Stuff to Read

Posted on by

Ezra Klein, now writing for The New York Times, Democrats, Here’s How to Lose in 2022. And Deserve It. “Democrats cannot allow a wipeout in 2022 like they suffered in 2010,” Ezra writes.

Katie Benner, The New York Times, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General. Lots of buzz around this today.

At Vox, an interview with Eric Foner, the leading scholar of Reconstruction, What Reconstruction teaches us about white nationalism today. Highly recommended.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, Donald Trump Is Out. Are We Ready to Talk About How He Got In? Also recommended.

In an earlier post I wrote that the Bidens had fired the White House Chief Usher for unknown reasons. That’s what CNN reported. It turns out that the Trumps fired him on their way out the door, also for unknown reasons.

Colin Kalmbacher, Law & Crime, Texas Supreme Court Silently Denies Alex Jones All Forms of Relief: Sandy Hook Families and Others Can Now Sue Conspiracy Theorist and InfoWars into the Ground. Heh.

Holly Brewer and Timothy Noah, Washington Monthly, Can Trump’s Pardons Be Reversed? Some interesting historical trivia.

Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, Biden Gave Trump’s Union Busters a Taste of Their Own Medicine. Heh.

That should keep you busy. Stay warm.

4 thoughts on “Stuff to Read”

  3. Ta-Nihisi Coates has the data to back his contention, though one would like to think the American voter had better sense than that.  That truth does evoke a high level of cognitive dissonance, however, as it grinds on one's perception of the general white population.  One would like to think that white was the major factor in how we got T****, but when one looks at the data, it was certainly not on other factors such as experience, moral character, veteran status, or really even being a compelling main character in a 'reality' TV series.  It is too bad Mr. Coates did not have data on hair.  It could be possible I guess that T**** had presidential hair.

    I say this hair thing not only because I am fighting a lot of cognitive dissonance but because it was a contention of a long time local political operative.  He had a hair theory about who would rise in politics that centered around hair.  He picked the rise of Bill Clinton when no one had even heard  of him.  Why?  Well he had presidential hair.  Clinton got to be president, which does not prove the hair theory, but did dent my perception of the American voter as having more than trite judgement on who they put in office.  I still wonder if the reason T**** was able to mow down many other competent contenders in the primary process was his hair.  In hindsight his nomination also supports trite or poor judgement for that segment of the American voters that vote in Republican primaries.  Somehow this weakness, that Republicans have no clue who deserves public office, is much easier for me to accept than that the whole of the American voter population letting T**** into office in the first place.  

    It is a fact that T**** was rejected by the American voter with the aid of hindsight, suggests a change of their perception of him as presidentially competent.  It is still unsettled in the Republican party on T****.  They seem to be having problems accepting that he lost and lost in a fair election. The Republicans are still blind to his incompetence.  They are no where near where they should be, questioning the party machine which promotes the pragmatically incompetent people they foist upon the electorate election after election.  Red state reality is always that your job has to get done in spite of the incompetent politicians.  It is kind of like golf except that even the pros get a handicap.  Some elections just give you a bigger handicap than others.  

    We need to have some compassion for the competent pros who survived the T**** administration.  They will be more than happy to show you the knife wound scars in their backs.  At least try to fake a little sympathy… please,

Comments are closed.