire to argue in his defense. And that's how the false equivalence ends up being established rather than knocked down.
Republican Retirements
I find CNN to be a bit alarmist in their treatment of President Trump. Not that they're wrong, mind you, but that everything tends to get a little more "play" with headline size and such than it would with other networks. But that doesn't mean that the small scale — individual stories — aren't well researched.
I thought this chart showing the rate of Republican retirements and resignations from the House compared to both the past and the opposite party was surprising. In case you don't want to click the link, more Republicans have departed the House by this time than any of the last six election cycles. There have already been more resignations/retirements than three of those cycles, and is within four of the other three cycles — with more than 14 months left to go. Democrats, on the other hand, are pretty well in line with history. That's surprising news, and it also doesn't take into account the Senate, where at least three Republicans (McCain, Corker and Flake) are leaving.
Summary Judgments
I don't care if a person at the center of controversy (Roy Moore in this case) threatens to sue the newspapers. That's not news. What is news is them filing a lawsuit. At the bottom of that story is a list of three more people, including the President, who've threatened to sue and then never actually did. If you're just threatening it, then it's kind of what we did on the playground any time we got in a fight: "I'll sue you! My dad will sue you!" It's useless unless you follow through. • • • Need some restored faith in celebrities? Visit this link and smile. • • • Here's another bittersweet story, about a horse that had no right to be good — and the owner who wishes he'd believed in it more. It's a story that needs to be made into a movie. • • • My response to this column a friend posted on Facebook is long and complicated. But I'd rather just post it and see what others have to say. It echoes some of my thinking, but I think he conflates "Christianity" and "evangelicals" too easily and paints "evangelicals" as a whole with a bit broad of a brush. I think it's certainly worth a read. • • • Interesting development. Kushner was among my 5 Mueller investigations. • • • I haven't had much time to read on the GOP tax bill. I think it goes through major changes before/unless the Senate passes a version. My gut reaction is it sells people on a tax cut that only lasts 3-4 years before you're actually paying more than you are now. • • • We've been watching YouTube videos of OK Go lately, and Roland wanted to watch one the other night. He kept yelling at me "WAN LE CHUGO!" I sat there dumbfounded as he's getting madder and madder at me for not understanding. After I brought up the list, I finally figured it out the name of the song he wanted: "I Won't Let You Down." But now Alyson and I joke about Juan Le Chugo, who we presume sings the Hispanic version.
Friday, November 17, 2017
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Lessons from an Off-Year Election
Did you vote on Tuesday? I didn't. Although some in my county had something to vote on (KC's getting a new airport! Woo!), those of us in Liberty did not. Other than a few city elections, there really weren't any major elections in Missouri. Nor were there across the country. But there are a few lessons we can learn now that we have another election's worth of data points.
I think there's a little overreaction to both of the party talking points I've seen so far. On the small scale, I've seen Republicans try to chalk most of Tuesday's results up to "what we expected." And to some degree, they're right. A Democrat won the governorship of New Jersey, which is no surprise. A Democrat won the governorship of Virginia (which was expected, but a GOP win would have meant Democrats were in real trouble). Democrats mostly won things in heavily Democratic places. Just like during the last four special elections, Republicans won races in heavily GOP places. So in the broad sense, not much in the big picture has changed yet.
Some things did change, however. A GOP candidate who ran on Trump-style "law and order" and immigration fears lost the race for governor of Virginia, a state that was "red" within this writer's memories. Chris Christie, a belligerent shell of his former self who was battling with Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for most unpopular state governor, was replaced as New Jersey governor by a Democrat. In Maine, voters passed Medicaid expansion over the objections of their Republican governor.
There are also some small-scale successes, and I think you can state that without dwelling too much on party affiliation. For instance, a New Jersey politician who declared on social media that the Women's March should have ended earlier so women could get back to the kitchen was defeated by a woman who was inspired to run against him after she saw his social media post. A trans woman in Virginia ran against a man who called himself the "chief homophobe" and the author of an anti-trans "bathroom bill." She ran a campaign that focused on the issues and only briefly touched on her biology, whereas her opponent refused to debate her and also refused to use female pronouns. She not only won, but she was gracious when asked if she had anything to say about her opponent, she said: "I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now." A man in Hoboken, New Jersey, was elected the first Sikh mayor of that town despite opposition ads that called him a terrorist (Sikhs are not Muslims. But I guess that doesn't matter much to some people.). A former refugee just became Helena, Montana's first black mayor. I have taken out the party affiliations on these more personal stories, but those are exciting stories of taking action, no?
But moving back away from the individual stories and to the bigger picture, Tuesday's election was another signpost. FiveThirtyEight, a good source of politics analysis, noted that American politics only rarely (at most 2-3 times a year?) has these moments where we get to see which way the electoral leaves are blowing. And signposts are showing a big Democratic swing in next year's midterm elections. That's not really a surprise: the opposition party usually wins big in the midterms, and especially against an unpopular president whose party is in control of both houses of Congress. It would be more surprising if the Democrats weren't having success right now.
But looking at those signposts, and you see a pattern. In four special elections since Trump's victory, the GOP has won all four. However, those were all in reliably safe GOP districts, and none of them — NONE — won by more than 8 points. All of them were closer races than expected. The Virginia state legislature went from 2:1 control by Republicans to (possibly... it's unclear at press time) flipping the state assembly narrowly. That's even more than expected there. Women and minorities were many of the winners on Tuesday, and that may continue in the national scale soon.
So what are we seeing? I think it's safe to say that the House is in play for Democrats next year. I don't know if they're quite going to make it (my gut is they fall 2-3 votes short), but the evidence indicates Democrat-leaning voters are energized. Not only that, but they also don't have the baggage (whether real or imagined) of Hillary Clinton weighing them down. Instead, the GOP has the baggage (ditto) of Donald Trump. They also have the baggage of a failed Obamacare repeal and an unpopular tax plan that may or may not be passed.
On the other hand, I'd also note something I've said to my political science friends lately: I feel like the Democrats were far more united and cohesive when the majority party than they are as the minority party. I feel they're still fighting battles from 2016 (as evidenced by the Donna Brazile book) and arguing over the party's direction right now. The GOP, on the other hand, was far more united and cohesive as a minority party. Against Obama, they had a strong, clear message on where they stood and what they stood for. The Obamacare failure and the infighting over the GOP tax cut plan, which is unpopular to the American public but popular to rich donors, has created tensions between Tea Party/Trumpian politicians and more traditional (think the Bushes or Mitt Romney) Republicans. I believe whichever party can get their ducks in a row first will win the midterms next year. But as for right now, it's looking like Democrats will have a big win — how big has yet to be determined.
You're Not Helping
Two racial incidents that made recent headlines were revealed to be hoaxes this week. A black student at the Air Force Academy and another at Kansas State have admitted that the racial slurs they discovered and spoke about were, in fact, written by them. Look: There's a lot of discrimination in the world. You don't have to make it up. You should tell what has actually happened. But with every hoax story like this, ignorance is given evidence. It gives the true racists and people whose heads are buried in the sand a chance to say "See, this racism stuff is made up!" And, at least in these two cases, they were right.
I think it gets taken for granted that the vast, vast, vast, vast number of these cases are not made up. We're seeing the bounce back on sexual assault and sexual harassment: After years of it being a thing people tended not to talk about because they were afraid they wouldn't be believed, women (and men) are starting to be more open about it, and you're seeing some major players in politics and entertainment go down. But hoaxes don't help with being taken seriously.
Summary Judgments
Here's an interesting feature by FiveThirtyEight on a county in Iowa that voted in a landslide for Obama, then a landslide for Trump. • • • North Korea's nuclear weapons are the top-line threat, but people often don't take the rest of their arsenal seriously. Their biological, chemical and traditional weapons could easily devastate and decimate South Korea if war were to happen. Seoul, which is within striking distance of many of these weapons, is bigger than Paris and about the size of Rio de Janeiro by metro area. It would be targeted first. • • • It's not particularly surprising (I knew the answer already), but good video by Half as Interesting on why the U.S.'s land is blocky. • • • A couple cool medical breakthroughs. First, genetically modified mosquitoes are now approved! Second, and even cooler: Check out this cool bandage-gadget that creates much smaller scars, is less painful and easier to apply. Cool job, technology! • • • GOP lawmakers have asked the well-out-of-the-mainstream Roy Moore to step aside from his Senate candidacy if accusations are true about him nearly 40 years ago sexually assaulting a 14-year-old. If he does pull out, I expect him to deny the accusations while saying something like "to avoid further embarrassment to the party and to help us move on as a country, I will not continue with my campaign for Senate." That way he denies the accusations while also pulling out. It's saying "This isn't true, but I'm backing out anyway, just in case." • • • No run story until I start running again. • • • Evie's been doing a lot of baby things lately. She's been talking baby talk, pretending to be a Baby Tiger while I'm a Daddy Tiger (Note: I don't know what it is she wants me to do when we're doing this, I just know I'm supposed to growl and crawl or something. It's not a clear game) and being baby-like. I don't know what this means. Then, like, the next day, she does something super grown-up and big and I don't know what this means. I am quickly learning that 90 percent of parenthood is wondering what the heck is happening and what it means, then moving on to the next thing.
I think there's a little overreaction to both of the party talking points I've seen so far. On the small scale, I've seen Republicans try to chalk most of Tuesday's results up to "what we expected." And to some degree, they're right. A Democrat won the governorship of New Jersey, which is no surprise. A Democrat won the governorship of Virginia (which was expected, but a GOP win would have meant Democrats were in real trouble). Democrats mostly won things in heavily Democratic places. Just like during the last four special elections, Republicans won races in heavily GOP places. So in the broad sense, not much in the big picture has changed yet.
Some things did change, however. A GOP candidate who ran on Trump-style "law and order" and immigration fears lost the race for governor of Virginia, a state that was "red" within this writer's memories. Chris Christie, a belligerent shell of his former self who was battling with Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for most unpopular state governor, was replaced as New Jersey governor by a Democrat. In Maine, voters passed Medicaid expansion over the objections of their Republican governor.
There are also some small-scale successes, and I think you can state that without dwelling too much on party affiliation. For instance, a New Jersey politician who declared on social media that the Women's March should have ended earlier so women could get back to the kitchen was defeated by a woman who was inspired to run against him after she saw his social media post. A trans woman in Virginia ran against a man who called himself the "chief homophobe" and the author of an anti-trans "bathroom bill." She ran a campaign that focused on the issues and only briefly touched on her biology, whereas her opponent refused to debate her and also refused to use female pronouns. She not only won, but she was gracious when asked if she had anything to say about her opponent, she said: "I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now." A man in Hoboken, New Jersey, was elected the first Sikh mayor of that town despite opposition ads that called him a terrorist (Sikhs are not Muslims. But I guess that doesn't matter much to some people.). A former refugee just became Helena, Montana's first black mayor. I have taken out the party affiliations on these more personal stories, but those are exciting stories of taking action, no?
But moving back away from the individual stories and to the bigger picture, Tuesday's election was another signpost. FiveThirtyEight, a good source of politics analysis, noted that American politics only rarely (at most 2-3 times a year?) has these moments where we get to see which way the electoral leaves are blowing. And signposts are showing a big Democratic swing in next year's midterm elections. That's not really a surprise: the opposition party usually wins big in the midterms, and especially against an unpopular president whose party is in control of both houses of Congress. It would be more surprising if the Democrats weren't having success right now.
But looking at those signposts, and you see a pattern. In four special elections since Trump's victory, the GOP has won all four. However, those were all in reliably safe GOP districts, and none of them — NONE — won by more than 8 points. All of them were closer races than expected. The Virginia state legislature went from 2:1 control by Republicans to (possibly... it's unclear at press time) flipping the state assembly narrowly. That's even more than expected there. Women and minorities were many of the winners on Tuesday, and that may continue in the national scale soon.
So what are we seeing? I think it's safe to say that the House is in play for Democrats next year. I don't know if they're quite going to make it (my gut is they fall 2-3 votes short), but the evidence indicates Democrat-leaning voters are energized. Not only that, but they also don't have the baggage (whether real or imagined) of Hillary Clinton weighing them down. Instead, the GOP has the baggage (ditto) of Donald Trump. They also have the baggage of a failed Obamacare repeal and an unpopular tax plan that may or may not be passed.
On the other hand, I'd also note something I've said to my political science friends lately: I feel like the Democrats were far more united and cohesive when the majority party than they are as the minority party. I feel they're still fighting battles from 2016 (as evidenced by the Donna Brazile book) and arguing over the party's direction right now. The GOP, on the other hand, was far more united and cohesive as a minority party. Against Obama, they had a strong, clear message on where they stood and what they stood for. The Obamacare failure and the infighting over the GOP tax cut plan, which is unpopular to the American public but popular to rich donors, has created tensions between Tea Party/Trumpian politicians and more traditional (think the Bushes or Mitt Romney) Republicans. I believe whichever party can get their ducks in a row first will win the midterms next year. But as for right now, it's looking like Democrats will have a big win — how big has yet to be determined.
You're Not Helping
Two racial incidents that made recent headlines were revealed to be hoaxes this week. A black student at the Air Force Academy and another at Kansas State have admitted that the racial slurs they discovered and spoke about were, in fact, written by them. Look: There's a lot of discrimination in the world. You don't have to make it up. You should tell what has actually happened. But with every hoax story like this, ignorance is given evidence. It gives the true racists and people whose heads are buried in the sand a chance to say "See, this racism stuff is made up!" And, at least in these two cases, they were right.
I think it gets taken for granted that the vast, vast, vast, vast number of these cases are not made up. We're seeing the bounce back on sexual assault and sexual harassment: After years of it being a thing people tended not to talk about because they were afraid they wouldn't be believed, women (and men) are starting to be more open about it, and you're seeing some major players in politics and entertainment go down. But hoaxes don't help with being taken seriously.
Summary Judgments
Here's an interesting feature by FiveThirtyEight on a county in Iowa that voted in a landslide for Obama, then a landslide for Trump. • • • North Korea's nuclear weapons are the top-line threat, but people often don't take the rest of their arsenal seriously. Their biological, chemical and traditional weapons could easily devastate and decimate South Korea if war were to happen. Seoul, which is within striking distance of many of these weapons, is bigger than Paris and about the size of Rio de Janeiro by metro area. It would be targeted first. • • • It's not particularly surprising (I knew the answer already), but good video by Half as Interesting on why the U.S.'s land is blocky. • • • A couple cool medical breakthroughs. First, genetically modified mosquitoes are now approved! Second, and even cooler: Check out this cool bandage-gadget that creates much smaller scars, is less painful and easier to apply. Cool job, technology! • • • GOP lawmakers have asked the well-out-of-the-mainstream Roy Moore to step aside from his Senate candidacy if accusations are true about him nearly 40 years ago sexually assaulting a 14-year-old. If he does pull out, I expect him to deny the accusations while saying something like "to avoid further embarrassment to the party and to help us move on as a country, I will not continue with my campaign for Senate." That way he denies the accusations while also pulling out. It's saying "This isn't true, but I'm backing out anyway, just in case." • • • No run story until I start running again. • • • Evie's been doing a lot of baby things lately. She's been talking baby talk, pretending to be a Baby Tiger while I'm a Daddy Tiger (Note: I don't know what it is she wants me to do when we're doing this, I just know I'm supposed to growl and crawl or something. It's not a clear game) and being baby-like. I don't know what this means. Then, like, the next day, she does something super grown-up and big and I don't know what this means. I am quickly learning that 90 percent of parenthood is wondering what the heck is happening and what it means, then moving on to the next thing.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Mueller, Manafort and Meaningful Moves
I feel like I called the Manafort arrest about a month ago. I also feel like I foresaw the Papadopoulos thing under the "other" category. But I think Monday's news will be the first stop of many rather than the end point. So why do I think that, and what did we learn Monday?
The Manafort/Gates arrests seem small in the grand scheme of things. They're mostly money laundering and failure to file proper reports and registrations. "Conspiracy against the United States" sounds like treason, but it's not. It's really about defrauding the government, or more specifically "to cheat the Government out of property or money" per former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft in 1924. It's such a low-level crime that even the maximum penalty (which is rarely handed down) is five years. The amount of accused money laundering is a significant amount: $18 million. NBC News reported that there was a statute of limitations issue that likely prompted the timing of the Manafort/Gates arrests. These charges do not preclude other charges from being filed in the future, though. Many are speculating that Mueller's team is using these arrests to try to "turn" Manafort and Gates against Donald Trump. That certainly sounds logical, but given how secretive the Mueller team has been, I hate to speculate myself. Maybe that is the plan; maybe it's not. Manafort is (despite the Trump administration's efforts to distance themselves from him) a significant piece in this whole thing: He was in the Trump Jr./Trump Tower meeting with Russians, he was campaign manager when Trump won the primary and when the Clinton emails were leaked, and he was as central a figure to the dealings of the Trump campaign as you can find. It COULD be significant, but I don't think it's significant enough on its own YET.
What I find to be most interesting from Monday is the George Papadopoulos plea deal. He plead guilty to lying to the FBI during an interview on Jan. 27. He's not a nobody. While the statement of offense lists "The Campaign" as naming Papadopoulos as one of his five foreign policy advisors, the words actually came from Donald Trump's mouth. I think it's downplayed a bit, but this isn't just an indictment, it's a guilty plea and therefore a conviction. It's hard fact. In lieu of parsing commentary from other sources, I figured I'd read the statement of offense and affidavit myself. Here's what I learned:
1) He admitted he lied about the timing of meeting with a Russian-connected "professor." He had told the FBI that he met with the "professor" BEFORE he had joined the Trump campaign. This "professor" told him the Russians owned "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails." (Note: True.) However, the lie is that the "professor" only took interest in Papadopoulos and met with him AFTER it was made clear Papadopoulos was with the Trump campaign. According to the documents, Papadopoulos only learned about the "thousands of emails" after being a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign for more than a month. He also lied to the FBI that the "professor" was unimportant, but he actually knew the "professor" had ties to the Russian government. He used his connection with the "professor" to try to arrange a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
2) A campaign supervisor (Confirmed as Sam Clovis, former Trump campaign official and currently Trump's pick as chief scientist to the Department of Agriculture, although he is not a scientist.) told Papadopoulos upon his hiring that improved relations with Russia was a goal of the campaign.This same campaign supervisor said "Great Work" after Papadopoulos said he met with the "professor" and a woman he believed to be Putin's niece.
3) At a "national security meeting," Papadopoulos introduced himself to the group as a guy who could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump didn't really react one way or another in the meeting, though Jeff Sessions said it shouldn't happen. Later, Papadopoulos learned of the "thousands of emails" the Russians had as "dirt" on Clinton and told the campaign the Russian state was "open for cooperation." He then continually tried to set up meetings with the Russians, and the campaign (through a person who's probably Manafort, but who told him to work with Clovis) seemed open to it, though the documents say these meetings never ended up happening.
4) After the FBI met with him for a second time, Papadopoulos deleted his Facebook account and changed phone numbers to try to hide his conversations with the "professor" and the possible Putin's niece. Eventually, he started cooperating with the FBI since July and pleaded guilty on Oct. 5.
The FiveThirtyEight podcast correctly noted that Mueller's team doesn't leak, so reading any information from him or his team is like understanding the aliens' language in Arrival (great movie, by the way). Keith Olbermann (who I find frequently over-the-top but usually shows his logic) correctly pointed out that Papadopolous has been working with the FBI since July, signed a plea deal in early October, yet the first we heard about it was Monday. It shows that a lot of work is taking place, even if the public doesn't get to see all the cards that are on the table. Jeffrey Toobin (a fantastic legal analyst for CNN who I feel is getting a little over his skis about this issue) said that what this secretive process means is that Papadopoulos was possibly wearing a wire since July. That's interesting, but it's pure speculation.
We've also recently learned that Sam Clovis himself has already been interviewed and testified before the grand jury, and longtime Trump spokesperson (and current communication director) Hope Hicks is also set to be interviewed. Manafort, Hicks, Clovis and Papadopoulos are about as high as you can get in the Trump campaign without being either a) Trump family or b) Cabinet members. In the Manafort documents (which I didn't read directly) and the Papadopoulos ones, there is an indication that this goes higher. "Campaign staff." "Campaign manager." "High-Ranking Campaign Official." "Together with Others."
So what we, the public, is learning is that there's a lot more to the case than we publicly knew. Mueller's team is being cautious, deliberate, and they're making progress.
Why the Executive Should Stay Out of the Judicial
This morning, President Trump tweeted that the New York truck terrorist should be executed. He called the justice system a "joke" and a "laughing stock" when dealing with terrorists. This is the President of the United States claiming that our judicial system is broken. That undermines our faith in the judicial branch, which is doing its job — which doesn't happen overnight. President Trump advocated for a punishment that is "far quicker and far greater" for terrorism. (Note: What's greater than death? What's quicker than lethal injection or hanging or firing squad? Is he advocating for torturing someone, then a bullet to the head?) The bigger picture is that words matter. And the President's words carry a lot of weight.
Which is why he needs to shut up about the judicial branch. When he says what should or should not be done with punishment, it potentially taints the jury pool. One former federal prosecutor tweeted: "Mr. President, we all know [the truck terrorist] should get the death penalty. But when *you* say it, it makes it harder for DOJ to make it happen." We've already seen this in action once this year with the case of Bowe Bergdahl. The President tweeted about Bowe Bergdahl (who abandoned his post before being captured by the Taliban for five years) before becoming President, and what he's said as president have sway in military courts, since he's the commander-in-chief. And as President, he has said he can't comment on the Bergdahl case, "but I think people have heard my comments in the past." Arguments in military court lasted for an hour over that phrase, and the military judge in charge of the Bowe Bergdahl sentencing has already said that it could affect the sentencing (The judge can sentence Bergdahl to anywhere from life in prison to letting him go.). The more the President talks, the more he imperils the actions he wants to see. Perhaps that could be applied on a larger scale.
Scheduling Note
I'm sorry my posts haven't been as regular or lately. I have been having two separate problems. The first is finding the time to write. I've been busy with an outside-of-work project that's going to take me through the rest of the year and into next year. It's a big undertaking, and I'm happy to do it, but it's time-consuming. the other is that I just haven't felt compelled about many subjects without feeling like I'm just taking a partisan view. I want my writing to have a purpose, and if I'm just standing on a soapbox saying what every other loudmouth with a blog is saying, then I should save my words. So I hope you appreciate that I'm trying not to force myself into opinions, while I also try to find the time to write. In case you missed it, I did have a recent post, but I haven't said much about it because... the main topic never felt like I hit the right tone. The smaller story and the summary judgments section were great, but if someone doesn't get through the first part, they're not going to get to that.
Allegedly.
This story on Deadspin about journalistic practices and the use of "allegedly" got me thinking. Hard. If you don't want to read it — though you should — the sum is this: Journalists use "alleged/allegedly/allegations" too much, when they should never use it. It's a crutch for bad writing and bad journalism. It's "another layer of ass-covering doubt," Diana Moskovitz writes. What's she's saying is all (mostly) true. I'll save you more pontificating on the wisdom of her essay, but I found myself wondering if I had made those same mistakes. I feel the same way about "alleged/allegedly/allegations," so surely I didn't make the same mistakes.
I searched my old newspaper and found 31 articles containing my name and "alleged." That's 31 times too many. Seven were from one murder case. Five more were from a different murder case. Three were from a case in which a church employee stole money from the church. An animal cruelty case prompted two more. Two more from a fireworks case and two more from a fraudulent bidding scheme by the county 911 director.
It does appear I learned my lesson, though. I only used the words in question four times in the last three years. In fact, the last time I used any of them (allegations, in this case) was in the context of saying someone was innocent until proven guilty. I used the word "allegations" as a synonym for "claims" or "accusations" more often as I became more experienced. But the earlier episodes do bother me. For example, in one story, mention the aforementioned county 911 director was indicted and dismissed "for alleged wire and mail fraud." That's lazy writing. What I should have said was he was indicted for wire and mail fraud and subsequently dismissed. That's better.
We owe a little grace to small newspapers, who often don't have time or resources to edit as carefully as needed. But larger papers and media organizations certainly demand a higher bar.
Summary Judgments
This essay at Splinter News broke my heart. • • • The AP reported that the hackers who infiltrated the DNC emails had a "hit list" of "who you'd want to target to further Russian interests." The attacks spiked from 9-6 Moscow time. They targeted not just U.S. enemies, but Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian and Syrian targets. If you're waiting for proof the Russians were behind it, wait no longer. • • • I signed up for a Thanksgiving Day run, but I'm going to have to miss it. Our Thanksgiving plans have changed, so I probably won't run again this year. I mean, I could start running again and do the race virtually... but there's all this Halloween candy that needs to be eaten. • • • We went trick or treating for Halloween. Within seconds the kids didn't want to wear their Woody and Jessie hats any longer, so I wore them both on my head. They were cold (it was barely snowing) and their buckets got so full that Roland kept asking me to carry it, because it was too heavy. They whined and had to be cajoled and pushed into getting candy or saying anything ("Trick or treat? Thank you?"). And yet... yesterday they both asked if they could go trick or treating again. Such is kids.
The Manafort/Gates arrests seem small in the grand scheme of things. They're mostly money laundering and failure to file proper reports and registrations. "Conspiracy against the United States" sounds like treason, but it's not. It's really about defrauding the government, or more specifically "to cheat the Government out of property or money" per former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft in 1924. It's such a low-level crime that even the maximum penalty (which is rarely handed down) is five years. The amount of accused money laundering is a significant amount: $18 million. NBC News reported that there was a statute of limitations issue that likely prompted the timing of the Manafort/Gates arrests. These charges do not preclude other charges from being filed in the future, though. Many are speculating that Mueller's team is using these arrests to try to "turn" Manafort and Gates against Donald Trump. That certainly sounds logical, but given how secretive the Mueller team has been, I hate to speculate myself. Maybe that is the plan; maybe it's not. Manafort is (despite the Trump administration's efforts to distance themselves from him) a significant piece in this whole thing: He was in the Trump Jr./Trump Tower meeting with Russians, he was campaign manager when Trump won the primary and when the Clinton emails were leaked, and he was as central a figure to the dealings of the Trump campaign as you can find. It COULD be significant, but I don't think it's significant enough on its own YET.
What I find to be most interesting from Monday is the George Papadopoulos plea deal. He plead guilty to lying to the FBI during an interview on Jan. 27. He's not a nobody. While the statement of offense lists "The Campaign" as naming Papadopoulos as one of his five foreign policy advisors, the words actually came from Donald Trump's mouth. I think it's downplayed a bit, but this isn't just an indictment, it's a guilty plea and therefore a conviction. It's hard fact. In lieu of parsing commentary from other sources, I figured I'd read the statement of offense and affidavit myself. Here's what I learned:
1) He admitted he lied about the timing of meeting with a Russian-connected "professor." He had told the FBI that he met with the "professor" BEFORE he had joined the Trump campaign. This "professor" told him the Russians owned "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails." (Note: True.) However, the lie is that the "professor" only took interest in Papadopoulos and met with him AFTER it was made clear Papadopoulos was with the Trump campaign. According to the documents, Papadopoulos only learned about the "thousands of emails" after being a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign for more than a month. He also lied to the FBI that the "professor" was unimportant, but he actually knew the "professor" had ties to the Russian government. He used his connection with the "professor" to try to arrange a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
2) A campaign supervisor (Confirmed as Sam Clovis, former Trump campaign official and currently Trump's pick as chief scientist to the Department of Agriculture, although he is not a scientist.) told Papadopoulos upon his hiring that improved relations with Russia was a goal of the campaign.This same campaign supervisor said "Great Work" after Papadopoulos said he met with the "professor" and a woman he believed to be Putin's niece.
3) At a "national security meeting," Papadopoulos introduced himself to the group as a guy who could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump didn't really react one way or another in the meeting, though Jeff Sessions said it shouldn't happen. Later, Papadopoulos learned of the "thousands of emails" the Russians had as "dirt" on Clinton and told the campaign the Russian state was "open for cooperation." He then continually tried to set up meetings with the Russians, and the campaign (through a person who's probably Manafort, but who told him to work with Clovis) seemed open to it, though the documents say these meetings never ended up happening.
4) After the FBI met with him for a second time, Papadopoulos deleted his Facebook account and changed phone numbers to try to hide his conversations with the "professor" and the possible Putin's niece. Eventually, he started cooperating with the FBI since July and pleaded guilty on Oct. 5.
The FiveThirtyEight podcast correctly noted that Mueller's team doesn't leak, so reading any information from him or his team is like understanding the aliens' language in Arrival (great movie, by the way). Keith Olbermann (who I find frequently over-the-top but usually shows his logic) correctly pointed out that Papadopolous has been working with the FBI since July, signed a plea deal in early October, yet the first we heard about it was Monday. It shows that a lot of work is taking place, even if the public doesn't get to see all the cards that are on the table. Jeffrey Toobin (a fantastic legal analyst for CNN who I feel is getting a little over his skis about this issue) said that what this secretive process means is that Papadopoulos was possibly wearing a wire since July. That's interesting, but it's pure speculation.
We've also recently learned that Sam Clovis himself has already been interviewed and testified before the grand jury, and longtime Trump spokesperson (and current communication director) Hope Hicks is also set to be interviewed. Manafort, Hicks, Clovis and Papadopoulos are about as high as you can get in the Trump campaign without being either a) Trump family or b) Cabinet members. In the Manafort documents (which I didn't read directly) and the Papadopoulos ones, there is an indication that this goes higher. "Campaign staff." "Campaign manager." "High-Ranking Campaign Official." "Together with Others."
So what we, the public, is learning is that there's a lot more to the case than we publicly knew. Mueller's team is being cautious, deliberate, and they're making progress.
Why the Executive Should Stay Out of the Judicial
This morning, President Trump tweeted that the New York truck terrorist should be executed. He called the justice system a "joke" and a "laughing stock" when dealing with terrorists. This is the President of the United States claiming that our judicial system is broken. That undermines our faith in the judicial branch, which is doing its job — which doesn't happen overnight. President Trump advocated for a punishment that is "far quicker and far greater" for terrorism. (Note: What's greater than death? What's quicker than lethal injection or hanging or firing squad? Is he advocating for torturing someone, then a bullet to the head?) The bigger picture is that words matter. And the President's words carry a lot of weight.
Which is why he needs to shut up about the judicial branch. When he says what should or should not be done with punishment, it potentially taints the jury pool. One former federal prosecutor tweeted: "Mr. President, we all know [the truck terrorist] should get the death penalty. But when *you* say it, it makes it harder for DOJ to make it happen." We've already seen this in action once this year with the case of Bowe Bergdahl. The President tweeted about Bowe Bergdahl (who abandoned his post before being captured by the Taliban for five years) before becoming President, and what he's said as president have sway in military courts, since he's the commander-in-chief. And as President, he has said he can't comment on the Bergdahl case, "but I think people have heard my comments in the past." Arguments in military court lasted for an hour over that phrase, and the military judge in charge of the Bowe Bergdahl sentencing has already said that it could affect the sentencing (The judge can sentence Bergdahl to anywhere from life in prison to letting him go.). The more the President talks, the more he imperils the actions he wants to see. Perhaps that could be applied on a larger scale.
Scheduling Note
I'm sorry my posts haven't been as regular or lately. I have been having two separate problems. The first is finding the time to write. I've been busy with an outside-of-work project that's going to take me through the rest of the year and into next year. It's a big undertaking, and I'm happy to do it, but it's time-consuming. the other is that I just haven't felt compelled about many subjects without feeling like I'm just taking a partisan view. I want my writing to have a purpose, and if I'm just standing on a soapbox saying what every other loudmouth with a blog is saying, then I should save my words. So I hope you appreciate that I'm trying not to force myself into opinions, while I also try to find the time to write. In case you missed it, I did have a recent post, but I haven't said much about it because... the main topic never felt like I hit the right tone. The smaller story and the summary judgments section were great, but if someone doesn't get through the first part, they're not going to get to that.
Allegedly.
This story on Deadspin about journalistic practices and the use of "allegedly" got me thinking. Hard. If you don't want to read it — though you should — the sum is this: Journalists use "alleged/allegedly/allegations" too much, when they should never use it. It's a crutch for bad writing and bad journalism. It's "another layer of ass-covering doubt," Diana Moskovitz writes. What's she's saying is all (mostly) true. I'll save you more pontificating on the wisdom of her essay, but I found myself wondering if I had made those same mistakes. I feel the same way about "alleged/allegedly/allegations," so surely I didn't make the same mistakes.
I searched my old newspaper and found 31 articles containing my name and "alleged." That's 31 times too many. Seven were from one murder case. Five more were from a different murder case. Three were from a case in which a church employee stole money from the church. An animal cruelty case prompted two more. Two more from a fireworks case and two more from a fraudulent bidding scheme by the county 911 director.
It does appear I learned my lesson, though. I only used the words in question four times in the last three years. In fact, the last time I used any of them (allegations, in this case) was in the context of saying someone was innocent until proven guilty. I used the word "allegations" as a synonym for "claims" or "accusations" more often as I became more experienced. But the earlier episodes do bother me. For example, in one story, mention the aforementioned county 911 director was indicted and dismissed "for alleged wire and mail fraud." That's lazy writing. What I should have said was he was indicted for wire and mail fraud and subsequently dismissed. That's better.
We owe a little grace to small newspapers, who often don't have time or resources to edit as carefully as needed. But larger papers and media organizations certainly demand a higher bar.
Summary Judgments
This essay at Splinter News broke my heart. • • • The AP reported that the hackers who infiltrated the DNC emails had a "hit list" of "who you'd want to target to further Russian interests." The attacks spiked from 9-6 Moscow time. They targeted not just U.S. enemies, but Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian and Syrian targets. If you're waiting for proof the Russians were behind it, wait no longer. • • • I signed up for a Thanksgiving Day run, but I'm going to have to miss it. Our Thanksgiving plans have changed, so I probably won't run again this year. I mean, I could start running again and do the race virtually... but there's all this Halloween candy that needs to be eaten. • • • We went trick or treating for Halloween. Within seconds the kids didn't want to wear their Woody and Jessie hats any longer, so I wore them both on my head. They were cold (it was barely snowing) and their buckets got so full that Roland kept asking me to carry it, because it was too heavy. They whined and had to be cajoled and pushed into getting candy or saying anything ("Trick or treat? Thank you?"). And yet... yesterday they both asked if they could go trick or treating again. Such is kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)