Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Every time some new allegations about "Supreme" Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh surface, like they did recently, I am reminded of how Republican logic works. They will blindly rally around an apparent drunken serial abuser while labeling any black young male, a thug. They have a whole TV channel dedicated to things like that. And god forbid if someone takes a knee to protest the police murder of any black youth anywhere. As noted in the instances illustrated by tonight's meme, Republicans will always display their support of rape culture and their support of racist homicidal cops. There is an exception, though: If the two scenarios were to be combined and the accused rapist is black, well, with the Republican mind, that's a whole different story.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Unless you are ridiculously naive, you have to know by now that Maine's $enator Susan Collins would have welcomed Alabama Judge Roy Moore into the United States $enate. Had the man she considers her boss of bosses, Donald Trump, nominated Judge Moore for the "Supreme" Court, she would have voted for him just as she voted for Brett Kavanaugh. She knew exactly what all the indicators say both men are but a future of a lifetime of misery for a young girl or woman means nothing to the soulless. I guess that's why she fits in so well down in D.C.

When it comes down to it, there isn't much difference at all between Susan Collins and Jeffrey Epstein's madam/procurer or any Catholic Bishop who looks the other way when accusations of sex abuse are made in his local diocese. The filth at some of our top universities who glad-handedly accepted Jeffrey Epstein's money knowing what he was aren't much better, and that leads us to any Maine voter who would vote for Susan Collins for anything more than crash test dummy. To support Susan Collins remaining as a $enator, you'd have to be one nihilistic, evil p.o.s.

Susan Collins is obviously proud of her leadership in the matter of Brett Kavanaugh. She had to have known that there would be more accusations coming. Unless she's completely brain dead and not just Republican brain dead, she must have known that her vote to place Kavanaugh on the court would not be the last of it. Like everyone else, she's heard the old "Where there's smoke, there's fire" adage, and there was and is a lot of smoke, rancid billowing clouds of it. "So what," said Susan. Well, it just goes to show that you can put lipstick on an asshole and it'll still be and asshole. The real person inside will come out eventually. You can dye its hair and pluck it's eyebrows, too, but an asshole is still an asshole. By her vote, Susan Collins showed the world what she is, as did all who voted for Kavanaugh. Susan Collins is now an epithet. She should just get out the hari-kari knife but she is incapable of honor. There's no redemption for the likes of Susan Collins, nor should there be. She is what she is. Now, it's up to Maine to say what they are.

Four Ways to Expand the U.S. Supreme Court

Will the U.S. Supreme Court expose itself to the public as a failed institution in this term or the next? (Iconic Portland Oregon poster showing future mayor Bud Clark and a downtown statue. Title: "Expose Yourself to Art." Story here.)

by Thomas Neuburger

The second point ... about the illusion of the Court's legitimacy, is just as important as the first. If the Court were ever widely seen as acting outside the bounds of its mandate, or worse, seen as a partisan, captured organ of a powerful and dangerous political minority (which it certainly is), all of its decisions would be rejected by the people at large, and more importantly, the nation would plunged into a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. We are in that crisis now, but just at the start of it.

—Yours truly (from "Anthony Kennedy and Our Delayed Constitutional Crisis")

In the same way that countries like Libya are "failed states," the U.S. Supreme Court is a failed institution. Always partisan, either mainly or partly, its authority — meaning the people's acceptance of the validity of its rulings — rests on a kind of momentum, a belief that despite its long history of missteps (Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, to name just two) the Court can be trusted, in time, to self-correct.

That the Supreme Court was failing its constitutional role had been clear to close observers since the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which ruled that election spending was "speech." Yet despite the numerous bad decisions that followed, the momentum of belief — and the illusion that Anthony Kennedy represented a "swing vote" on an otherwise ideologically balanced bench — has kept most Americans, if not blind, then unnoticing of the modern Court's deadly defects.

The first real crack in the dam of faith occurred with the Bush v. Gore decision, in which a nakedly partisan majority installed a losing presidential candidate in the Oval Office simply because it could, using only its authority, and not the law, as justification. Later decisions like Citizens United put proof to many people's suspicions that the Court was an operative in a war for political control and no longer a place where law, even bad law, had a place.

The recent, manipulated addition of the clearly unfit Brett Kavanaugh, a partisan right-wing warrior, to the bench confirmed those suspicions in spades. He even appeared to threaten revenge when he reached the Court for the way he and his confirmation were treated.

What will happen when, not just some, but most Americans consider the Supreme Court illegitimate, when the Court reveals itself to be fully what it is — a captured body serving a powerful, very small political minority (the very rich, the pathologically "moral") to the exclusion of the whole of the rest of the country and its needs?

We're poised on the cusp of that revelation, of the Court's self-outing in full view of the public. With cases like Roe v. Wade, to name just one, coming before it and a bench with no supposed "swing vote," the country is about to witness from the John Roberts judiciary what it has already witnessed from the Mitch McConnell Senate — what it has the power to do, it will do, simply because it can, however destructive the results to norms, precedent or established behavior.

We're about to witness Bush v. Gore on steroids — not a semi-forgivable, if monumentally wrong one-off, but a series of decisions that define a willful judicial oppression that will last through the next generation.

What can be done to prevent this oppression and the revolt that will surely follow? Is there a solution?

Expanding the Court: Four Proposals

Expanding the Supreme Court has often been offered as an answer, but the last attempted expansion — FDR's so-called court-packing scheme — still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most Democratic politicians (even though it worked; see "The switch in time that saved nine").

Yet the composition of the Supreme Court has changed many times throughout our history, and the number of judges was deliberately and explicitly left to Congress, an obvious example of a constitutional check against the over-exercise of judicial power. Clearly, congressional action can address the problem.

But what should Congress do? Is "court packing" the only alternative?

In an excellent article published in the Harvard Law and Policy Review, Kurt Walters offers not just one, but four ways that Congress could restructure the Court. Each deserves attention and consideration:

The first and most straightforward approach to expanding the Court is adding two, four, or six new justices to the Court. This suggestion has been advanced by Professor Michael Klarman of Harvard Law School, among others. This expansion would serve to offset the tarnished confirmations of the most recent two Supreme Court nominees, although critics of this approach, including Senator Bernie Sanders, warn it could unleash a spiral of retaliatory moves by whichever party is in power.

The second option is to reconstitute the Supreme Court in the image of a federal court of appeals. This course of action would increase the number of justices to fifteen or a similar number. Panels of justices would be drawn from this larger group, with an option of en banc review. This plan would not only dislodge the Court’s current reactionary majority, but the panel format also would allow a greater number of cases to be heard.

Third is the Supreme Court Lottery, a more aggressive version of the panel strategy. Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman have outlined this proposal in a forthcoming Yale Law Journal piece. All federal appellate court judges, roughly 180 in total, would become associate justices on the Supreme Court. Panels of nine justices would be randomly selected from this pool. Importantly, decisions on whether to grant certiorari on a given case would be made by panel members who would not know the ideological makeup of the panel that would hear the case. Thus, this plan would frustrate partisan maneuvering.

Fourth and finally is Epps and Sitaraman’s idea for a “Balanced Bench.” This proposal aims to counteract the effects of partisanship on the Court by explicitly recognizing and institutionalizing partisanship presence. The Court would have ten justices, with five seats allocated to each of the two major parties. Those ten justices would select sets of five additional justices at a time to serve a future, non-renewable one-year term. That selection would operate on a requirement of near-unanimity to ensure that this final set of five justices would be relatively even-handed. However, it is not certain how a Democratic president would fill a vacancy in a Republican seat that arose during her tenure, or how a Republican president would fill an analogous Democratic vacancy.

I'm partial to the second and third alternatives myself, with the added benefit that under the third proposal,"decisions on whether to grant certiorari on a given case would be made by panel members who would not know the ideological makeup of the panel that would hear the case." Implementing a proposal like that would certainly tip the scales of justice toward justice and away from partisan manipulation.

Will a future Democratic Congress be bold enough to offer any of these proposals? If the timid behavior of the present Democratic House is any indication, likely not — unless Congress is led to it, perhaps, by a bold and aggressive future Democratic president, someone truly on the people's side, for a change. Yet another reason to support the boldest progressive in the race, whoever he or she might be.
 

Maine's U.S. Senate Seat Just Got A Little Easier For A Democrat To Win

State Senator Shenna Bellows-- fingers crossed

The 2020 Senate map is better than the 2018 map was-- but not much better. The Democrats really only have one tough seat to defend that they are likely to lose, Alabama (Jones)-- but that's the only good news. The bad news is that most of the Republican seats up for grabs are pretty safe too. To take back control of the Senate the Democrats are looking for luck in unlikely red states like Texas (Cornyn), Georgia (Perdue), North Carolina (Tillis) and Kentucky (McConnell). There are no easy seats but if there are four comparable to the two the Dems won last year (Arizona and Nevada), they are Arizona again (McSally), Colorado (Gardner), Iowa (Ernst) and Maine (Collins). Something has come up that will be helpful in Maine if Collins decides to run again.

Context: In 1992 Clinton won Maine because Ross Perot beat George H.W. Bush by around 300 votes, throwing the win to Clinton. 1996 was easier for Clinton and after that Gore, Kerry, Obama both times and even Hillary managed to scrape through (albeit with a pitiful plurality and the loss of one of the 4 electoral votes). Maine elected a Democratic governor in 2002 (John Baldacci) for two terms and then Republican extremist Paul LePage, also for two terms. Last year the gubernatorial race went to Democrat Janet Mills. She beat Republican Shawn Moody by over 50,000 votes, 51-43%. But Maine hasn't elected a Democratic senator since 1988 (George Mitchell). When Mitchell retired, Olympia Snowe won and 2 years later Susan Collins won the other seat. When Snowe retired in 2012, Independent Angus King won the seat. Half the state is very blue-- D+8 and the other half is swingy (R+2).

Over the weekend Felicia Sonmez and Michael Scherer reported for the Washington Post that Democrats see an opening in Collins' considerable armor because of Brett Kavanaugh's anti-Choice vote last week.

The outcry from the left follows the court’s 5-to-4 vote to block a restrictive Louisiana abortion law. The 2014 law, which has never been enforced, would effectively shutter most of the state’s abortion clinics by requiring physicians at those facilities to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

While Democrats hailed the decision, they pointed to Kavanaugh’s dissent as a sign that he is poised to side with conservatives in future rulings on abortion rights.

In his dissent, Kavanaugh said there was a dispute about whether the physicians in the Louisiana case could obtain admitting privileges, and that a 45-day grace period would have provided time to settle that question.

Democrats are particularly incensed at Collins, who delivered a 44-minute-long floor speech in October declaring her support for Kavanaugh. At the time, Collins, who supports abortion rights, said she did not think Kavanaugh would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

...Brian Fallon, director of Demand Justice, a liberal group that opposed the Kavanaugh nomination, said the group will launch a digital ad buy of more than $10,000 next week in Maine to inform voters of how Collins’ vote for Kavanaugh helped lead to the close call in Thursday’s ruling. He said coming Supreme Court cases that will be decided before the next election, on issues such as abortion, immigration and transgender troops, will provide more opportunities to make the Kavanaugh vote costly for Collins.

"These are all issues that we think will make Collins look like just another politician for having supported Kavanaugh," Fallon said. "We will be able to say, 'I told you so.'"

"The Kavanaugh thing for her is going to be a very salient issue," he continued. "It might be the deciding issue in that race." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, is also criticizing Collins for her vote in support of Kavanaugh.

"It’s hard to know what’s worse: misleading Mainers and Americans about a Supreme Court justice who just tried to make Roe v. Wade obsolete or raising hundreds of thousands of dollars off the vote," DSCC communications director Lauren Passalacqua said in a statement. "Susan Collins keeps showing Maine families she’s not on their side and why she won’t be reelected if she runs."

National abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, also drew attention to Kavanaugh’s dissent Friday, as did several Democratic senators. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) argued that Kavanaugh "has started attacking Roe v. Wade from the bench."

"That means women & men who believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion must stand up stronger than ever for women’s constitutionally protected health care rights," Murray said in a tweet.

Collins will make a firm decision on whether to run for reelection near the end of 2019, she said in a televised interview last month.

"I'm getting ready to run. But frankly, I just think it's, it’s too early to make that kind of decision," Collins said on NBC’s Meet The Press. "But I am getting prepared, and I'll make a final decision towards the end of this year."

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Given the outline of the situation in Trump's weak mind, the idea behind tonight's meme doesn't seem far-fetched at all. As the world laughs at King Salman and Bullshit Don, cooking up their childish lies and expecting us to buy them, can't we expect a calendar to be offered into evidence any day now? I can our gangster president see thinking, "Well, it worked for Brett" and hastily borrowing even the very same calendar and trying to pass it off as that of another asshole friend.

It was Donald "Donnie Bullshit" Trump who first floated the "Rogue Killers" excuse in explanation of the gruesome death of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. At the same time, he compared the idea of people accusing his Saudi friend, King Salman, to his new Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, by whining "Now it's you're guilty until proven innocent." I wonder if gaining equal status as an obvious murderer was enough to make Kavanaugh grab a keg of beer and down it, not that he wanted an excuse.

After the "Rogue Killers" explanation, the next thing we heard about the case was from King Salman who cooked up a beyond incredulous lie that Khashoggi had died in a fist fight with the king's 15 man assassination team. I guess we're also supposed to believe that Khashoggi was some sort of one man Delta Force kind of guy. Funny, he didn't look like one. Besides, how does one engage in a fistfight with even one assassin when half your fingers have already met the bone saw? Of course, Trump's supporters and apologists will jump through any hoop imaginable to believe in and propagate these things. That's how far gone they have always been.

Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell has the best words about this:

Is Gaslighting The Country Into A State Of Dread An "Accomplishment?"

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that registered voters say Kavanaugh’s confirmation makes them more apt to support Democratic rather than Republican candidates by a 6-point margin, 33-27 percent. Overall, confirming Kavanaugh was a net loss for the GOP. And a majority of voters thing Congress should do a real investigation of him next year. Ted Lieu, a member of the House Judiciary Committee was the first to call for such an investigation and now Jerry Nadler, the likely next chairman of the committee, has promised an investigation into sexual misconduct and perjury allegations against Kavanaugh if the Democrats take control of the House in the midterm elections.

Another poll, also released yesterday, this one by Harvard for Politico got into motivation driving voters, more proof that this wave is not a Blue Wave but an anti-Red (or anti-Trump) Wave. "Fear and anger over the GOP’s health policies are driving a majority of Democratic voters to the polls in an effort to flip control of the House and put the brakes on the Trump administration’s agenda... More than half of Democrats likely to vote in House races rank health care as “extremely important” in determining their vote." Republicans are more driven by their own paranoias about terrorism and guns.

“The parties are incredibly polarized in what they are voting on,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard professor of health policy and political analysis, who designed the poll. “Health care is not really a major issue for Republicans. But it’s an overwhelming issue for Democrats.”

Beyond health care, Democrats list education, the Supreme Court and climate change among their top concerns heading into the November elections.

...More than two-thirds of Republicans say they’re somewhat motivated to vote in November to show support for President Donald Trump. Among Democrats, the president is playing an even bigger role in priming turnout: 72 percent say they’re voting in part to oppose his administration. ...For Democrats, the midterms are about protecting Obamacare and its benefits, and preventing the Trump administration from pursuing its own health care agenda. Republicans, reflecting Trump’s protectionist leanings, care deeply about issues like preserving gun rights and immigration restrictions.

Yesterday New York Magazine carried an essay by Andrew Sullivan on the dangers of Trump's accomplishments. "Trump’s record as a force of destruction is profound," he wrote, "whether it be the sabotage of Obamacare, the devastation of democratic norms, or the rattling of NATO. But as the months tick by, there’s a decent case that Trump’s proactive accomplishments are beginning to add up as well: a huge tax cut, two Supreme Court justices, wholesale deregulation, renegotiation of NAFTA, isolation of Iran, and a broader reboot of bilateral nationalism on the world stage. But I’m not talking merely about policy-- he has also shifted the entire polity more decisively toward the authoritarian style of government. In this respect, yes, the Trump administration has indeed accomplished much more than many of us want to believe."

But there's another essay from yesterday that's a must read, this one by John Harris and Sarah Zimmerman for Politico, Trump May Not Be Crazy, But The Rest Of Us Are Getting There Fast. Sullivan overlooked that accomplishment. "Psychologists' couches are filling up as Americans seek relief from Trump Anxiety Disorder." Her wrote about couples have problems because "the agitated state of American politics was causing strain in their marriage... Trump excites hot feelings in many quarters has cooled them considerably in bedrooms... During normal times, therapists say, their sessions deal with familiar themes: relationships, self-esteem, everyday coping. Current events don’t usually invade. But numerous counselors said Trump and his convulsive effect on America’s national conversation is giving politics a prominence on the psychologist’s couch not seen since the months after 9/11-- another moment in which events were frightening in a way that had widespread emotional consequences."

The American Psychiatric Association in a May survey found that 39 percent of people said their anxiety level had risen over the previous year-- and 56 percent were either “extremely anxious” or “somewhat anxious about “the impact of politics on daily life.” A 2017 study found two-thirds of Americans’ see the nation’s future as a “very or somewhat significant source of stress.”

These findings suggest the political-media community has things backwards when it comes to Trump and mental health.

For two years or more, commentators have been cross-referencing observations of presidential behavior with the official APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’s definition of narcissistic personality disorder. Journalists have compared contemporary video of Trump with interviews from the 1980s for signs of possible cognitive decline. And even some people on his own team, according to books and news reports, have been reading up on the process of presidential removal under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution-- fueled by suspicions that the president’s allegedly erratic and undeniably precedent-shattering approach to the Oval Office may prove eventually to be a case of non compos mentis.

A more plausible interpretation, in the view of some psychological experts, is that Trump has been cultivating, adapting and prospering from his distinctive brand of provocation, brinkmanship, and self-drama for the past 72 years. What we’re seeing is merely the president’s own definition of normal. It is only the audience who finds the performance disorienting. In other words: He’s not crazy, but the rest of us are getting there fast.

...A study from the market research firm Galileo also found that, in the first 100 days after Trump’s election, 40 percent of people said they “can no longer have open and honest conversations with some friends or family members.” Nearly a quarter of respondents said their political views have hurt their personal relationships.

“Authority figures represent the parent, [so] President Trump seats in the seat of parent for all Americans,” said Baum-Baicker. “So now, my ‘father figure’ is a bully, is an authoritarian who doesn’t believe in studying and doing homework... [Rather than reassurance] he creates uncertainty.”

Even Trump supporters are not insulated from this modern age of anxiety.

...Nearly every interview with psychologists returned to the theme of “gaslighting”-- the ability of manipulative people to make those around them question their mental grip.

Trump daily goes to war on behalf of his own factual universe, with what conservative commentator George F. Will this week called “breezy indifference to reality.”

Examples include false boasts on the size of his inauguration crowd; his denunciation of unfavorable stories as “fake news”; the assertion that an investigation into his campaign which has already produced multiple criminal convictions is “a hoax.” Some people can’t just roll their eyes at obvious bullshit-- they experience an assault on truth at a more profound psychic level.

“Gaslighting is essentially a tactic used by abusive personalities to make the abused person feel as though they’re not experiencing reality, or that it’s made up or false,” said Dominic Sisti, a behavioral health care expert at the University of Pennsylvania who penned an article with Baum-Baicker on Trump’s effect on stress. “The only reality one can trust is one that is defined by the abuser. Trump does this on a daily basis-- he lies, uses ambiguities, demonizes the press. It’s a macroscopic version of an abusive relationship.”

When people are frightened by erratic behavior and worry what’s coming next in any arena of life, said Panning, that creates an extraordinary amount of anxiety and often a feeling of dread.”

...[T]herapists say today’s political conditions are ripe to send people of all partisan, ideological and cultural stripes to the emotional edge.

“Human beings hate two things,” said Michael Dulchin, a New York psychiatrist who has seen Trump anxiety in his practice. One is “to look to the future and think you don’t have enough energy to succeed and live up to your expectations. The other is to not be able to predict the environment.”

Put these together, he said, and the psychological result is virtually inevitable: “Anxiety and depression.”

The GOP Is A Threat To The Rule Of Law And To The Constitutional Norms Of American Society

Trump was nominated for the presidency by the Republican Party over two years ago and he has been in the White House for nearly two years. Tom Nichols is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and author of The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters, his seventh book. Reading his piece for The Atlantic Sunday, Why I’m Leaving the Republican Party, you have to wonder, why did it take him so long? Probably best known as an undefeated five-time Jeopardy! champion, he was also a former security affairs advisor to Senator John Heinz (R-PA). He's been a Never-Trumper all along. Although he detests Hillary Clinton, he urged his fellow conservatives to vote for her-- as he did-- because Trump is "too mentally unstable" to serve as commander-in-chief.

He left the GOP and is now an independent. Apparently he has just come to grips with the fact that the Republicans are nothing but power-mad Trump enablers with no legitimacy. He finally hates them as much-- perhaps more?-- than the Democrats. "Small things sometimes matter," he wrote, "and [Susan] Collins is among the smallest of things in the political world. And yet, she helped me finally to accept what I had been denying. Her speech on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh convinced me that the Republican Party now exists for one reason, and one reason only: for the exercise of raw political power, and not even for ends I would otherwise applaud or even support.

I have no love for the Democratic Party, which is torn between totalitarian instincts on one side and complete political malpractice on the other. As a newly minted independent, I will vote for Democrats and Republicans I think are decent and well-meaning people; if I move back home to Massachusetts, I could cast a ballot for Republican Governor Charlie Baker and Democratic Representative Joe Kennedy and not think twice about it.

But during the Kavanaugh dumpster fire, the performance of the Democratic Party-- with some honorable exceptions like Senators Chris Coons, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar-- was execrable. From the moment they leaked the Ford letter, they were a Keystone Cops operation, with Hawaii’s Senator Mazie Hirono willing to wave away the Constitution and get right to a presumption of guilt, and Senator Dianne Feinstein looking incompetent and outflanked instead of like the ranking member of one of the most important committees in America.

The Republicans, however, have now eclipsed the Democrats as a threat to the rule of law and to the constitutional norms of American society. They have become all about winning. Winning means not losing, and so instead of acting like a co-equal branch of government responsible for advice and consent, congressional Republicans now act like a parliamentary party facing the constant threat of a vote of no-confidence.

That it is necessary to place limitations, including self-limitations, on the exercise of power is-- or was-- a core belief among conservatives. No longer. Raw power, wielded so deftly by Senator Mitch McConnell, is exercised for its own sake, and by that I mean for the sake of fleecing gullible voters on hot-button social issues so that Republicans may stay in power. Of course, the institutional GOP will say that it countenances all of Trump’s many sins, and its own straying from principle, for good reason (including, of course, the holy grail of ending legal abortion).

Politics is about the exercise of power. But the new Trumpist GOP is not exercising power in the pursuit of anything resembling principle, and certainly not for conservative or Republican principles.

Free trade? Republicans are suddenly in love with tariffs, and now sound like bad imitations of early 1980s protectionist Democrats. A robust foreign policy? Not only have Republicans abandoned their claim to being the national-security party, they have managed to convince the party faithful that Russia-- an avowed enemy that directly attacked our political institutions-- is less of a threat than their neighbors who might be voting for Democrats. Respect for law enforcement? The GOP is backing Trump in attacks on the FBI and the entire intelligence community as Special Counsel Robert Mueller closes in on the web of lies, financial arrangements, and Russian entanglements known collectively as the Trump campaign.

And most important, on the rule of law, congressional Republicans have utterly collapsed. They have sold their souls, purely at Trump’s behest, living in fear of the dreaded primary challenges that would take them away from the Forbidden City and send them back home to the provinces. Yes, an anti-constitutional senator like Hirono is unnerving, but she’s a piker next to her Republican colleagues, who have completely reversed themselves on everything from the limits of executive power to the independence of the judiciary, all to serve their leader in a way that would make the most devoted cult follower of Kim Jong Un blush.

Maybe it’s me. I’m not a Republican anymore, but am I still a conservative? Limited government: check. Strong national defense: check. Respect for tradition and deep distrust of sudden, dramatic change: check. Belief that people spend their money more wisely than government? That America is an exceptional nation with a global mission? That we are, in fact, a shining city on a hill and an example to others? Check, check, check.

But I can’t deny that I’ve strayed from the party. I believe abortion should remain legal. I am against the death penalty in all its forms outside of killing in war. I don’t think what’s good for massive corporations is always good for America. In foreign affairs, I am an institutionalist, a supporter of working through international bodies and agreements. I think our defense budget is too big, too centered on expensive toys, and that we are still too entranced by nuclear weapons.

I believe in the importance of diversity and toleration. I would like a shorter tax code. I would also like people to exhibit some public decorum and keep their shoes on in public.

Does this make me a liberal? No. I do not believe that human nature is malleable clay to be reshaped by wise government policy. Many of my views, which flow from that basic conservative idea, are not welcome in a Democratic tribe in the grip of the madness of identity politics.

But whatever my concerns about liberals, the true authoritarian muscle is now being flexed by the GOP, in a kind of buzzy, steroidal McCarthyism that lacks even anti-communism as a central organizing principle. The Republican Party, which controls all three branches of government and yet is addicted to whining about its own victimhood, is now the party of situational ethics and moral relativism in the name of winning at all costs.

So, I’m out. The Trumpers and the hucksters and the consultants and the hangers-on, like a colony of bees who exist only to sting and die, have swarmed together in a dangerous but suicidal cloud, and when that mindless hive finally extinguishes itself in a blaze of venom, there will be nothing left.

I’m a divorced man who is remarried. But love, in some ways, is easier than politics. I spent nearly 40 years as a Republican, a relationship that began when I joined a revitalized GOP that saw itself not as a victim, but as the vehicle for lifting America out of the wreckage of the 1970s, defeating the Soviet Union, and extending human freedom at home and abroad. I stayed during the turbulence of the Tea Party tomfoolery. I moved out briefly during the abusive 2012 primaries. But now I’m filing for divorce, and I am taking nothing with me when I go.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

"I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court."
-Senator Susan Collins, Maine

So said Maine $enator Susan Collins as she took to the floor of the $enate in a valiant effort to make the whole despicable Kavanaugh hearing process about her; giving her long-winded blather a 24 hour build up and using not just her own press agents but the entire media in one of the worst displays of $enatorial megalomania in a very long time. In reality, we should not call it megalomania. We should called Susan Collins' hogging of the TV time MAGA-lomania as that was what she was exhibiting in her efforts to stand by her man Comrade Trump. She could have just come out and issued a press release like a normal person, saying "I'm voting for Brett Kavanaugh" despite everything, but this was a case of a $enator having so much stored up bullshit hypocrisy that she just had to let it out or she would have just exploded on the steps of the Capitol, sending a tsunami of hypocritical bullshit all the way over to the White House. Do I make myself clear? To $usan Collins, ME TOO means something completely different.

I saw the whole thing live, Susan. Oh, those charges were enough when you called for Al Franken to get out, but not for Kavanaugh, eh? You mentioned that you believed Kavanaugh because he was under oath but you dismissed what Dr. Ford said under oath. It just didn't fit your sick agenda. Your deplorable display removed any respect you may have once deserved or possessed. I'm a big fan of just letting people talk and talk because, in doing so, they eventually reveal their true selves to you for better or worse. Well done Susan Collins! You know, if you have to get up there, hog the camera, and ramble on and on for almost an hour to justify your position and cover your ass, there just might be something amiss with your position. The staging of two women behind you as you spoke on this particular subject did not make it all OK. Maybe to a person with a now revealed high school intellect like yours it works but not for me or anyone with an IQ above 80. Sadly, that seems to be a dwindling number of people but we will see come election day. I may have some hope but I do not have great expectations. The leadership of both parties as repeatedly shown us that the bar is low for Democrats and, for Republicans, even lower.

In the end, 49 of the reptilian Republican caucus plus West Virginia's Joe Manchin, the fakest of fake democrats and the human equivalent of a 200 pound bag of bat droppings from an Appalachian cave, voted to confirm the hissing, slithering alcohol-infused lowlife named Brett Kavanaugh so that he would protect their traitorous president and, in turn, themselves. Yeah, it's ME TOO for them as well. They certainly don't want anyone knowing about their own connections to Moscow. We've already seen that they are taking laundered money from the NRA that has Russian origins.

You can see all of the names of the deplorables whoo voted for Kavanaugh at the provided link. Remember them forever. It seems that everything and everyone Comrade Trump endorses or touches turns vile and putrid and even more so if it was completely suspect in the first place. Now, his latest victim is the Supreme Court, an institution whose reputation was already weighted down with partisanship of the worst kind; the kind that completes transitions to banana republic status.

Republicans have also chosen to send a message to young boys that they can do anything they want to young girls and not be punished for it in any way. In fact, they have sent the message that those young boys might even "grow up" to be a justice or president some day! Certainly, they will be welcomed as fellow Republican senators. It wasn't all about just dismissing the very idea of sexual assault being bad, whether or not Kavanaugh can be proven guilty of such things. Talk about your inspiring politicians!

Even Lisa Murkowski, after voting no to advancing the confirmation vote at all the day before, decided with duplicity to merely vote "present" rather than make a courageous and moral statement by voting no. She claimed to be voting "present" as a courtesy to fellow morally bankrupt douchebag Steve Daines of Montana who was busy at home in Montana giving his daughter way at her wedding. Yeah, that's right. A "courtesy to Sen. Steve Daines" was her reason. What about the rest of us, Lisa Murkowski? What about courtesy for the rest of us? Oh, you played a good game. You pretended to give a shit when those 100 Alaskan women came across a continent to your office, but, as soon as they left, your true self took over again. You could have still voted no in a "profile in courage" moment and your party would have still gotten its despicable and deplorable way. Instead, you waffled. What's the matter, Lisa? Were you afraid you would lose the race to the bottom? Relax. You could never have overtaken vermin like Hatch, McConnell, Cornyn, Graham, or Grasshole on that score. You weren't even going to be the number one in your gender classification. That dishonor goes to Susan Collins, the featured target of tonight's two memes. Lisa, maybe you should have taken her 24-hour hype approach but two $enators fighting for the same camera time might turn into a boxing match, or, how about a two go in, one comes out Thunderdome kind of thing. We could do that with the entire $enate. Make it a tournament. That might actually be worth watching.

Young and Professional Kavanaugh: "It's All Part of the Same Scummy Guy"

-by Sam Husseini

I don't often think fondly of Christopher Hitchens, but an insight of my ex-friend did brighten my eyes the last week.

Specifically, after I sent out a series of news releases effectively arguing that then-president Bill Clinton should be impeached "for the right reasons"-- specifically, illegal bombings, Hitchens objected. He argued that the distinction between Clinton's personal and professional actions was a false one, that "it's all part of the same scummy guy."

As some argue that Kavanaugh shouldn't be judged on actions he committed when he was 17, are they pretending they are ignorant of his professional record, of his pattern of lying under oath even before Ford came forward?

Are we to act as though Kavanaugh's apparent attempted rape of Christine Blasey Ford has no relation to his backing torture?

Are we supposed to pretend that there's no connection between being a privileged hoodlum and flacking for corrupt presidents and corporations?

Are we supposed to just go along as though there's no relationship between putting misogynistic crap on your high school yearbook and expecting to get away with it and brazenly lying about it under oath decades later?

Should we really pretend that having a high school cabal who clearly seem to use their sense of privilege (Kavanaugh's mother was a judge) to get away with whatever they want to do doesn't relate to cliquish associations like the Federalist Society, using the law to further the interests of elites?

The problem is the the power of privilege that causes silence among those who are not part of it.

Where are those "values voters" I hear about?

I've heard feminists say to the point of cliché that rape "isn't about sex, it's about power". I've seen a few articles pointing out the "power of sexual violence" exposed by Ford's testimony, but virtually no utterance connecting that violence and will to power to Kavanaugh's professional work.

Kavanaugh didn't just apparently try to rape Ford years ago, he shamelessly lied about it now, openly falsifying what terms he used meant-- as he lied under oath about other things regarding his professional work to the Senate Judiciary Committee. With Barely. Anyone. Raising. Their. Voice. At. Him.

Kavanaugh-- like Oliver North and Clarence Thomas before him-- was able to use a faux anger to bully punching bag Democrats who seemed more concerned about appearing judicious than winning. Many ask if Kavanaugh has the temperament to be a judge, almost to preclude more substantial arguments against him. The unasked question is if the Democrats have the temperament to be effective.

Who showed fire in their belly and articulated Kavanaugh's lying under oath? Who went for the jugular? Sen. Dick Durbin came close to doing so about Kavanaugh failing to call for an FBI investigation-- and then a (pathetic) FBI investigation happened. That should be a lesson.

Kavanaugh, when he was working for Ken Starr, suggested that Clinton be asked “If Monica Lewinsky says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”

Where was the senator asking "If someone says 'boofing' means anal sex and not flatulence as you claim and 'Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game as you claim under oath, but a reference to sex between two males and a female, would they be lying?" or "Amnesty International has recommended that your nomination be slowed since you could be involved in violations of international law. So, are you a war criminal?"

Such a senator was not to be found. Some senators laid the basis for showing Kavanaugh lied under oath. And perhaps they expect that he will be impeached once they get a majority. But who knows what happens between now and then.

In terms of making the case to the public in a way that could not be ignored, they at best fell short. The best a few senators could bring themselves to do was mumble something about perjury when what was needed was to do down the litany.

By contrast, it would appear Kavanaugh, who was charged with getting right-wing judges through congress during the Bush administration, rolled out his own nomination by inoculating himself against the weakness he knew he had: Stressing his credentials as a girl's basketball coaching, loving dad to his daughters and mentor to females in the legal profession.

And then he and Republican senators put on their act of moral outrage that should have come from the critics of Kavanaugh. Perhaps there was some of the genuine anger in the streets in protests against Kavanaugh-- that seem to have come too little too late-- but at best rarely from the committee hearing room.

And those optics largely prevailed-- all part of the same scummy system.

Will Mainers Remember In 2020? Perhaps Justice Kavanaugh Will Remind Then Now And Then

Ted Cruz never hesitated or thought twice about his vote for Brett Kavanaugh. He fund-raised off it. It's who he is, who he's always been and will always be. Yesterday, after the 50-48 vote roll call, Beto send a note to Texas voters saying, clearly: "Today, the Senate voted on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. If I were in the Senate, I would have voted no. Maybe that's why Schumer and the DSCC aren't supporting his race-- way too plain-spoken; no hedging there. No Republican-lite bullshit either.

The events of the past two weeks--  including Dr. Ford’s courageous, powerful, and credible testimony and Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament in his response--  have only added to my concern that he does not meet the bar to serve on the Supreme Court.

I am disappointed that he was confirmed. I know that today’s news and the headlines we’ve seen over the last few weeks have been extremely difficult for many Texans and especially painful for survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment-- so many of whom bravely spoke out, shared their stories, and continue to lead the way. The news has also been hard on those who might feel let down after making their voices heard by calling their senators, organizing with one another, uniting for what we believe in. Today, we are going to come together for one another.

But tonight and tomorrow and in the days that follow, I want you to know that we are going to meet this disappointment weighing on many of us with the power of people who want to make sure that our government represents all of us. In a democracy, the government is the people and the people are the government. If the government does not represent the will of the people, we will change the makeup of the government.

We will ensure that the senators voting on lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court fight for people, for our rights, for our future. That they put country over party. That they bring a sense of civility and decency to what is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Together-- not as Democrats or Republicans but as Texans and Americans-- we will ensure that the next nominee to be confirmed to the Supreme Court represents all of our interests.

We will do it because in a state that is last in voter turnout--  not by accident but by design-- we understand the importance of voting rights.

We will do it because in a state that is the epicenter for the maternal mortality crisis--  three times as deadly for African American women--  we understand that.

Roe vs. Wade is the decided law of the land and that women should be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies, and have access to the healthcare that will save their lives.

We will do it because in a state where you can be fired for being gay and where the justice system does not serve everyone, we understand the importance of civil rights and equal justice under law.

And we will do it because we understand the need to put people over PACs, people over corporations, and people over special interests.

Thank you for staying strong for one another, for Texas, and for this country. We will not let one another down.

Writing on his Facebook page, Dan Rather pointed a finger directly at the senator most responsible for yesterday's debacle-- and it wasn't Mitch McConnell. "So Collins misses her moment to be a hero, and the old bulls win again. Trump, McConnell, Grassley, Hatch, Graham-- the whole lot of them-- win. Again. They are laughing, congratulating one another, and at least metaphorically are popping Champagne. For most women and many men it’s a bitter, devastating loss. Which makes it all the sweeter for the old bulls, and for the forces of power, privilege and money everywhere. A sense that the nation’s climate of justice has taken another turn toward dark clouds rises. The age-old question for the country of whether we prioritize power, privilege and money over justice takes on renewed importance."

Will Collins be held accountable? The PressHerald in Maine warned that With a ‘yes’ vote, Sen. Collins ties her legacy to that of Brett Kavanaugh. "If Kavanaugh," the wrote, "joins a five-member bloc of Republican judges that makes it more difficult for women to get an abortion, or interferes with the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to control air pollution that comes to Maine from the Midwest, or protects President Trump from legal action, Collins will own a share of the blame. And it should also be part of her legacy if more evidence emerges to support the charges of sexual misconduct that have been made against the judge. Without the benefit of a real investigation, Collins decided that he deserved a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court unless the charges against him could be proven up to the civil court standard of a preponderance of the evidence or 'more likely than not.'... Collins’ vote should be remembered for a long time."

In the same newspaper, Beth Quimby wrote that her vote is parking interest from potential 2020 Democratic challengers.

Speculation about who might challenge U.S. Sen. Susan Collins if she seeks re-election in 2020 began before she finished her speech Friday afternoon on the Senate floor about why she would vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Not only did a former Obama administration official, Susan Rice, drop a hint Friday that she might make a run for the senior Maine senator’s seat, but two Maine Democrats indicated an interest just minutes after Collins cast her vote in favor of Kavanaugh on Saturday afternoon.

Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon of Freeport said in a telephone interview that she is seriously thinking about a challenge in a vote that is more than two years away.

“It is definitely something that I will be seriously considering, although it will probably wait until Nov. 6 to really dig deep into really exploring that,” Gideon said.

...Emily Cain, a former state legislator from Orono who ran unsuccessfully for the 2nd District U.S. House seat in 2014 and 2016 and is now executive director of EMILY’s List, said she is seriously considering a run.

Collins hasn't committed to running again in 2020 yet. Probably if a really weak candidate who couldn't win an election for dog-catcher-- say... Emily Cain-- were to run, Collins might enjoy an easy race just to go out on a high note. After yesterday's floor vote, CNN was also reporting that the effort to unseat Susan Collins in 2020 is already underway. Even before this, she was a big DSCC target for next cycle. This will make recruitment easier and money-raising easier. No doubt there will be plenty of really terrible candidates eager to run, not just Emily Cain. I'm already hearing about some of them. It's important that whomever the Democrats choose be someone who wants to represent all Mainers, not just one segment of the population. There isn't anyone on the "Congress Needs More Women" thermometer on the right who will be a 2020 candidate in Maine or anywhere else. I sure hope Maine state Senator Shenna Bellows agrees to run, though.

Joel Peter Witkin doesn't usually do overtly political art but last year, it looks like he couldn't help himself. This lovely photographic collage print is "The Great Masturbator And The Country He Rode In On." [Thanks Valley Girl for sending it along.]

I'm a bit of a JP Witkin aficionado. I have one of his pieces hanging over my fireplace. Whenever I get an opportunity to see an exhibition of his, whether in a museum or in a gallery, I always go. I was happy that Valley Girl sent me this monologue from Witkin explaining his relation to Señor Trumpanzee.

Trump is a child living in a narcissistic hollow man-- with the power to destroy the world...

Trump is not qualified to be President. His election to that office represents the ignorance of the American electorate and the corruption of our political representatives. Ours is not an intellectual culture in which thought and reason are unselfishly presented. It is a “Pop Culture” of materialistic escapism which has elected an autocratic, draft dodging, corrupt business man, who has made this country the laughing stock of the world.

'The Great Masturbator And The Country He Rode In On' took several months to create. The Trump model was willing to pose nude. In his right hand is the nuclear button. On his extended left arm is written: 'The Only Conquest Left Is Ivanka.' On his right arm, he is wearing the symbol of Communism, the secret agenda Russia is promoting today under Putin. And for reasons yet unknown, all of us look forward to know why Trump is Putin’s marionette.

I made this photograph because I am involved in mankind. As a citizen of this formally great country, and as an artist, I made this photograph to help defeat the Republican party in the 2018 elections for its cowardice in putting their party ahead of their country. Where are our elected leaders, the Lincoln’s, the Kennedy’s of today? Where are our citizen’s hero’s, the César Chávez’s, the Martin Luther King’s, the Rosa Parks of today?

What ever happened to morality, courage and integrity?”

Frat-Boy McDrunkFace Confirmed. Now What?

-by Digby

It was a good week for Republicans, let's give them that. They managed to confirm a far-right political hit-man and accused sexual abuser to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment. And they did it by using the language of domestic abusers-- blaming the Democrats and taunting protesters by saying, "look what you made me do." Clever boys.

When asked on Air Force One what his message is to women across the country who are feeling devastated by Kavanaugh's confirmation, Trump replied, "I don't think they are. If you look at the biggest fans and I can tell you that the people who spoke in the strongest of terms in his favor were women, women. Women were OUTRAGED at what happened to Brett Kavanaugh."

In other words, you can believe me or you can believe your lyin' eyes. The tens of millions of women who have been protesting this misogynist sausage fest, whether on January 21st 2017 or on the steps of the Supreme Court on Saturday have been disappeared and replaced with people like Susan Collins, the alleged "moderate" who cast the deciding vote after gaslighting the country with a speech that pretended Kavanaugh's outrageous performance in his last hearing never happened.

It's clear that after Trump's victory in 2016 and the success of brute imposition of conservative white male dominance in this fight, they are convinced that the key to winning is to bring the hammer down on the feminists, male and female, who support progressive Democrats.

IT. WILL. NOT. WORK.

That wailing and whining you hear from these conservative white men (and the conservative white women who are desperately clinging to their sad status as daddy's favorite female-- as long as she doesn't step out of line) is the sound of the death throes of a movement that's on its way to extinction.

If Donald Trump isn't an example of a species that's run its course, I don't know what is.

They won't go without a fight. They have shown they are willing to win by any means necessary which is why it's so important that progressive women be elected to government as soon as possible.

After the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings were held in 1992 the voters elected 47 women to the House of Representatives, 24 for the first time, out of 435. That year 4 new female Senators were elected to the Senate bringing the total to 6 out of 100. A generation later we have 84 women in the House, equalling 19 percent. The Senate has made a similar percentage gain, with 21 (16 of whom are Democrats) bringing the percentage up to a whopping 21%.

That is pathetic. Women make up 51% of the population.

This has to change now. But as we've seen with the so-called moderate Susan Collins; it doesn't help to elect Republican women. They are happy to support a vile misogynist like Donald Trump and help install a right-wing Supreme Court majority for a generation. We need progressive women and men who represent the majority of this country, not appeasers and collaborators.

This election is a turning point. You can do your part by helping our Blue America slate of progressive female fighters who aren't just willing to go to battle on behalf of the vulnerable and the powerless, they are chomping at the bit to stare down these phony macho bullies once and for all. They aren't afraid because they know these right-wing whiners are nothing more than petty, schoolyard tyrants who need to be put in the corner for a long time out to think about what they've done. [And you can do that by clicking on the thermometer on the right and contributing what you can.]

They're willing to take on the challenge and it isn't easy. We need to have their backs.

This morning, one of our most dynamic candidates (of either gender), Katie Porter, told us that "electing women can improve our country’s leadership and Congress’ productivity. But not all women will be champions for equality or diversify the voices in Congress. I am proud to be a single, working middle-class mother of three school-age kids, and to be one of the first woman to bring this experience-- shared by millions of other hardworking mothers to Congress. When I fight for federal investment in childcare or paid parental leave, my voice will carry the weight of personal experience. We cannot win change for women without having women who share the most common experiences of American women like being told they should stop working and care for kids, despite financial realities that prevent that. Or being asked in job interviews whether they planned to have more kids. Women and men in America know that working parents are driving economic growth. That’s why I will fight for affordable childcare, paid family leave, equal pay for women, quality public schools, and living wages."

 



UPDATE: Confessions of a Proud Beta Male

John Pavlovitz is on the VoteCommonGood bus helping introduce progressive Democrats to evangelical voters. This afternoon they're with Kendra Fershee at the Morgantown Farmers Market on Spruce Street in Morgantown West Virginia. Last week he wrote on his blog that a Trumpist had called him a "Beta Male" while he was on social media expressing his respect for survivors of sexual assault, in the wake of the President’s vile and reprehensible public ridiculing of Christine Blasey Ford. The Trumpist had dropped "what he thought was some leg sweep, knockout punch, mic drop, designed to leave me in a quivering mass on the floor."

Apparently I was supposed to be insulted.


I wasn’t it.


I felt complimented.


I felt validated.


I realized I’m on the right track.

“Beta Male,” seems to be a Trump fan’s word for a man with decency, self-control, and compassion; someone a woman wouldn’t need to fear being around when alone or vulnerable.


It’s the label they slap on any man who is sickened by the misogyny on display in this Administration, who pushes back against the cultivating of a lowest-common-denominator expression of toxic masculinity, who rejects the idea that dehumanizing a woman and talking about grabbing her by the genitalia, is something decent men do.

Based on my observations, in the minds of these folks, Beta Males:

• are capable of deep empathy for people who are suffering.
• yield to a woman’s consent regarding her body and her needs.
• are burdened to be sources of gentleness and restraint and kindness.

• don’t need to display physical dominance in order to feel validated.
• aren’t a physical or emotional danger to women around them.

Sign me up.

With what we’re seeing unfold right now in America, the last thing we need are more men like this President and the men who emulate him; perpetually insecure man-children who’ve never been able to find a fully formed understanding of what it means to be a gentleman and human being. We don’t need anymore knuckle-dragging cavemen who are terrified of strong women and intimidated by sexuality and orientation that don’t fit their brittle Old Testament sensibilities.

I want my son to be a Beta Male. I want him to be a safe place for the women around him. I want him to respect their humanity and honor their wishes and see them is equal. I want him to see in his father, someone who is secure enough in who he is, not to need to damage someone else to prove his worth.

I want my daughter to be surrounded by these Beta Males; men who value her enough to let her decide what happens to her body, who see her as more than a tool for their self-gratification, who are not intimidated by her strength or intellect or accomplishments, who don’t leveraging religion or guilt or fear to coerce women into anything.

If Donald Trump is an Alpha Male, if Lindsey Graham is an Alpha Male, if Brett Kavanaugh is an Alpha Male-- count me out. That’s not exactly a mark I’m interested in attaining. I’d rather sleep at night knowing that I’ve left this world more compassionate and loving than I found it.

If being an “Alpha Male” is what this Administration is cultivating, employing, and perpetuating-- I’ll gladly be a Beta Male.

I think that just means I’m being human.