JustOneMinute

On To Moscow!

Michael Cohen claims to have chased a Trump Tower-type deal in Moscow until just before the Republican primary in 2016, despite previous testimony that he (and more to the point, Trump) dropped the effort before the Iowa primaries.

Possible explanations:

(a) Cohen is lying. Problematic, since there are (or ought to be) emails and phone records that overlap with his new story (e.g., a phone chat with an aide to Putin's press secretary).

(b) Trump has been lying. Possible!

(c) Fog of deal-making. Folks who have worked on the Big Deals, whether it be a real estate project, a book/movie deal, an elaborate tax scheme, or something else know that deals generally have the potential for a zombie status, where they aren't alive but no one can quite kill them. Why? Because there are generally many constituents, most of whom did not achieve whatever there current status is by taking "no" for an answer. Knowing nothing about it, we can be sure that if Trump has been pursuing a property idea for Moscow there are financiers, property owners, builders, prospective tenants, government officials and various middlemen that can see a payday for themselves if a deal happens. In fact, a day later the Times reports that Felix Sater, a grifter in Trump's orbit, had pushed a Moscow deal for years and never stopped.

So. Knowing Trump's reputation and impulsive and subject to giving weight to the last person with whom he spoke, it is entirely plausible that at some strategy session in January 2016 Trump agreed to cut the Moscow push and focus on the Presidential run. That may or may not have made business and political sense but it was of no help to intrepid dealmaker Sater, who soldiered on. Cohen took his calls, played along a bit, and may or may not have kept Trump in the loop. If Cohen can produce evidence of email exchanges or notable meetings with Trump on this topic, that will be one thing; if his evidence that he briefed Trump is that Cohen remembers giving him an updated elevator pitch while in Trump Tower or mentioned it in one of their many phone calls, well good luck with that - maybe it didn't happen, maybe it did and Trump brushed it off and promptly forgot.

As to whether this is evidence of collusion with the Russian government during the election, well, not in itself. For those excited by the possibility that Trump lied, well, wait until they learn about the daily sunrise (and the monthly full moon!).

ERRATA: Back when he surfaced I mocked the absurd notion that Team Trump would outsource their Moscow outreach to George Papadopoulos, who had no history of Russian contacts and had not been in Trump's orbit long enough for his coffee to get cold. That was obvious then and confirmed now - Trump's top people knew how to reach people in Moscow even without the help of Mr. P.

Speed Chess

Interesting - the defending world champion was content to play for a draw in the conventional format and take his chances in the speed chess tie-breaker. And it worked easily.

We Are Not Alone!

FWIW, the battle between the ruling elites and the Great Unwashed is not just about Trump and US. The UK, France and Germany continue to have serious leadership problems opportunities.

The French protestors have the best line, as quoted by President Macron:

Ordinary people say the president’s speechifying about the fate of the planet overlooks the month-to-month struggle of their lives, and they are demanding he listen.

...

“What I want the French to understand — and especially those who are saying, more or less, ‘We’re hearing the President, the government, talk about the end of the world, but we, we are talking about the end of the month’ — I want them to understand, we’re going to deal with both,” Mr. Macron said in his speech to government officials in Paris.

It's the end of the month as we know it and I need wine.

Manafort Violated Plea Agreement?

Per a new filing from Team Mueller, Paul Manafort lied when he was supposed to be cooperating with the Federal investigation into anything that can be pinned on Trump.

Maybe Manafort really can't tell truth from lies, or maybe Mueller has an expansive definition of "lying". Either way, this has to be yet another red flag for anyone advising Trump about maybe negotiating a live interview with Mueller.

No Brownie Points For Kirsten Gillibrand

Progressives just can't let go of serial sexual harasser Al Franken, and Presidential aspirant Kirsten Gillibrand may pay the price.

Weirdly, Politico never mentions the blindingly obvious reason Franken was dumped - it was to establish some Dem credibility as they attacked Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama. Even Vox can face reality occasionally:

Booting Franken was good politics for Democrats

At the exact moment the Franken story broke, a Democrat in an Alabama Senate special election, Doug Jones, looked like he might win. The Republican candidate in the race, Roy Moore, was accused of sexually abusing, assaulting, or attempting to pick up teens when he was an adult. Moore was even banned from the local mall at one point. 

President Trump endorsed Moore, and Hill Republicans were reluctant to denounce him. It was the perfect moment for Democrats — particularly Gillibrand — to strike.

Franken, a beloved Democrat and popular media figure, was accused of behavior arguably less bad than Moore’s. (There’s not much worse than accusations of child molestation.) If Democrats booted Franken, it would draw a clear distinction between Democrats, who said it was bad that Moore preyed on teen girls, and Republicans, who wouldn’t denounce him.

At first glance, it looked like Democrats were taking a brave stance. They were turning on a popular figure in their own party and losing an effective media surrogate. But in reality, even if Franken stuck around, he’d never be the same. He’d been tainted by scandal and wouldn’t be a commanding liberal voice for the party on TV. If he resigned, he was sure to be replaced by a Democrat in Minnesota who’d vote exactly the same. The cost to the party would be minimal.

It worked. Franken left. Jones won.

For one faction, this was a big victory: Democrats picked up a Senate seat, got rid of a potentially damaging figure, and paid little for it. But for another, this was a case where politics trumped basic fairness. To them, Franken was a sacrificial lamb.

Mississippi Burning

Trump can run AND he can Hyde-Smith!

Old King Coal

Really too long for a Sunday but the NY Times Magazine takes us to coal country - in India. Lots of hand-wringing about the use of cheap, reliable coal as a power source in developing Asian countries; since it is the Times, there is no discussion of nuclear power as the baseload alternative.

I still want to see more done with thorium, oversold or not.

Open Season Saturday

Go, Maize and Blue!

Hit The Mall

People are off doing whatever they do while waiting for the Big Game tomorrow. Just to get in the mood, here is ESPN recapping "Bo Over The Top". As an aside, I had forgotten that Herschel Walker was in the SEC at the same time. Whoo, tough time to be an SEC linebacker.

Happy Thanksgiving All!

How about that turkey!?!

HEALTH WARNING: Too much turkey can cause brain damage. Hillary advising Europe to retrain immigration to placate the populists? Just what is her message to Democrats in the United States?

And Hillary's psychoanalysis of right-wingers sounds like a classic case of projection, since she is clearly describing contemporary college campuses:

Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met “a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

“The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality.

“I don’t know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it’s a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we’ve got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it.”

SO triggering! But one more thing for which to be thankful - with an anti-immigrant message like this, she won't be running.

They Forgot To Repeal The Law Of Unintended Consequences

A bipartisan debacle from the late Bush era:

Palm Oil Was Supposed to Help Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a Catastrophe.

A decade ago, the U.S. mandated the use of vegetable oil in biofuels, leading to industrial-scale deforestation — and a huge spike in carbon emissions.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we will drive down it in bio-diesel cars.

More Resistance Porn

So we are going to see Trump impeached for suggesting something crazy and stupid and then accepting the advice that is was crazy and stupid? Sure, why not!

A Bonus Howler is here:

According to The New York Times, Trump was rebuffed by White House counsel Don McGahn, who warned it “could prompt accusations of abuse of power.” McGahn has since departed the White House and the current acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker, wrote in a 2016 op-ed that he would indict Clinton.

Toobin told Wolf Blitzer tonight, “This is what happens in authoritarian countries. The president orders––the leader orders the investigation and prosecution of his political enemies.”

Wait'll he hear about Carter Page.

Throw Another Straw On the Fire

We're grilling nothingburgers today - looks like Ivanka better not run for President.

If Money Talks...

If money talks, Beto runs, not walks. On to 2020!

For Democratic strategists eager to advance a younger nominee contrasting with President Donald Trump, O’Rourke’s appeal rests on his perceived ability to bridge a gulf within the party — between Democratic contenders who are older but come with pre-existing donor networks, and Democrats who are younger but have not yet developed a substantial fundraising base. O’Rourke, at 46, has both.

I've said many times that Republicans want to nominate Ike or Reagan. hence the preference for elder statesmen such as Bush 41, Bob Dole, McCain '08 (but not the 2000 insurgent!), Romney '12, etc.

Democrats, on the other hand, are desperate to nominate a young, energetic, telegenic John Kennedy. Or Robert. But definitely young, in part because older normally means Positions Taken and Factions Alienated - Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had the blank slate thing working for them. John Kerry was a bit of an exception but since he had been a stealth Senator he was virtually free of legacy barnacles. Hillary of course was the Establishment "We Owe You One" pick and we saw how that worked out (She won the popular vote!).

Beto should be perfect for the Dems in 2020. Go, go Beto!

Down And (Finally) Out in Florida

Politico recaps some of the Florida Follies. My favorite is the faulty ballot design that, like the infamous butterfly ballot of 2000, may have swung the election.

The Trump Interview

The President sat down with Chris Wallace for a wide-ranging interview.

Sunday Morning

The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ, comes back decades later for a second look...

Very interesting piece on the reaction to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, now 155 years old. As to "reality", it's hard to say. However, this bit of contemporaneous coverage of the Gettysburg ceremony from the NY Times archive is classic:

We devote a broadside of this morning's TIMES to the publication of two orations which we are sure will command the attention of the day. And not of this day only. Elaborate and finished discourses from two such men as EDWARD EVERETT and HENRY WARD BEECHER, upon topics of such great National interest as those they discuss, will not lightly be passed over, much less ignored altogether, by any intelligent citizen. Mr. EVERETT's theme is the "Battle of Gettysburgh," and the occasion is the dedication of that historic field as a National Cemetery. Mr. BEECHER's discourse was upon his recent tour in Great Britain -- his experiences there, and his views as regards British feeling and policy toward this country.

These orations from two masters of oratory, delivered on the same day, but upon such different topics -- one historical and domestic, the other practical and foreign -- admit of little comparison.

Yeah, they missed the lede. They also have some criticism of the Everett oratory as too weedy (NOT their word):

Mr. EVERETT's oration is, of course, classical and ornate in its diction, felicitous in illustration, well-wrought and strong in its logic, correct and explicit in its statement; in a word, it is eloquent, in the best sense of that much-abused term. His exordium is of great beauty; and his peroration is splendid. If we might offer a single point of criticism on the oration, it would be upon that part of it, constituting one-half of its body, which gives a narrative of the marches, manoeuvres, skirmishes and strategy of Gens. HOOKER and LEE, Gens. PLEASONTON and STUART, from the time at which the two armies left the opposite banks of the Rappahannock until they confronted each other on this side of the Potomac, and also the detailed account of the preliminaries of the battle, and of the action itself. Mr. EVERETT enters into a very minute statement of these things; and the elaborateness of the details, the large number of names, places and circumstances he has occasion to recall, will tend to confuse and repel those who are less familiar with the events than himself, and crowd out those "glittering generalities" which he or any other great orator might be expected mainly to deal in on such an occasion.

 The Times also ran a version of Lincoln's speech as part of their coverage. Lincoln was dedicating a cemetery so I don't want to say he killed it, but the report notes frequent applause.

 

 

Saturday Morning

We kick off another Football Saturday with all the Big Games a week away. Yankee Stadium is the center of the college football universe today as it hosts Syracuse-Notre Dame.

THE BUTLER DID IT: Celtic and Raptor fans can relax - they won't need to watch their team lose to the Warriors in the NBA Finals.

Acosta Back, For Now

The judge has granted CNN's Jim Acosta a temporary restraining order restoring his hard pass to White House press conferences. Hard passes for the hard asses!

Apparently the judge was concerned that the unwritten rules of appropriate press conference behavior were, well, unwritten. Team Trump will now write up some rules and the whole exercise may be a Phyrric victory for the media:

“This could backfire,” said William L. Youmans, a professor of media law at George Washington University. Mr. Acosta “gets his credential now, but it empowers the Trump administration to come up with conduct-based criteria.”

“A ‘rudeness’ or ‘aggressive behavior’ policy would have a huge chilling effect, and would be much more damaging to the whole system,” Dr. Youmans added. “If it lowers the bar for pulling credentials, it’s a recipe for a more tepid press.”

Twitter has already lit up with leaked video of Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Jim Acosta discussing the rules for a press conference.

Keep Hate Alive!

I guess this is good news for the 'Keep Hate Alive' crowd exemplified by Paul Krugman - a growing number of us think the other party is evil and stupid. Also corrupt, racist, sexist, and terrible at ballroom dancing. As I have said before, there is no money in moderation; its the angry and energized that write checks and buy books.

Often a country can unite against a common foe. However, that is more successful when the foe is external. Right now the Democrats view the legacy white patriarchy as the root of all evil in this country. it's going to be hard for them to get all of us on board with that.

WORD QUIZ: One of these words is quite unlike the others:

How Democrats view Republicans:

• Of the 22% who provided open-ended descriptions of Republicans, responses included: selfish, greedy, corrupt, spineless, fearful and bad.

How Republicans view Democrats:

• Of the 26% who provided open-ended descriptions of Democrats, responses included: socialist, angry, hypocritical, uniformed, power-hungry and violent.

Oh, FFFFFFFFudge!

How great would it be to see Pelosi dumped for anybody, but especially a politico named Fudge? The hackneyed 'dad jokes' write themselves.

When The Elephants Scuffle...

The NY Times takes a long look at Facebook and won't be getting many likes from that quarter. Oliver Roeder of Vox has a nice summary:

Facebook seems to materialize in this column an awful lot. But when a service has “connected” more than 2.2 billion people, I suppose that makes sense. The New York Times published a deep dive into the company, based on interviews with “more than 50 people,” many of whom are anonymous. We learn, for example, that the company hired a Republican opposition-research group to discredit protesters by linking them to George Soros, and that it lobbied a Jewish civil rights group to label criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic. Just normal, cool, I-started-a-company-in-my-Harvard-dorm-room stuff.

One of the mice that got trampled as the elephants battled is the Republican oppo-research firm Definers Public Affairs, which lost Facebook as a client amidst the hue and cry. Facebok's position: senior execs knew nothing and anyway, the media knew full well that DPA had Facebook as a client:

Late Wednesday, Facebook decided to terminate its relationship with Definers after the publication of the Times article prompted an outcry, said a person familiar with the matter, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Top Facebook executives including Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg were not aware of the specific work being done by Definers, the person said.

In a statement, Facebook said it had not hidden its ties to Definers and disputed that it had asked the firm to spread false information.

“It is wrong to suggest that we have ever asked Definers to pay for or write articles on Facebook’s behalf, or communicate anything untrue,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in the statement.

“The relationship with Facebook was well known by the media — not least because they have on several occasions sent out invitations to hundreds of journalists about important press calls on our behalf,” the spokeswoman added.

Well. We wouldn't expect Facebook to stand up to a left-wing mob. With a different alignment of politics and players the Times follow-up headline would be "Republicans Kvetch About Business As Usual".

Just for example, the Times also included this detail in their original expose (with a picture of the offending poster):

By then, some of the harshest criticism of Facebook was coming from the political left, where activists and policy experts had begun calling for the company to be broken up.

In July, organizers with a coalition called Freedom from Facebook crashed a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, where a company executive was testifying about its policies. As the executive spoke, the organizers held aloft signs depicting Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg, who are both Jewish, as two heads of an octopus stretching around the globe.

Eddie Vale, a Democratic public relations strategist who led the protest, later said the image was meant to evoke old cartoons of Standard Oil, the Gilded Age monopoly. But a Facebook official quickly called the Anti-Defamation League, a leading Jewish civil rights organization, to flag the sign. Facebook and other tech companies had partnered with the civil rights group since late 2017 on an initiative to combat anti-Semitism and hate speech online.

That afternoon, the A.D.L. issued a warning from its Twitter account.

“Depicting Jews as an octopus encircling the globe is a classic anti-Semitic trope,” the organization wrote. “Protest Facebook — or anyone — all you want, but pick a different image.” The criticism was soon echoed in conservative outlets including The Washington Free Beacon, which has sought to tie Freedom from Facebook to what the publication calls “extreme anti-Israel groups.”

Hey, maybe the posters were meant to be anti-Semitic. Or maybe not! But it was lefties, so no biggie.

Let's Fly Under The Bridge!

It seems like the Typepad registration problem has been solved, so let me flip the switch and set the comments to registered mode.

I'll be keeping an eye out for problems. If you can't find a way in, contact me or someone else who can get the word out. Cumbersome, and we all feel vexed by it. But as we have seen, one undermedicated screaming boor can drown out a room full of conversation.

The Science Was Unsettled

A new study showing the world's oceans were taking in more heat than previously modeled got worldwide attention. It also got the attention of a math/science jockey who didn't like the way the numbers were coming together.

And now the original authors are admitting that there are problems. So the good news is, unlike a modern media outlet, errors are addressed. The bad news? Here is the critic's headline and lead in the blog post that began the unraveling:

A major problem with the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake paper

Posted on November 6, 2018 by niclewis | 231 Comments

 

by Nic Lewis

 

Obviously doubtful claims about new research regarding ocean content reveal how unquestioning Nature, climate scientists and the MSM are.

 

If the conclusion fits the favored narrative it slides more easily through the peer review process.

Saving Bob Mueller

While we await the spinning of the Wheel of Indictment the Senate contemplates the "No Special Counsel Left Behind" Act of 2018.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday he supported a bill that would protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from any politically motivated firings and would urge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow a vote on it.

“I would certainly vote for it,” Graham told reporters of the bill, which he supported when it passed the Senate Judiciary in April.

“I don’t see any movement to get rid of Mueller. But it probably would be good to have this legislation in place just for the future,” he said. 

McConnell told reporters in Kentucky last week he did not think legislation was necessary because he did not think Mueller was in danger.

 

A Great American

I guess when you are a Navy SEAL with an eye-patch from an IED in Afghanistan there is no need to bluster about you manhood with a youngster from SNL. David French describes a bit of hope for a better tomorrow in our political sphere.

Do let me add: the SEAL turned Congressman-elect is only 34. When he beats Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez in the Presidential showdown of 2032, Saturday Night Live can remember who launched his rocket.

A WWII Diversion

The question of what, if anything the US military might have done about the German death camps during WWII came up last night. A very interesting article presents the thoughts of a number of American politicians, including Bush 43 and George McGovern, the 1972 Dem Presidential candidate. People remember he lost 49 states to Nixon but forget he was an Army Air Force volunteer who flew 35 missions over Europe.

Bush:

While visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, in Jerusalem, on Jan. 11, 2008, President Bush “viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz death camp and called [Secretary of State Condoleeza] Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, [Yad Vashem director Avner] Shalev said. ‘We should have bombed it,’ Bush said, according to Shalev.” (Associated Press, Jan. 11)

A bit of background will tee up McGovern (semi-spoiler alert):

Dr. Medoff, who is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, pointed out: 

“The photographs that President Bush viewed were taken because U.S. planes flew right over Auschwitz in 1944, taking surveillance photos in preparation for bombing--not for bombing the gas chambers or crematoria, but for bombing German oil factories less than five miles away. 

“The Roosevelt administration knew about the mass murder going on in Auschwitz but rejected proposals to bomb it on the grounds that bombing would have required a diversion of military resources. In fact, U.S. planes were already in the skies over Auschwitz. In one of the raids on the oil factories, stray U.S. bombs accidentally struck an SS barracks and part of the railway line leading into the death camp. But the gas chambers and crematoria were never targeted.

And McGovern:

U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Nominee George McGovern was one of the pilots who attacked German oil factories near Auschwitz in 1944. In an interview with Israel Television and the Wyman Institute on December 20, 2004, McGovern said “There is no question we should have attempted ... to go after Auschwitz. There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens...Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and he was my political hero. But I think he made two great mistakes in World War Two.” One was the internment of Japanese-Americans; the other was the decision “not to go after Auschwitz ... God forgive us for that tragic miscalculation.”

This seems to be the presentation at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. Tries to balance both sides:

During the spring of 1944, the Allies received more explicit information about the process of mass murder by gassing carried out at Auschwitz-Birkenau. On some days as many as 10,000 people were murdered in its gas chambers. In desperation, Jewish organizations made various proposals to halt the extermination process and rescue Europe's remaining Jews. A few Jewish leaders called for the bombing of the Auschwitz gas chambers; others opposed it. Like some Allied officials, both sides feared the death toll or the German propaganda that might exploit any bombing of the camp's prisoners. No one was certain of the results.

...

Allied bombardment of Auschwitz-Birkenau in mid-July 1944 would not have saved the approximately 310,000 Hungarian Jews whom the Germans had killed upon arrival at the killing center between May 15 and July 11, 1944. Moreover, barracks located not far from the gas chambers at Birkenau housed 51,117 prisoners (31,406 of them women and children).

In the summer and fall of 1944, the World Jewish Congress and the War Refugee Board (WRB) forwarded requests to bomb Auschwitz to the US War Department. These requests were denied....

...

In subsequent decades, the Allied decision not to bomb the gas chambers in or the rail lines leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau has been a source of sometimes bitter debate. Proponents of bombing continue to argue that such an action, while it might have killed some prisoners, could have slowed the killing operations and perhaps ultimately saved lives.

 Lots more background here.

Shared Chaos

Lest we forget, the Brits had their Brexit stunner several months before we had our Trump stunner. Their confusion continues. If it's reassuring to be reminded that the US is not alone in having a dysfunctional political system, then be reassured.

We'll Always Have Paris

French President Macron spoke at the Arc de Triomphe, which apparently commemorates the triumph of sophistry:

PARIS, Nov 11 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron led tributes to the millions of soldiers killed in World War One on Sunday, using an emotional ceremony in Paris attended by scores of world leaders to warn against nationalism a century on from the conflict.

...

In a 20-minute address delivered beside the tomb of the unknown soldier, Macron described the "unimaginable hell" of those who fought in the trenches, denouncing the nationalism that fanned the flames of war and now shows signs of resurgence.

Macron spoke bluntly of the threat from nationalism, calling it a betrayal of moral values. Trump, who has described himself as a nationalist and has promoted what he calls an "America First" policy, sat a few feet (meters) away, stony-faced.

"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," Macron said. "When we say 'our interests come first, those of others don't matter', we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values.

"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism." Exact opposite? Similarly, Macron might have gone on to say, love is exactly the same as hate, since both are powerful emotions with a specific focus.

Obviously, "nationalism" has a bit of a tendency to mean what the user wants it to mean. Those speaking of a globalist/nationalist dichotomy will wonder what Macron is going on about, and will especially deride his use of this strawman definition of nationalism: "'our interests come first, those of others don't matter'". "Don't matter"? How about ""Matter but at a lower priority than American interests"?

An American nationalist could find plenty of solid, self-interested reasons to support the Marshall Plan or NATO, which also overlap with humanitarian concerns. America can justify our boots on the ground in Syria in order to oust ISIS and (maybe one day) stabilize the Middle East. But our self-interest notwithstanding, an American nationalist might wonder of the French patriots are doing their share in attempting to stabilize Syria to help stave off a European refugee crisis.

David Brooks provides an example of a relatively thoughtful, nuanced chap who does not seem to envision nationalism as the opposite of patriotism:

Yes, I’m an American Nationalist

How love of country nourishes a life.

 

California Burning

This is getting crazy out west.

Happy Veterans Day!

As we salute our veterans let us also remember the 100th anniversary of the Allied victory over Kaiser Soze and the Germans. That victory was made possible in part by the courage of the brave men and women flying Spitfires over England.

 

Football Saturday

It's a football Saturday and a Happy Birthday to the USMC so what better time to explain my non-slef-explanatory profile pic?

I'm hazy on the year but the young lady in the middle is one of my darling daughters. To her left is a friend of hers and the family, and uncharacteristically positioned off on the right is a cousin of their host for a weekend in New Orleans quite a while ago.

So let's have a football story while we chat about a couple of Marines. My buddy was a Marine Corps officer back in the late 60's. On this particular weekend he was meeting up with his cousin James, a younger Marine who would one day make corporal. The two of them were headed off to the Orange Bowl to watch this new-ish event called the "Super Bowl". The game was not a sell-out so their plan was to scoop up some tickets outside in the parking lot. That part of the plan went fine.

However, as they intrepid pair headed towards the entrance young James readjusted his equipment and - crash, splash - dropped the bottle of Scotch that was going to keep their spirits boosted through the day.

"James!" exhorted my friend. "What are we going to do now, watch the game? What kind of a Marine are you anyway?"

The pep talk continued a bit longer, with energy and conviction. However, the game must go on and the mission was not a total fail. "Drink the Scotch, don't drop it" did become a bit of family advice for quite some time thereafter, or so I am told.

So away we go for Football Saturday. Roll, Tide, Shake down the thunder, or whatever.

Chasing Headlines On Gun Policy

Another mass shooting prompts another call for gun control legislation that has little to do with the recent attack, is unlikely to accomplish much, and is driven by headlines rather than the real problem of gun violence. So, business as usual.

The "Let's Do Something" crowd:

Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades

Focus spurred by an incoming class of lawmakers with ‘F’ NRA ratings who campaigned on the issue

The Dems may have the votes to push something through the House and good for them. The Senate will be a tougher row to hoe and with five conservative justices, a dramatic new understanding of the 5-4 Heller decision on self-defense is not likely (obviously, with Merrick Garland there Heller would be re-interpreted into meaninglessness by five liberals).

Jacob Sullum of Reason points out that the mass shooter in California bought a handgun legally (he may have used an illegal yet widely available extended magazine). He also was a candidate for a Gun Violence Restraining Order, but the CA authorities did not pursue that.

As to chasing headlines - per the Gun Violence archive's expansive definition of "mass shooting", there have been 328 mass shooting deaths in 2018 (Their database can be downloaded and summed.) If I am following, the WaPo applies a more restrictive definition to the same database and totals 68 mass shooting deaths in 2018.

Either way, that is set against over 12,000 gun deaths (other than suicide) in 2018. Mass shootings drive headlines but they are less than 3% of gun deaths, even with the expansive count; per the WaPo criteria, they are 0.6% of gun deaths.

So why the focus on trying to control extreme outliers? I guessed at it last spring:

IMHO, what remains true is that many people have examined their lives and concluded that they are:

(a) not involved with criminal activity, especially drug-related;
(b) not in an abusive domestic relationship,
(c) not suicidal, and
(d) not living in a crime-ridden neighborhood

For those fortunate many, the most visible remaining risk of gun violence is a random shooting at a mall, theater, or (for kids and young adults) school.

Mass shootings may not be the best place to look if the goal is to cut into that 12,000 figure. But most gun homicides are done by handguns and frequently involve urban ethnics. The politicians most comfortable with more gun control are generally least comfortable with 'Stop and Frisk', locking up young black men, and generally cracking down on our city streets, so there is a tendency to push irrelevant feel-good legislation such as an assault weapons ban. Banning handguns? Probably violates Heller, probably can't be meaningfully enforced, probably can't pass any legislative body anywhere (CA and NY don't even they).

That said, I welcome a national debate, even if it is likely to be as brain-dead as the last one. The Gun Violence Restraining Order is still a good idea, if people would just use it.

Mueller With Momentum

More Resistance Porn? Benjamin Wittes says its too late to slow the Mueller Express.

His Point Six may induce a dmagaing level of eye roll from any righty familiar with the "investigation" into Hillary's emails. Take care

Sixth, corrupting the Justice Department is harder than you think.

To be fair, after watching Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama cover for Hillary's misdeeds (and the President used her email too, so the cover-up had plenty of motivation) or the FISA waltz with Carter Page I don't think corrupting the Justice Department is that hard.

Darn That Senate! An Urban Party Lacks Rural Appeal

Dylan Matthews of Vox discovers that the Democratic urban appeal plays poorly in rural states, which still get two Senate seats.

The Senate is a huge problem for Democrats

And it’s not going to get better soon.

Despite a great night in House elections, Democrats have lost ground in the Senate. Depending on what happens in Florida and Arizona, the party will hold anywhere between 46 and 48 seats in the US Senate. Any of those options represents a net loss for the party, which currently holds 49 seats.

That’s bad enough for the party in the near term. But it’s worse in the medium run. This year’s losses mean that Democrats will have a very hard time retaking the Senate in 2020.

Before the election, FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich noted that with a 52-48 Senate in Republicans’ favor, Democrats in 2020 would need to hold on to Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama, defeat both Susan Collins in Maine and Cory Gardner in Colorado, and pick up a seat in a red state by ousting at least one of Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, Jon Kyl in Arizona (who’s not seeking reelection), or David Perdue in Georgia. (They’d need one less if they also take the presidency.)

...

The upshot is clear: Democrats will probably remain in the minority in the Senate until at least 2022. That failure will have grave consequences not just for the prospects of future progressive legislation, like Medicare-for-all or action on climate change, but also for the next few decades of the federal judiciary.

Mr. Matthews duly notes that if Republicans hold the Senate in 2020 the outlook for a successful wave of progressive legislation from President Sanders and VP Ocasio-Cortez dims a bit. Doncha love it when Vox is your go-to good-news source?

Part of the Dem problem is that they have lost legacy seats in states that are currently viewed as Red in Presidential elections:

Why retaking the Senate might be structurally difficult for Democrats

Democrats used to rely heavily on seats in red states — not just swing states like Ohio or Iowa, but deep-red states like the Dakotas and Arkansas — for their Senate majority. They don’t anymore, and the Senate map looks increasingly identical to the presidential map. 2016 was the first year in the history of direct Senate elections that every state’s Senate election outcome matched its presidential outcome. That can mean only bad things for Democrats’ viability in the Senate in the medium to long run.

 

Democrats’ losses in 2018 were concentrated overwhelmingly in deep-red states. Republicans flipped Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota, none of which are normally competitive for Democrats in national elections (flukes like Obama’s 2008 win in Indiana aside), but where Democrats could compete because of popular incumbents from a less polarized age. Similar things happened in 2010 and 2014 in states like Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, and Alaska, and the 2010 losses weren’t reversed in 2016; indeed, in most cases, like Arkansas and North Dakota, Democrats didn’t even really try to reverse the losses in 2016.

Until the emerging Democratic majority moves out of urban centers and repopulates flyover country this will be a problem for the Dems. And there are some issues - gun control springs to mind - where urban voters and rural voters are unlikely to get on the same page.

Now, there are political theorists who believe the goal of a political party should be to figure out the rules and deliver a message that wins elections so they can implement their policy preferences. Others seem to think that if quirks in the current rules prevent a national majority from having its way, it is the rules than need changing, not the message. Hmm.

Since it's a Football Friday let's go with a dumb football analogy. The Jacksonville Jaguars have an impressive defense and a quarterback who couldn't hit the side of a barn if he were throwing from inside. What should they do?

Well, whinging about the strict rules on defensive pass interference and lobbying to change them might provide a boost to their prospects. Or they could get a decent quarterback! OK, if that was easy, plenty of other teams would do that too.

Still, developing a national message that is acceptable both to their big Dem donors on the coasts and the rubes in flyover country they are trying to sway should not be an insurmountable problem. OK, its a bit of a challenge since there seem to be progressive thought leaders who want to disempower and then disembowel white men, and white women if necessary. But let's just describe that as creative tension. Or oh-so-clever irony.

Do not let me overlook Mr. Matthews' conclusion:

It’s not obvious, to me, how Democrats get out of that bind.

I love a mystery.

What If They Gave A Mass Protest And Nobody Came?

Rachel Maddow has been tweeting about Save Sessions protests nationwide at 5PM local time on Nov 8.

I can find some local coverage but neither the NY Times nor MSNBC seem to have mobilized the fawning pom-pom brigades we have come to expect in this era of Resistance 'journalism'. Baffling! Did some people miss this memo? Did they miss the memo about the Big Government conspiracy that had us resetting their clocks last Sunday?

I bet there will be more coverage eventually, and I hope to miss it! Steel Curtain tonight!

Shooting In California / No Use Of California's 'Gun Violence Restraining Order' Law

The LA Times covers the horrific shooting there. This detail suggests, especially with 20/20 hindsight, a preventive intervention, now legal under CA law, could have led to the shooter's guns being pre-emptively confiscated:

Ian David Long, 28, lived in Newbury Park, not far from the club where he threw smoke bombs and rained bullets on a crowd of more than a hundred people Wednesday night.

Sheriff Geoff Dean said his department had had several interactions with Long, including a call to his home in April for a complaint of disturbing the peace. Deputies at the time said Long was irate and acting irrationally, Dean said. They called in mental health professionals to evaluate him, and they concluded he did not need to be taken into custody.

David French wrote on Gun Violence Restraining Orders, also known as GVROs andRed Flag laws, after the Parkland school shooting in Florida. I talked a bit about the California system at the time.

Presumably we will see coverage and second-guessing on the non-use of this law.

AS FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS: What proportion of people subject to a law enforcement mental health exam go on to commit a violent crime in the following year? ON a country-wide basis, was this shooter one in ten, one in a thousand, or what?

Secondly, are the police trained to consider a GVRO in the context of a mental health exam? What do they look for? Its easy to be an ex-post genius but I would have thought a young male with weapons training, anger management issues and a gun would fit a plausible profile.

More data on the California historical experience with this law would be helpful.

Time For Some New News

I don't know the latest but I bet it's YUUGE.

OH, SHIT: 12 dead in CA bar shooting?

We deplore this toxic masculinity and the failure of these "men" to respect women as empowered equals:

"There were at least 50 people that all tried getting up at once and running out the back door. I ended up getting caught in the ground and stumbled over by multiple people," Whittler said. "I got hit in the head by a stool that was being picked up to throw through a window, until some guy came up behind me and grabbed me and said, 'Get up. We have to go.'"

She said multiple men around her blocked the group with their bodies "ready to take a bullet for every single one of us."

OK, we don't deplore this. Most guys would do the right thing, which is why this is funny.

MORE CRAZY: Antifa at Tucker Carlosn's home. Even some libs object, so there's that.

OK, avoiding headlines in the morning looks like a winning strategy.

IT WILL ONLY HURT WHEN SHE LAUGHS: The Notorious RBG falls and fractures three ribs. She walked this off in 2012 but she is now 85. Obviously, pneumonia is a major concern. Not a doctor, but it must be a positive sign that she spent the night at home and finally threw in the towel in the morning. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

The Supreme Court says 85-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractured three ribs in a fall in her office at the court and is in the hospital.

The court says the justice went to George Washington University Hospital in Washington early Thursday after experiencing discomfort overnight. The court says the fall occurred Wednesday evening.

Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital for treatment and observation after tests showed she fractured three ribs.

Ginsburg broke two ribs in a fall in 2012. She has had two prior bouts with cancer and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014.

Sessions Out

Embattled Jeff Sessions out. Do we presume a replacement will be confirmed during a lame duck session? Mueller probably has things he wants to move on post-election - it would be nice to know who is boss is.

But forget about Russia - Sessions was aboutthe last man standing in opposition to marijuana reform:

Bucking a bipartisan trend to support less harsh tactics for drug offenders, Sessions instructed federal prosecutors to file the most serious charges possible, and to seek the death penalty when appropriate. He moved to pull back on the department’s work on reforming abusive police departments.

And while not exactly declaring war on states with legal marijuana — still an illegal drug under federal law — Sessions made clear he was eager to roll back the growth of the cannabis industry.

I think we can do better.

TWEETING: From the boss:

We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well....

Well, "Acting" AG.

Blue Wave Or Wave Good-bye?

When is a wave not a wave? Colby Itkowitz of the WaPo takes on the challenge of spinning last night as a "wave" win for the Dems, or else not.

Let me skip past the Dem triumphalism and get to the frowny face:

Trump tweeted that the night was a “tremendous success.” And from his vantage point, it was.

The massive repudiation of Trump that Democrats hoped for simply didn’t happen. In fact, in many states where Trump campaigned hard for Republicans, it seems the opposite occurred. He focused throughout the campaign on saving the Senate for the GOP, and it appears his efforts paid off.

And while House Democrats can now go forward with impeachment if they like, Trump is buffered by a Republican Senate that would never convict him.

Notably, the Democratic candidates who received the most national attention and fanfare lost or are on track to lose. In Georgia, even appearances by Oprah Winfrey and former president Barack Obama don’t seem to have gotten gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams across the finish line. And O’Rourke, who reached almost rock-star status (Beyoncé posed on Instagram Tuesday wearing a Beto hat!), couldn’t overtake Cruz in the end.

There is no way Trump views last night as a repudiation.

PILING ON: Newt Gingrich on how to deal with the Dem House:

“The White House should drag it out, bog it down, take the momentum away and make it go on forever,” said Gingrich. He also encouraged conservatives to foster what he believes would be counter-productive impeachment talk among Democrats. “Make it the speaker’s problem, make her deal with the nutty wing of her party.”

He says 'nutty', I say 'crazy' - we may be able to find a compromise here.

How The Democrats Can Win The White House In 2020 (And Why They Won't)

Frank Bruni jumped the gun by writing in the 2020 Presidential prospects a few days before the midterms. He offers some sensible advice from both Republican and Democratic strategists on how to unseat Trump. The Dem base can't and won't heed it, but here we go:

And this time around, assuming that nothing interrupts the president’s bid for a second term, there will be a host of additional questions and concerns. They’re peculiar to his intentionally abrasive personality, his deliberately provocative tactics and his almost mystical domination of the media.

Should his opponent join him in the mud, which is the approach that the lawyer Michael Avenatti not only recommends but models? Is it even possible to avoid such a descent? Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton apparently think not, to judge by recent public comments of theirs (“When they go low, we kick ’em,” Holder said).

But plenty of other prominent Democrats told me that the smartest strategy is to float above the muck, because campaigns are about contrasts and many Americans are desperate for something cleaner and calmer.

“There are a lot of people who are exhausted by the daily rancor that Trump has treated the country to and by this kind of tribal politics,” said David Axelrod, an architect of Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Yeah, but the crazies are just warming up. Lots of virtue left to signal!

Some Democrats even believe that an eloquent summons to civility and exhortation to move beyond rank partisanship could be the winning message, because Americans increasingly grasp the peril that we’re in — the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre was only the latest bloody illustration — and because Trump can’t ever claim to be an agent of healing.

“It’s about confronting him where he’s weakest,” said Bob Kerrey, the former senator and former Nebraska governor. “You have to say to the audience: This country is dangerously divided and it’s on the edge of something awful.”

Kerrey said that in a perfect world, a Democratic candidate would go even further than that in the primary and tell voters: “You’re going to get angry at me, because I’m going to embrace a Republican idea if it feels good. Don’t expect me to be 100 percent — 100 percent may make you happy, but it won’t pull this country together.”

I love the sound of that. I also suspect it’s a doomed fantasy.

It is a mostly-doomed fantasy. Ardent lefties loath Trump both because of his persona and his current embrace of fairly mainstream Republican positions on taxes, regulation, defense, guns and abortion. There are plenty of conservatives and centrists who oppose the Trump persona but are OK with a lot of his positions. Asking them to reject both the positions and the persona was too much in 2016 (eg, evangelicals and Gorsuch/Kavanaugh) and probably will be so again in 2020. But the base Dems will persist!

However, in a crowded field it is possible that while Spartacus et al split the Sanders wing a centrist could sneak past the Democrat base and into the White House.

A second major challenge is this - Democrats need to understand and - dare we say it - have a bit of respect for trump voters and their concerns:

And it better not sneer at Trump and condescend to his supporters. No baskets, please, and no deplorables. Midwesterners who voted for him won’t be lured back into the Democratic fold if they’re made to feel ashamed about their decision and told that they were duped.

“That would be fatal,” said Beth Myers, a prominent Republican consultant and longtime senior adviser to Mitt Romney. She wasn’t speaking as someone who wanted a strategy to dislodge Trump; she was just sizing up the situation.

She noted that most of the Democrats signaling possible candidacies “are from blue states and don’t really understand the Trump phenomenon — and that is a disadvantage. In my little liberal Democratic world in Massachusetts, people seriously can’t comprehend how this guy got elected president. But when you travel around the country, it’s very clear.”

Her liberal friends, she added, will ask her, “How can we have let this happen?” And she has to explain to them that “there are a lot of people in the country who have views different from you. This is their guy. And you need to understand that before you run someone against him. Hillary Clinton couldn’t even understand how this guy could be considered. That was a huge problem for her.”

Axelrod made the same general point to me, and I think it’s the crucial counsel. “If Democrats are going to win in 2020, it can’t be with the careless presumption that everyone who voted for Trump is a toothless, ignorant racist,” he said, adding that voters who were still reeling from the 2008 financial collapse and voters disgusted by the paralysis on Capitol Hill “viewed Trump as the kick in the ass that Washington needed. There has to be room for these voters, but if they’re shunned and belittled for having supported him in the first place, they will just be driven further into his column.”

Cue the Mission Impossible soundtrack. The many virtues of the Democratic base voters won't signal themselves, so Deplorable we are and Deplorables we will be. "Stop hating, you racist misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic hate-filled haters" will be the key Democratic message from their 'woke' base.

Bruni also identifies another major obstacle:

Standing out will require one nonnegotiable quality: the vividness to loosen Trump’s stranglehold on the media. To that end, any serious challenger has to figure out how to tell his or her story in a riveting way.

Trumps ownership of the media and ability to control news cycles makes the media adoration of Obama look like "Barry who?" coverage. Any Democrat to gain early momentum will get a media shoulder ride as the Next Great Savior, but that is a tough role to fill.

I did want to add this -: on Fox last night a panelist mentioned that the crazies had taken over the Democratic Party. That drew a sharp rebuke from (IIRC) Chris Wallace, who noted the Dems were winning House races with veterans, businessman, and centrists galore. To that end, let me pull this from the NY Times recap of the evening. First, on Pelosi:

But at a meeting of Democratic donors and strategists earlier on Tuesday, [Pelosi] signaled there were lines she would not cross next year. Attempting to impeach Mr. Trump, she said, was not on the agenda.

Nor should it be:

The Democrats’ broad gains in the House, and their capture of several powerful governorships, in many cases represented a vindication of the party’s more moderate wing. The candidates who delivered the House majority largely hailed from the political center, running on clean-government themes and promises of incremental improvement to the health care system rather than transformational social change.

A non-crazy Democrat ought to have a fighting chance against Trump even though Trump may well be running as a peace and prosperity incumbent. But I don't think "non-crazy" will describe the eventual nominee.

Bracing For The Evening News

OK, we're settling in for a long march to... well, I guess we'll all find out where when we get there.

I do think that in terms of brand extension and cross-marketing opportunities, Rachel should think about bottling her tears. The 2016 vintage would have been priceless. My goodness, late in the evening of Trump Ascendant she rambled on about uncounted votes here and a recount there and a possible landing by extra-terrestials on the Washington Mall all taking us to a Hillary victory. The look on co-anchor Brian Williams face was priceless - reflective, pentitent, and clearly revisiting the life choices that had led him to this moment.

If we can get another 2012 Megyn Kelly type moment when the Foxies got in Karl Rove's face on behalf of their Decision Desk, I will pay extra.

And remember, we are all Americans: E Deploribus Unum.

Key early results will come from states with early-ish poll closing:

• Indiana and Kentucky, where polls close at 6 p.m. ET, could offer early clues as to whether either party is making strides towards a total sweep of Congress in Tuesday's midterms.
• Early races in Florida and Virginia will also be important in showing whether the consensus view holds and Democrats take the House, while the GOP holds or adds to its Senate majority.
• Stocks could rally if there's a GOP surge— or red wave — and some strategists see a big decline if Democrats over come the odds and take both the House and Senate.

Indiana features a key Senate race: Braun (R) v. Donnelley (D) is rated a toss-up.

HOUR BY HOUR: The NY Post breaks it down. By this time the NY Times needle should be moving. And hiding!

FOX Decision Desk.

The NY Times is hiding their needles here. 

I UNDERSTOOD THERE WOULD BE NO MAPS: Yeah, that would be this Indiana. Or the other one. I guess we know why CNN never found that missing Malaysian airliner.

Grist For Something...

The 414 page Senate report on their Kavanaugh investigation has some interesting dirt but honestly - two different guys came forward with a story that amounts to "I made out with some girl that might have been Ford". In the absence of a lot more investigatory work that won't be happening, those anecdotes won't change any minds. Particularly when we can see false accusations against Kavanaugh in the same report. Flash: some people come out of the woodwork and lie.

This follow-up to the Ramirez thing, OTOH, is a real headscratcher. One wonders how the media missed it, if all it took was perusing some yearbooks. [No, of course one does not wonder.]:

Mistaken Identity at Yale? 

The report summarizes an interview with a Yale grad who said that a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity -- who was not Kavanaugh -- had a reputation for exposing himself publicly.

The man was interviewed after Deborah Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh had thrust his penis in her face when they were at Yale. She said she was drunk and wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh until she thought about it for a week and spoke to her attorney. Kavanaugh vehemently denied her accusation.

The reports says the man, whose name was redacted, also provided a yearbook photo of the frat brother exposing himself.

The report says the man said he had personally witnessed the flasher expose himself at a party and that the flasher was in the same residential college as Ramirez.

Huh. Since I suggested it earlier, I have no problem with the notion that the guy who allegedly shouted out "Kavanaugh just flashed Ramirez" was the actual flasher. When we were young and flatulent that logic always applied - get in there quick with the 'false acc'. 

Away We Go!

The weather is so nice I may vote twice!

[Narrator: He's not going to vote twice.]

DO REMEMBER: Don't procrastinate, don't prevaricate - prognosticate!

And for the Turning New York Blue files: props to Crystal City in Arlington VA and Long Island City, NY:

Amazon close to deal to base second HQ in Long Island City, NY and Crystal City, Virginia-NYT

NY Met marketing mavens are no doubt wondering how to tie the Amazin's to the Amazons.

POSSIBLY RELEVANT PSA FROM TYPEPAD:

Typepad is now running over HTTPS. If you are getting a security error on your custom domain, go to Account > Domain Mapping. After loading the page, wait about five minutes, and your domain should be fixed. Still not working? Open a help ticket. 

I wouldn't guess that a typical account profile is part of a "custom domain" but then again, maybe the transition to higher security has created more glitches than they imagined. Of course, the site will be totally secure if no one can access it, so there's that.

The Prognosticator Challenge of 2018!

OK, pick nine election outcomes and win!

There are nine propositions: control of the Senate, control of the House, the winner in five Senate races and two Gubernatorial races.

Each correct pick gets the associated number of Victory Points. Picking longshots, such ask Democrats gaining control of the Senate, pays off more than safe choices like Republicans holding the Senate.

 

The ballot:

Election Eve  2018
		Victory		Victory
		Points		Points
Senate:	Republican	2.4	Democratic	12.0
House:	Republican	6.0	Democratic	3.0
Senate Races	(Rep)		(Dem)
Texas	Cruz	1.3	O'Rourke	4.0
Arizona	McSally	2.0	Sinema	2.0
Missouri	Hawley	2.0	McCaskill	2.0
Indiana	Braun	2.0	Donnelley	2.0
Florida	Scott	2.0	Nelson	2.0
Governor	(Rep)		(Dem)
Florida	DeSantis	3.0	Gillum	1.5
Wisconsin	Walker	3.0	Evers	1.5
		23.7		30.0

One Day More!

The traditional pre-election "Will this campaign ever end and whose hearts will be breaking tomorrow" open thread.

Patriot fans may as well join in and gloat. After careful study I have concluded that Tom Brady has a future as an NFL quarterback. That Rodgers kid too.

Any No-Longer-Aints fans also welcome. Geez, or Steel City. I'd encourage all the gloating football fans to join in but I'd like to hear from some New Yorkers too.

Red Storm Rising?

Clarice Feldman tries to get us ready for Tuesday, although more than most this election night will be like Jumanji -there is no "ready".

Football Saturday!

What's this week's game of the year? Gotta be Alabama (1) v. LSU (3).

Don't Shoot Even If You See The Whites Of Their Eyes... If They're Only Throwing Rocks

OK, if the caravan passing through Mexico gets as wild as the Palestinians I may backpedal but really - it they throw rocks, respond with tear gas and re-assess. My goodness, we're the United States, not the bad guys.

Believe All Alibis!

The Burkman/Wohl stage show missing their Mueller accuser met or exceeded the clown show expectations.

However, it is interesting to see the complete suspension of critical thinking once the media has picked a side:

Without an in-person accuser, Wohl and Burkman instead offered a signed affidavit from her that claimed Mueller raped her in a New York hotel room on Aug. 2, 2010.

No other evidence was given, aside from a print-out Wohl had distributed that noted Mueller had been in New York on Aug. 5, 2010. Left unsaid: That was three days after the alleged attack.

Additionally, they accused Mueller’s team of “leaking” a Washington Post story that undermined their tale. The report showed Mueller was in Washington on Aug. 2 serving a jury duty summons.

Oh, gotcha! The trip from Washington to New York takes, hmm, not days. Hours, actually. And jury duty for the head of the FBI? He'll be dismissed in five minutes, won't he?

Well, yes he will, per the story cited:

Robert Mueller dutifully doing his jury duty in D.C. Superior Court on Monday. The FBI director (with an ear-pieced security guy in tow) made it all the way into the jury box for voir dire on a gun-possession case and got a warm smile from the judge ... but he was quickly excused (the "work in law enforcement?" question seemed to do it).

Obviously that doesn't prove Mueller was in New York but being in DC in the morning hardly proves he was not in NYC that evening.

Well. The accuser was named but did a no-show. Has she been approached for her story?

Disbelieve all women!

MORE: A comprehensive and convincing Burkman/Wohl basher from John McCormack of TWS. But he mentions the "problematic" jury duty point second, after the no-show witness."