There Will Never Be A Fort Trump Or A USS Donald J Trump

A few days ago, The Atlantic published an essay by retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus that was a response to a series of Trump tweets from a military perspective. Trump's tweets were more of his racist divisiveness-- this time on the long-overdue renaming of military bases commemorating Civil War traitors. These were the flimsy gaslighting tweets from Trump:

Petraeus wrote that as he has watched Confederate monuments being removed by state and local governments, and sometimes by the forceful will of the American people, the fact that 10 U.S. Army installations are named for Confederate officers has weighed on him. "That number includes the Army’s largest base, one very special to many in uniform: Fort Bragg, in North Carolina. The highway sign for Bragg proclaims it home of the airborne and special operations forces. I had three assignments there during my career. Soldiers stationed at Bragg are rightly proud to serve in its elite units. Some call it 'the Center of the Military Universe,' 'the Mother Ship,' or even 'Hallowed Ground.' But Braxton Bragg-- the general for whom the base was named-- served in the Confederate States Army. The United States is now wrestling with repeated instances of abusive policing caught on camera, the legacies of systemic racism, the challenges of protecting freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights while thwarting criminals who seek to exploit lawful protests, and debates over symbols glorifying those who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The way we resolve these issues will define our national identity for this century and beyond. Yesterday afternoon, an Army spokesperson said that Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy is now “open to a bipartisan discussion” on renaming the bases. That’s the right call. Once the names of these bases are stripped of the obscuring power of tradition and folklore, renaming the installations becomes an easy, even obvious, decision." Trump has fired McCarthy, at least not yet.

My life in uniform essentially unfolded at a series of what might be termed “rebel forts.” I made many parachute jumps with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and I also jumped with 82nd Airborne paratroopers at Fort Pickett, in Virginia (a National Guard post), and Fort Polk, in Louisiana. I made official visits to Virginia’s Forts Pickett and Lee, to Texas’s Fort Hood, and to Alabama’s Fort Rucker. In Georgia, I visited Fort Gordon, and I attended Airborne School, Ranger School, and the Infantry Officer Basic Course-- rites of passage for countless infantry soldiers-- at Fort Benning. At the time, I was oblivious to the fact that what was then called the “Home of the Infantry” was named for Henry L. Benning, a Confederate general who was such an enthusiast for slavery that as early as 1849 he argued for the dissolution of the Union and the formation of a Southern slavocracy. Fort Benning’s physical location, on former Native American territory that became the site of a plantation, itself illustrates the turbulent layers beneath the American landscape.

It would be years before I reflected on the individuals for whom these posts were named. While on active duty, in fact, I never thought much about these men—about the nature of their service during the Civil War, their postwar activities (which in John Brown Gordon’s case likely included a leadership role in the first Ku Klux Klan), the reasons they were honored, or the timing of the various forts’ dedications. Nor did I think about the messages those names sent to the many African Americans serving on these installations-- messages that should have been noted by all of us. Like many aspects of the military, the forts themselves were so shrouded in tradition that everything about them seemed rock solid, time tested, immortal. Their names had taken on new layers of meaning that allowed us to ignore the individuals for whom they were named.

In the course of their professional development, soldiers often study the tactical and operational skills of leaders who fought for dubious causes. Learning how to win a particular kind of battle is different than learning how to win a war. Intellectual appreciation of a given general’s tactical genius, however, should not become wholesale admiration or a species of devotion. When I was a cadet at West Point in the early 1970s, enthusiasm for Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson was widespread. We were not encouraged to think deeply about the cause for which they had fought, at least not in our military-history classes. And throughout my Army career, I likewise encountered enthusiastic adherents of various Confederate commanders, and a special veneration for Lee.

It also happens that-- Lee excepted-- most of the Confederate generals for whom our bases are named were undistinguished, if not incompetent, battlefield commanders. Braxton Bragg, for example, left a great deal to be desired as a military leader. After graduating from West Point in 1837, he served in the Second Seminole War and the Mexican War. His reputation for physical bravery was matched by one for epic irascibility. Bragg’s temper was so bad, Ulysses S. Grant recounted in his memoirs, that an old Army story had a superior once rebuking him, “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarrelling with yourself!” Bragg’s inability to cooperate diluted his effectiveness until his resounding defeat at the Battle of Chattanooga, in November 1863, precipitated his resignation from the Confederate army.

Had Bragg, like most of the rebel honorees, not been elevated by the effort to memorialize the “Lost Cause”-- promoted by organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy as well as by some sympathetic historians-- he would probably have been consigned to historical obscurity.

Fort Bragg and most of the other posts in question were established either during World War I, at one peak of the Lost Cause movement, or in the early 1940s, as the country was feverishly gearing up for World War II. Army leaders, to say nothing of political figures at the time, undoubtedly wanted to ingratiate themselves with the southern states in which the forts were located. They bowed to-- and in many cases shared-- the Lost Cause nostalgia that also sponsored so much civilian statuary, street naming, and memorial building from the end of Reconstruction through the 1930s, when the trend tapered off but did not end completely. In many cases, the Army’s sentiments simply mirrored those of the society it served.

For an organization designed to win wars to train for them at installations named for those who led a losing force is sufficiently peculiar, but when we consider the cause for which these officers fought, we begin to penetrate the confusion of Civil War memory. These bases are, after all, federal installations, home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention. Now, belatedly, is the moment for us to pay such attention.

It gives me considerable pause, for example, to note that my alma mater, West Point, honors Robert E. Lee with a gate, a road, an entire housing area, and a barracks, the last of which was built during the 1960s. A portrait of Lee with an enslaved person adorns a wall of the cadet library, the counterpoint to a portrait of Grant, his Civil War nemesis, on a nearby wall.

Lee’s history is, in fact, thoroughly woven through that of West Point and the Army. Before he was the commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, Lee was an outstanding cadet, a distinguished chief of engineers in the Mexican War, and later the West Point superintendent. I do not propose that we erase his role in this history. We can learn from his battlefield skill and, beyond that, from his human frailty, his conflicting loyalties, and the social pressures that led him to choose Virginia over the United States. If we attempt to repress the fact of his existence from our institutional memory, we risk falling into the trap of authoritarian regimes, which routinely and comprehensively obliterate whole swaths of national history as if they never happened at all. What distinguishes democracies is their capacity to debate even the most contentious issues vigorously and in informed, respectful, deliberate ways and to learn from the errors of the past. But remembering Lee’s strengths and weaknesses, his military and personal successes and failures, is different from venerating him.

Confederate memorialization is only the most obvious expression of formerly acceptable sentiments now regarded critically by many Americans. Once unreservedly celebrated figures like Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, to name just three, held convictions and behaved in ways we now find deeply troubling. It is indicative of the complexity of the problem that while the stained-glass window honoring Robert E. Lee in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., was removed, that of Wilson, an ardent segregationist, remains (after a healthy debate).

But Confederate leaders are different from these other examples not simply in degree, but in kind: Plainly put, Lee, Bragg, and the rest committed treason, however much they may have agonized over it. The majority of them had worn the uniform of the U.S. Army, and that Army should not brook any celebration of those who betrayed their country.

A long-standing maxim for those in uniform is that one should never begin a war without also knowing how to end it. And this is a kind of war-- a war of memory. The forts named for Confederate generals were established before the formulation of the rules now codified in Army Regulation 1-33, which sets the criteria for memorializing soldiers. But, as is so often the case when the Army is found to have fallen short of its elemental values, it also possesses the remedy. While the regulation states, “Rememorializing or rededicating actions are strongly discouraged, and seldom appropriate,” it also outlines a clear administrative process to follow when they are. This is the moment to pursue that process.

We could probably disqualify the rebel generals on a technicality: After all, none of them were actually in the U.S. Army when they performed the actions for which they were honored. Nonetheless, I would prefer to disqualify them on the grounds that they do not meet the letter or spirit of the regulation’s second criterion: “Memorializations will honor deceased heroes and other deceased distinguished individuals of all races in our society, and will present them as inspirations to their fellow Soldiers, employees, and other citizens.”

The magic of the republic to which many of us dedicated our professional lives is that its definition of equality has repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to broaden. And America’s military has often led social change, especially in the area of racial integration. We do not live in a country to which Braxton Bragg, Henry L. Benning, or Robert E. Lee can serve as an inspiration. Acknowledging this fact is imperative. Should it fail to do so, the Army, which prides itself on leading the way in perilous times, will be left to fight a rearguard action against a more inclusive American future, one that fulfills the nation’s founding promise.

Maybe Fort Bragg could be rededicated to Billy Bragg? Do you get it? Still no? Perhaps this Ted Talk by Paul Rucker will help clarify matters better:

Neo-Fascist? Time To Drop The "Neo" When Describing Trump

Out of the bunker and...





Jim Acosta on CNN: "We are descending into something that is not the United States of America tonight; there's just no other way to put it... Donald Trump did not do this by himself tonight. There were other White House officials, military officials, federal employees paid for with our tax dollars. And our tax dollars were used to teargas fellow Americans. That's what happened tonight in the nation's capital and the entire world was watching."

And yeah, this was all done because Trumpanzee-- a notorious coward-- was embarrassed that it leaked out by the media that he was cowering and trembling in the White House bunker on Friday night when protestors in Lafayette Square were hurling curses at him. "They wanted a disruptor," said Anderson Cooper on TV last night. "That's what a disruption is."

Last night the Washington Post had its A-Team on the case: Phil Rucker, Robert Costa, Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim, writing about how the authoritarian orange blob "militarized the federal response to protests of racial inequality that have erupted in cities across America late Monday, as authorities fired tear gas at people protesting peacefully near the White House to disperse crowds moments before Trump staged a photo opportunity there. Trump forced a brazen inflammation of the crisis convulsing the country by calling the nationwide demonstrations 'acts of domestic terror,' declaring himself the 'president of law and order' and taking the rare step of mobilizing the military to use force to quell the unrest. In a move denounced by critics as authoritarian, the commander in chief threatened to deploy troops to 'quickly solve the problem' if state and local authorities did not immediately regain control of their streets, which he said had been overtaken by 'professional anarchists' and 'violent mobs.'"

This morning, the Religion News Service reported that ahead of the blasphemous Trumpanzee Bible photo op, police forcibly expelled the priest from St. John's church.

During an interview on CNN, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, condemned the flaming asshole for clearing out peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas in order to stage his photo op in front of her church: "I am outraged… Everything he has said and done is to inflame violence. I am beyond. We need moral leadership, and he’s done everything to divide us, and has just used one of the most sacred symbols of the Judeo-Christian tradition... I just can’t believe what my eyes have seen tonight."

All the people I communicate with who are reliable-- if moronic-- Trumpist parrots of the far right are convinced nothing is going on but looting. One of the most obtuse Trumpists I've ever met-- other than my brother-in-law-- sent me this message yesterday: "They burned the historic church in DC, St John’s Church. This isn’t about justice, it’s all looting, many of these businesses were already on the verge of bankruptcy. Many don’t have insurance because they couldn’t afford it. What’s sad is even those with insurance have no money left and now have lost their business." he said there's no evidence that the cop who murdered George Floyd is a racist because-- and I swear I'm not making this up-- "His wife was asian, one of the cops was Latino, one was asian, one was black and one was white. I actually belong to a facebook group on police brutality and there are plenty of police killing white people too. I just don’t see the dichotomy of the 1960s civil rights era and now, a black man became president by popular and electoral vote. There really isn't institutionalized racism anymore, in Miami the arrest records show that most of the arrest were out of state people. The same seems to be for every state, this is organized, people are inciting violence and anarchy... I think these riots are about looting and getting free stuff. That seems to be what everyone is doing, looting stores. Small businesses owned by people who have run out of money, out of insurance, and now they have nothing. The crimes committed by these riots far outweigh the police brutality that preceded it. We cannot condone these riots, have you seen the ghetto ass thugs who are doing this? It is scary and violent and they are happy smiling getting free shit from stores. This has nothing to do with the protests of the 60s for civil rights." OK? Now you know exactly what they're saying on White House news outlets like Fox News and on hate talk radio.

But not everyone on the right was happy with Trump's photo op. According to Axios, "Not everyone in the White House was thrilled with the church photo op. One senior aide [likely Miller] was exuberantly telling friends the photograph of him holding a Bible in front of the church that had been attacked by vandals was an 'iconic' moment for the president. But a senior White House official told Axios that when they saw the tear gas clearing the crowd for Trump to walk to the church with his entourage: 'I’ve never been more ashamed. I’m really honestly disgusted. I’m sick to my stomach. And they’re all celebrating it. They’re very very proud of themselves.'"

Paul Ryan's former top aide, Brendan Buck: "We long ago lost sight of normal, but this was a singularly immoral act. The president used force against American citizens, not to protect property, but to soothe his own insecurities. We will all move on to the next outrage, but this was a true abuse of power and should not be forgotten."

Even Tucker Carlson is having some misgivings about the fascist president he reflexively backs, tepidly criticizing Trump's abilities as a leader and Kushner-in-law's worth, asserting on Fox News that "No one has more contempt for the president’s supporters" than Jared, who he accused of breaking from Trump’s platform and talking Trump out of taking decisive actions.

Mark Leibovich for the NY Times yesterday: Trump Vowed to Disrupt Washington. Now He Faces Disruption in the Streets. "One of the recurring themes of the last three and a half years is that President Trump has disrupted Washington, just as his voters demanded. This is true in a certain sense: The Trump White House has been a chaotic drama, a procession of scandals, leaks, investigations, feuding protagonists and trampled norms. But one of the overlooked realities of the reality show is that the day-to-day existence of so-called official Washington has felt anything but disrupted. This gilded capital has actually been a serene and lovely place to live, work and visit, at least for those who can afford it. The trend has only accelerated through what until recently was the booming economy of the Trump presidency."

These last months, though, have been something else entirely. The reality has relegated the TV maestro in the White House to something of a sideshow.

In recent nights, the streets around the White House have been clogged with thousands of protesters, demonstrating against the police killing last week in Minneapolis of George Floyd, an African-American man. The crowds have been multiracial and comprised a free-for-all of purposes. Landmark restaurants, offices and a historic church have been burned and vandalized. By Monday, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser had set a curfew of 7 p.m. and activated the National Guard.

“Donald Trump is just a social media personality to us, the guy who told us to drink bleach,” said Artinese Campbell, 33, an African-American woman who has lived her whole life in Washington and who had come downtown Monday afternoon, just a few blocks from the White House, to visit her bank before it was boarded up and closed early in anticipation of another night of protests. She said she was sympathetic to the cause of the protesters but hoped they remained peaceful and had no plans to stick around to find out.

“I think most of us are numb to presidents who come in and talk about ‘change,’” Ms. Campbell said. “Nothing really changes if you’re black in America.”

...One thing was certain: No one was bemoaning the “shattered norms” perpetrated by the Trump administration or celebrating the “peaceful transfer of power” that may or may not occur in a few months. Television pundits have labeled the upcoming election as “existential” to the importance to the country’s direction. But it also felt beside the point-- like privilege talking-- in the crowds of the last few nights. This chaotic tableau felt so much more urgent, and close to home.

...[T]he national headquarters of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. were set ablaze during protests Sunday night. TV commentators described the conflagration as a strike against one of the fortresses of the American labor movement, a theoretical ally of the protesters in the struggle for a fairer power structure. Next door, flames engulfed St. John’s Episcopal Church, where two decades of presidents have come to worship-- the so-called Church of the Presidents.

Suddenly, though, these monuments to American progress and history felt like quaint abstractions, cherished by official Washington but just another thing to burn down for the Washington disrupters of 2020.

On Monday on a sidewalk across Farragut Square, in front of the boarded up Oval Room restaurant, a protester named Athena Kapsides, a Washington public-school teacher, said that Mr. Trump had in fact inspired a great deal of activism in opposition to his own actions. In that sense, she said, he has been a catalyst for change.

“President Trump himself has tried to present himself as a fighter, but really he only fights for himself,” said Ms. Kapsides, who grew up in the Washington suburbs and wore a T-shirt bearing the likeness of Colin Kaepernick, the former National Football League quarterback who protested police violence against African-Americans by kneeling during pregame renditions of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Many believe that his statement resulted in his blacklisting from the N.F.L., where he has not played since 2017.

“He’s been a force for disruption,” Ms. Kapsides said of Mr. Trump. “But maybe not always the kind of disruption he planned for.”

Ohio Special Election A Week From Today-- Trump's GOP Civil Way Is Screwing It All Up For The Republicans

Trying to out wing nut each other in a moderate district

On Saturday we took a look at one of the districts Republicans in the Ohio legislature has effectively gerrymandered to protect their own party, OH-12. As we said, the central Ohio district spreads out from Columbus' northern University District and the suburbs north and east of the city-- Worthington, Dubin, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna to Delaware County in the north and way up to Mansfield and Bellville and as far east as Newark, Zanesville and beyond. The PVI is R+7, safe for the GOP in any cycle except one with a Trump-inspired massive blue tsunami. Trump won it 53.2 to 41.9 in 2016 and voters there are feeling buyers' remorse now.

On Monday morning, Elena Schneider noted at Politico that there's another, more local problem for Republicans in the district a bitter civil war... and just in time a special election a week from today. "The race," she wrote, "pits the two wings of the House Republican Conference against each other, going all out to nominate rival candidates. On one side is the scrappy co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Jim Jordan, who is lining up behind Melanie Leneghan, a self-described Trump Republican. Jordan is going up against former Rep. Pat Tiberi, a close ally of GOP leadership who resigned from his seat in January and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from his old campaign account to boost state Sen. Troy Balderson as his successor." Club for Growth just started running this nasty ad attacking Balderson:



It's the kind of messaging (anti-healthcare) that could work in a Republican primary-- and backfire with independents in the general election.

It’s the latest in a series of mainstream-versus-outsider battles in Republican primaries around the country. But some of Balderson’s backers say there is more than intraparty politics at stake: They argue that a Leneghan primary win would put the GOP in danger of losing another special election this summer, in a district that’s been held for decades by Republicans like Tiberi and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Democrats have already flipped a Senate seat in Alabama and a House seat in Pennsylvania in recent months, and House Republicans would dearly love to avoid a repeat in August.

“[Leneghan] is out-of-step with mainstream Republicans that dominate that district, and we’ve got a bunch of candidates dividing up that majority, so we could pick someone who doesn’t represent the district with her pretty extreme viewpoints,” said Matt Borges, the former Ohio Republican Party chairman. “We’re looking at a situation where every seat counts to hang on the majority. We don’t need any self-inflicted wounds.”

Borges added: “I don’t want to see another Pennsylvania-18,” referring to the March special election in southwestern Pennsylvania, where Democrat Conor Lamb beat much-criticized Republican Rick Saccone in a district that Trump carried by almost 20 points in 2016. The president carried Ohio’s 12th District by a smaller margin in 2016, with 53 percent of the vote.

Another national Republican strategist put the situation in Ohio even more bluntly: “If she wins, the seat’s probably gone.”

Jordan dismissed that possibility in an interview with Politico, saying, “That’s always what the establishment and the swamp says.

“You’ve got to turn out the grassroots, if you’re going to win a special. So she’s the best one equipped to do that. She’s the best equipped to win the general,” Jordan said.

Jordan compared Leneghan to fellow Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson, the tea party- and Club-backed congressman who won the special election to replace former House Speaker John Boehner in 2016-- and promptly joined the House Freedom Caucus, the group of conservative hard-liners who had forced Boehner from the speakership.

“I guess you could say Melanie Leneghan will actually do what Republicans are supposed to do,” Jordan says in a pro-Leneghan TV ad aired by the super PAC House Freedom Action.

Tiberi took to the airwaves himself days after Jordan’s ad went up, and the former congressman has spent nearly a half-million dollars from his old campaign account to boost Balderson. Tiberi has said he wants “our next congressman to be worthy of the job,” calling Balderson a “conservative fighter who will stand for what’s right, not what’s easy” in his ads.

The former congressman has also invoked the March special election in Pennsylvania when asked about the race to replace him, telling The Columbus Dispatch that “we just saw last month in western Pennsylvania, a seat that Donald Trump won by twice as many votes [in 2016], go to a Democrat because the Republican was too conservative for the district.”

Balderson and Leneghan have often sounded similar notes during the primary campaign. Both promise to “end sanctuary cities” and build a wall on the Mexican border in their ads, and both have pledged to stand with Trump.

They are leading the Republican pack in Tiberi’s old 12th District, according to internal polling shared with Politico. But a handful of other candidates still have a path to victory in next week’s primary, including Tim Kane, a veteran and first-time candidate who’s running as an alternative to “career politicians.” Kevin Bacon, a state legislator since 2006, also has name recognition in the district.

“With this many candidates in the field, anything can happen,” said Mark Weaver, a Republican consultant working with Bacon.

But it’s Balderson and Leneghan who have drawn national attention to the primary. Club for Growth President David McIntosh called it an example of an “authentic conservative versus a ‘Main Street,’ but really a liberal to moderate, Republican.” That diagnosis has brought the Club for Growth into conflict with other forces within the GOP in primary after primary in recent years, especially in Republican-leaning House districts where an incumbent has retired. When Tiberi was considering a Senate run in 2017, the Club released polling showing him trailing its favored candidate and later ran ads suggesting Tiberi was “standing in the way” of health care reform.

...Balderson and his allies are not conceding the conservative space to Leneghan. Defending Main Street, a super PAC backed by the Republican Main Street Partnership, which frequently spars with the Club in Republican primaries, is also going negative in the race. Defending Main Street is attacking Leneghan in digital ads, stamping “Fake Republican” across her picture.

“As a township trustee, Leneghan authorized the paving of her own street. What paid for it? Your taxes,” the digital ad says. Defending Main Street has already spent $250,000 in positive TV ads boosting Balderson.

Fund for a Working Congress, another outside group, also dumped anti-Leneghan mailers on the district, attacking her for “[voting] to give herself a raise” and “[putting] herself before voters.”

“It is Pat’s seat, so I think he has a good sense of who should replace him,” said Sarah Chamberlain, president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. “Leneghan is running as the ultra-conservative in the race, but if you look at her voting record, it leaves question marks.”

Last week in Arizona there was a huge swing away from the GOP in a much redder district. If the swing is that big in OH-12, whichever Republican wins the primary will lose the seat. And in Arizona, the far right candidate who did win, Debbie Lesko, didn't campaign as an extremist... but the day after she scraped by with a margin of less than 5% (in a district Trump won with a margin over 20%), she announced she's joined the neo-fascist Freedom Caucus. She had been supported by Jordan as well.

Are You Rooting For Either Side In The Bitter Civil War Tearing The Republican Party Apart?

It would be hard to imagine any self-respecting DWT reader rooting for the Republican establishment-- think Paul Ryan and Miss McConnell-- who we've been fighting forever. We want them to get mauled, right? And then think of Mercer's neo-fascists led by Steve Bannon and all the scary garbage that comes with him. No one's rooting for the Nazis, right? Bannon and Mercer vs McConnell and Rove (while Ryan hides under the bed peeing in his pants and shivering)... what could go wrong? Let's hope for lots of blood. And don't kid yourself for one second... this is a fight to the death, not a kiss-and-make-up family spat.

The Washington Post has its top political journalistic brain trust on the beat: Dave Weigel, Bob Costa and Mike Scherer. And didn't they have fun on Wednesday! McConnell allies declare open warfare on Bannon. Alternative title: Bannon allies declare open warfare on Turtle. Odd, though, that McConnell, who is far less popular among the GOP base and right-ing opinion leaders than Bannon, has chosen to telegraph his intentions to the whole world.

More than a year ahead of the 2018 congressional contests, a ­super PAC aligned with McConnell (R-Ky.) revealed plans to attack Bannon personally as it works to protect GOP incumbents facing uphill primary fights. The effort reflects the growing concern of Republican lawmakers over the rise of anti-establishment forces and comes amid escalating frustration over President Trump’s conduct, which has prompted a handful of lawmakers to publicly criticize the president.

Yet the retaliatory crusade does not aim to target Trump, whose popularity remains high among Republican voters. Instead, the McConnell-allied Senate Leadership Fund (SLF) will highlight Bannon’s hard-line populism and attempt to link him to white nationalism to discredit him and the candidates he will support. It will also boost candidates with traditional GOP profiles and excoriate those tied to Bannon, with plans to spend millions and launch a heavy social media presence in some states.

So, the same team and the same tactics McConnell tried using-- unsuccessfully-- to protect swamp-creature Luther Strange from Alabama neo-Nazi Roy Moore. Maybe it will work in other states? I sincerely doubt McConnell will persuade Señor Trumpanzee to jump into the fray on his side this time. In fact, in some of these races, Trump may even come out on the sider of the Nazis, as he had planned to do in Arizona before Flake announced he was retiring. What will Trump do in Nevada? And in Wyoming? And what about in congressional districts? Th establishment candidate in State Island is incumbent Dan Donovan-- but he voted against TrumpCare-- and Bannon's candidate is Mafia thug Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm, a natural Trump candidate. NY-11 was the only congressional district in NYC where Trump won. He beat Hillary by a pretty massive 53.6% to 43.8% there and even if some of his lustre has diminished, he's still popular with GOP primary voters. I suspect there will be dozens of congressional seats Bannon contests (the reason Ryan's hiding under the bed). As the Post trio wrote, "The turbulence presents a danger to Republicans’ narrow 52-seat majority in the Senate, with seasoned GOP lawmakers deciding against seeking reelection amid the political storm-- and with many GOP voters cheering the rancor that Bannon has stoked from his perch at his website, Breitbart."

Some Republican lawmakers have privately fretted that simply speaking out against Trump’s incendiary statements or the ­Bannon-aligned candidates that are rousing anger in their states will not be enough-- and could backfire-- as they try to survive the surge of grievance-driven politics that has gripped the GOP’s base.

Hedge fund executive Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah-- Bannon’s wealthy allies-- have pledged millions to the cause, said people briefed on their plans.

Bannon’s critics argue that he is causing unnecessary internal divisions that could make it harder to pass tax legislation-- and to win general elections next fall. They also point to Sen. Luther Strange’s defeat in last month’s Republican primary in a special Senate election in Alabama as an example of a dynamic they worry could repeat itself across the next year if left unchecked. The SLF spent more than $10 million to help Strange.

...“This is a guy who is more interested in seeing his name in the headlines than he is in any kind of accomplishment for the president,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to McConnell who has been increasingly outspoken in his opposition to Bannon. “It comes at great cost to the president’s term, the Republican Party and any hope they can have at working as a team.”

On Wednesday, the SLF’s Twitter account mocked Danny Tarkanian-- a frequent conservative candidate in Nevada who is challenging Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)-- for suggesting that Heller join him in pledging to oppose McConnell as majority leader.

That attack was one of a number of swipes at Bannon that have popped up as the former White House adviser has emerged as a player on the national political scene. Holmes and others have called him a “white supremacist.”

...“Do we need any further evidence than Mitch McConnell and his cronies reducing themselves to using left-wing talking points to attack Steve? It’s pathetic to watch,” said Andy Surabian, a senior adviser to the Great America Alliance super PAC and Bannon’s former deputy at the White House. The pro-Trump PAC is engaged in a slew of races, sending around a bus to rally activists, and counts longtime operative Edward Rollins as its strategist. “Every poll shows Mitch McConnell is an albatross on the Republican candidates,” Surabian said. “If McConnell truly cared about our Republican majority in the Senate more than he cares about his own power, then he would step down as Senate majority leader today.”

Bannon’s circle says the contents of his divorce proceedings, along with claims of racism, are unlikely to do new damage to his reputation, since he has been targeted in the past along those same lines by Democrats, and even in a Saturday Night Live caricature as an angel of death. Advisers also note that the attacks elevate Bannon’s profile, which could help carry his anti-establishment message.

In an email, SLF President Steven Law said he expects Bannon to become a liability for any insurgent candidates he supports in 2018.

“But his real impact would be felt in general elections, where Bannon’s well-documented, toxic views and alt-right paper trail could become a liability for candidates who are perceived as closely tied to him,” Law said.

According to public polling, neither McConnell nor Bannon is in good standing with voters. In an April poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, one of few to ask voters about Bannon, just 11 percent said they viewed him positively and 45 percent said they viewed him negatively. The numbers were better among Republicans, with a nine-point favorability margin.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), one of the incumbents mentioned as a possible target for Bannon in 2018, dismissed the effort to get Senate Republicans to sign pledges vowing to oppose McConnell.

“No, I haven’t signed pledges. I didn’t sign Grover Norquist’s pledge,” Barrasso said on Wednesday, referring to the anti-tax advocate’s famous pledge. “I’m not a guy that signs pledges, and I’m going to vote for whoever I believe is in the best interests of the people of Wyoming.”

...McConnell’s polling among Republicans has tumbled since the start of the year-- a fact that Bannon has used to his advantage. On Tuesday, Bannon’s Breitbart website reported that a Harvard-Harris poll found 56 percent of Republicans in favor of dumping McConnell as leader. That same day, at a media roundtable organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a reporter for Breitbart asked members of the House Freedom Caucus to respond to the poll number.

“It was that high?” scoffed Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), wondering jokingly about why it wasn’t even higher.

GOP donors who are friendly with McConnell welcomed the effort to thwart Bannon’s attempts to shape the 2018 contests and rattle McConnell as Senate Republicans are trying to work with Trump.

“Absolutely. Why not?” said Al Hoffman, a major Republican donor and McConnell ally. “You’ve got to get rid of the Bannon banner.”

Mainstream Republicans-- i.e., non-fascists-- are panic-stricken that the Mercer-Bannon brand will destroy the Republican Party. McConnell-- through SLF's Steven Law-- is getting the message out that "In states where Trump is popular, Bannon gives Democrats an alternate pathway to fire up their base and appeal to swing voters who support the president but recoil at Bannon’s racially-charged worldview." Yeah, well that's one way to put it. But a better way to put it is that independent voters-- who decide the winners in almost every non-Confederate district in America-- are repulsed by fascism and by Bannon (and by Trump).

The Fox News poll is not a poll of Fox viewers. It's a non-partisan poll of normal registered voters. They just released a new one that shows Trump with his highest ever disapproval in their polling 57% disapprove (10 points worse than last February). Trump's approval is an anemic 38%, his lowest ever in their polling-- also 10 points worse than last February. Trump is underwater on every single issue: the economy (44% approve, 49% disapprove), taxes (37% approve, 51% disapprove), North Korea (35% approve, 59% disapprove), Iran (34% approve, 55% disapprove), health care (33% approve, 60 disapprove). This is what Republican congressional candidates going into the midterms will have hung around their necks. Fox also asked respondents "If the election for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?" They've been asking this question since June 2010 but in all those 17 years there has never been a number with the Democrats so high (50%) and the Republicans so low (35%). When people say they see a tsunami forming up, this is what they're talking about. These numbers-- if they hold up, and there's more reason that they will get worse for the GOP than better-- indicate not just the House Republicans being pushed out of power but the end of political careers for Republicans once considered "safe," from Paul Ryan (WI) to heavy duty committee and subcommittee chairs like Ed Royce (CA), Fred Upton (MI), Rodney Davis (IL), John Culberson (TX), Lamar Smith (TX), Elise Stefanik (NY), Virginia Foxx (NC), Pat Meehan (PA), Chris Smith (NJ), Dana Rohrabacher (CA), John Katko (NY), Dan Donovan (NY), Peter King (NY), Pete Sessions (TX), Steve Chabot (OH), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Duncan Hunter (CA), Peter Roskam (IL), Devin Nunes (CA)-- a virtual decapitation of the congressional Republican caucus. Bannon can only play one role-- making every worse-- much, much worse-- for the GOP in 2018.

What Does Keynote Speaker Steve Bannon Augur For The California Republican Party?

Friday night, Bannon gave the keynote address at the California Republican Party convention in Anaheim where he savagely attacked George W. Bush in response to Bush's NY speech the day before about the fascism Bannon has brought to the GOP. He depicted Bush as bumbling and inept, faulting him for presiding over a "destructive" presidency. Bannon said "It was clear he didn't understand anything he was talking about."

"There has not been a more destructive presidency than George Bush's," Bannon said during his dinnertime address at the convention banquet of the California Republican Party. He said Bush had "embarrassed himself" with a "high falutin" speech.

..."He has no earthly idea of whether he's coming or going," Bannon said, implying that Bush had mindlessly given a speech written for him by a speechwriter, "just like it was when he was President of the United States."

Bannon's sharply worded takedown of the 43rd President, who disappointed many of his GOP supporters with his huge increases in government spending and lengthy military entanglements abroad, illustrated the deepening divide within the Republican Party, and foreshadowed what Bannon has described as a "season of war" on the Republican establishment a year before the 2018 midterm elections.

...The reaction to Bannon's scathing criticism of Bush was mixed. At first, some in the crowd had booed loudly at the mere mention of Bush's name. There was also scattered applause and some shouts of support. But others in the crowd remained quiet.

Asserting that his wing of the party is in the midst of assembling a grassroots army, Bannon issued a call to action to those who share his point of view.

...Bannon also dispatched an arrow at Karl Rove, who wrote what he called a "very unfriendly" piece about Bannon's plans for recruiting mid term candidates in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal.

After an offhand reference, Bannon explained that he hadn't meant to utter Rove's name Friday night: "I don't like punching down," he said of Rove, "so I'm not going to say anything."

For a little context, Bannon's brand of fascism has been a catastrophe for the California GOP. Last year Trump did worse than any Republican in living memory. Let's go back to 1960, when JFK was elected president. California voted for Nixon with 50.1%. These are the GOP California results since then:

• 1964- Goldwater- 44.74%
• 1968- Nixon- 47.82%
• 1972- Nixon- 55.0%
• 1976- Ford- 49.35%
• 1980- Reagan- 52,69%
• 1984- Reagan- 57.51%
• 1988- HW Bush- 51.13%
• 1992- HW Bush- 32.61%
• 1996- Dole- 38.21%
• 2000- W. Bush- 41.65%
• 2004- W. Bush- 44.36%
• 2008- McCain- 36.95%
• 2012- Romney- 37.12%
• 2016- Trumpanzee- 31.62%

Last year Hillary beat Trump in the Golden State 8,753,788 to 4,483,810. Her margin was 30.11%, the highest since FDR's 35.25% margin in 1936, which was also the last time Orange County went blue until Trump showed up as the candidate. On primary day Trump had taken 1,665,135 votes. Californians gave Hillary the primary win but Bernie still outpolled Trump significantly (2,381,722 votes). Trump lost all the counties with big populations. These are Trump's percentages in the 9 counties with over a million people:

• Los Angeles- 22.41%
• San Diego- 36.57%
• Orange- 42.35%
• Riverside- 44.35%
• San Bernardino- 41.48%
• Santa Clara- 20.58%
• Alameda- 14.66%
• Sacramento- 33.93%
• Contra Costa- 24.87%

Many of the Republican activists who made up the crowd at CAGOP17 booed both Bush and McCain. One screamed "Hang him!" when Bannon mentioned McCain. 2018 Is looking like a particular donnybrook for California Republicans. At this point I wouldn't bet on the reelections of Darrell Issa, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight, Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Mimi Walters or even Duncan Hunter, Jr.


Ted Lieu (D-CA) is the DCCC Regional Vice Chair for the West Coast. He's in Oregon this weekend, encouraging Democrats there to fight back against Trumpism and against the alt-right. Saturday night he gave the keynote speech at the Oregon Democratic Party's convention. Today he warned that, "Steve Bannon is looney tunes. He is so unhinged that even the Trump White House fired him. Now he is taking Republicans down the dark path of alt-right craziness. GOP Members of Congress in California need to either publicly disavow Bannon's dangerous and extremist philosophy, or they own it. I can't wait to plaster Bannon and his evil views all over Republican Congress Members during next year's midterm elections."

UPDATE: Devin Nunes And Steve Bannon?

Nunes' progressive opponent, Ricardo Franco, wrote us a note today telling us that "Ted Lieu is right: this is going to be fantastic for us! We've already seen some local Republicans distance themselves from the Arpaio event. Other Republicans have had to come over and voice support for DACA. I'm hearing rumors that another local republican will want to primary Devin Nunes. As a candidate, being able to bring up Bannon is a godsend in starting dialogue with unhappy, local Republicans. It allows us to come together over a common enemy and find from there topics upon which we can agree and then turn the conversation to local issues. It takes time, but it can happen." And he went on from there: 

Democrats, too, are facing their own internal struggle. Locally, we're focused on finding a winning a strategy and sticking to it. This means building up your base. However, I have proved that UNHAPPY Republicans and no party preference can be swayed. A Trump supporter even bought me a beer last week!

The problem in the valley is that the answer to a Bannon or Trump is not a moderate, Blue Dog Dem. If fearing Trump in 2016 wasn't enough to get people to vote Dem, inciting fear of Bannon won't do much to garner support of independents; it will only encourage more registered Dems to get out and vote this time which, while crucial, doesn't put us over the top.

Voters here like the "outsider," non-establishment, "one of us," practical, yet fierce fighter that they saw in Trump's candidacy... not afraid to propose big ideas, like a wall or banning Muslims. This is why the left answer to Trump has to be someone more progressive... same traits, but different agenda. If a candidate is uninspiring, they might as well just quit now.

People Who Tell You Trump Can Win Reelection In 2020 Are Using Some Very Powerful Drugs-- Get Some

The Tiki Torch Leader by Hugh Brown

In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Steve Bannon’s Motley Crew of Challengers-- One is fresh out of prison. Another held a town hall to discuss ‘chemtrail’ theories, Karl Rove basically said the Republican establishment is fine fighting a war against Bannon's brand of fascism: Bring It On, Asshole! "Steve Bannon, the failed presidential adviser and alt-right sympathizer," he wrote pointedly," has declared war on incumbent Republicans, particularly Sen. Mitch McConnell. From his perch at Breitbart, Mr. Bannon is vowing to defeat officeholders who back Mr. McConnell as majority leader or who won’t sign onto Mr. Bannon’s populist agenda. So what kind of challengers is Mr. Bannon marshaling for the midterms?" Staten Island Mafioso Mikey Suits made great target for Rove's outrage and went on to suggest "Bannon has picked a team... of misfits and ne’er-do-wells."

I would bet Rove didn't read Charles Blow's NY Times column before he wrote it... but he should have. Señor Trumpanzee is certainly laying to rest myriad conventional norms and one is Godwin's Law, which Godwin himself has said is suspended while Trump is in politics. And Blow went there-- pr almost did. I think he isn't aware Godwin has said his Law is more... flexible for Trump than it was for, say, Bush or Cheney. "It is a commonly accepted rule among those who are in the business of argument," wrote Blow, "especially online, that he or she who invokes Adolf Hitler, either in oratory or essays, automatically forfeits the argument. The reference is deemed far too extreme, too explosive, too far beyond rational correlation. No matter how bad a present-day politician, not one of them has charted or is charting a course to exterminate millions of innocent people as an act of ethnic cleansing. Hitler stands alone in this regard, without rival, a warning to the world about how evil and lethal human beings can be, a warning that what he did can never be allowed again."

That said, there are strategies that Hitler used to secure power and rise-- things that allowed his murderous reign-- that can teach us about political theory and practice. And very reasonable and sage comparisons can be drawn between Hitler’s strategies and those of others.

One of those lessons is about how purposeful lying can be effectively used as propaganda. The forthcoming comparison isn’t to Hitler the murderer, but to Hitler the liar.

According to James Murphy’s translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”

...“It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

This demonstrates a precise understanding of human psychology, but also the dangerously manipulative nature that operates in the mind of a demon.

And yet, as many have noted, no person of sound reason or even cursory political awareness can read this and not be immediately struck by how similar this strategy of lying is to Donald Trump’s seeming strategy of lying: Tell a lie bigger than people think a lie can be, thereby forcing their brains to seek truth in it, or vest some faith in it, even after no proof can be found.

Trump is no Hitler, but the way he has manipulated the American people with outrageous lies, stacked one on top of the other, has an eerie historical resonance. Demagogy has a fixed design.

It should be mentioned that Vanity Fair reported in 1990 that Trump’s first wife, Ivana, “told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.” The magazine pointed out that “Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.”

...Trump has found a way to couch the lies so that people believe they don’t emanate from him but pass through him. He is not a producer but a projector.

One way he does this is by using caveats-- “I was told,” “Lots of people are saying” -- as shields. Jenna Johnson of the Washington Post addressed this in June 2016, writing about Trump’s use of the phrase “a lot of people are saying”:

“Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier-- ‘people think’ or ‘some say.’ If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.”

...He even projects his own ignorance onto others with his lies. As Steve Benen pointed out in July on MSNBC.com, Trump’s “awkward process of discovery has, however, produced a phrase of underappreciated beauty: ‘A lot of people don’t know that.’ These seven words are Trump’s way of saying, ‘I just learned something new, and I’m going to assume others are as ignorant as I am.’”

This is not a simple fear of the truth; it is a weaponizing of untruth. It is the use of the lie to assault and subdue. It is Trump doing to political ends what Hitler did to more brutal ends: using mass deception as masterful propaganda.

Maybe I have crossed the ink-stained line of the essay writer, where Hitler is always beyond it. But I don’t think so. Ignoring what one of history’s greatest examples of lying has to teach us about current examples of lying, particularly lying by the “president” of the most powerful country in the world, seems to me an act of timidity in a time of terror. It is an intentional self-blinding to avoid offending frail sensibilities.

I have neither time nor patience for such tiptoeing. I prefer the boot of truth to slam down to earth like thunder, no matter the shock of hearing its clap.

The world has seen powerful leaders use lying as a form of mass manipulation before. It is seeing it now, and it will no doubt see it again. History recycles. But the result doesn’t have to be-- and hopefully never will be again-- a holocaust. It can manifest as a multitude of other, lesser horrors, in both protocol and policy, including the corrosion and regression of country and culture.

That is the very real threat we are facing. Trump isn’t necessarily a direct threat to your life-- unless of course you are being kept alive by health care that he keeps threatening, or if you’re in Puerto Rico reeling in the wake of two hurricanes-- but he is very much a threat to your quality of life.

The only question is: Are enough Americans sufficiently discerning to understand that this time they are the ones being manipulated?

Now consider the latest Granite State Poll, released this week. A tad early for 2020 primary polling? Yes, absolutely. BUT... one gets a good look at what New Hampshire Republicans are thinking about their party's leader right now. And it's pretty shocking. Trump almost won New Hampshire last year. The state was certainly not Hillary country. Bernie won the primary 151,584 (60.4%) to 95,252 (38.0%). Although Trump came in first on primary day with 100,406, Bernie bested him and runner up, John Kasich combined (145,315). On election day Hillary pulled 348,521 votes (47.6%) to Trumpanzee's 345,789 (47.2%), the closest state in the country.

Inasmuch as I've seen this poll discussed, it's because of the Democratic presidential primary results, for which-- much to the chagrin of the corrupt Democratic establishment-- has Bernie way out ahead, leading Joe "Mr credit card bankruptcy bill" Biden 31% to 24%. The only declared candidate, self funding multimillionaire New Dem shithead John Delaney (D-MD) is polling at exactly what he deserves to be polling at: ZERO. But today I want to look at the polling of New Hampshire Republicans.

Only 18% of Republican primary voters say they have definitely decided whom they will support for the 2020 Republican Presidential Primary. Five percent say they are leaning toward someone while 77% say they are still trying to decide. Just under half (47%) of likely Republican primary voters say they plan on voting for Donald Trump.

A Sweet Part Of 2018's Electoral History Will Be The Mercer Billionaires' War On The Republican Party

Didn't Iggy Pop have a totally awesome song for this?

The Mercers have hired Steve Bannon to run it for them, but the GOP civil war tearing the Republican Parry to shreds could never happen without the profligate spending of two of America's most odious characters, Robert Mercer, the fascist father, and Rebekah Mercer, the equally crazy crackpot daughter. Tuesday, Bannon was in Scottsdale with Kelli Ward, the neo-Nazi GOP challenger to beleaguered Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who's tops on Señor T's hate list.

Bannon was on the warpath against Mitch McConnell again-- Alabama redux-- pledging that the Republican elite are destined to "reap the whirlwind" and "that whirlwind is Kelli Ward." No one could be less deserving on this bounty than Schumer's handpicked corrupt Blue Dog, Kyrsten Sinema, who is also running and is delighted to see the Arizona GOP eviscerate itself. Bannon wasn't lying when he said the "new aristocracy," could not care less about the economic well-being of Americans. He raged that McConnell and other Republican senators disrespect and try to destroy Trump every day.

His remarks were another salvo in the "war" Bannon has declared on the GOP establishment.

“It’s an open revolt, and it should be,” Bannon said before introducing Ward at her campaign’s formal kickoff event at the Hilton Scottsdale Resort & Villas.

"These people hold you in total contempt," he said. "When they attack a Donald Trump and a Dr. Kelli Ward, it's not Donald Trump and Kelli Ward that they're trying to shut up. It's you they're trying to shut up... They think you're a group of morons."

This revolt, he said, is moving from Alabama, where the Bannon-supported Roy Moore just defeated incumbent Sen. Luther Strange in a Republican runoff, to Arizona, where the first-term Flake is up for re-election in 2018 after refusing to endorse or vote for Trump last year.

"It's going to be their money versus your money," Bannon said.

Ward, a former state senator from Lake Havasu City, last year unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the primary.

This year, some on the right have been searching for another candidate to take on Flake, who this summer published a book, Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and A Return to Principle, in which he criticized the Republican Party for embracing Trumpism.

  However, early polls have shown Flake to be deeply vulnerable, and with Ward leading him.

Ward will secure the southern border and build a wall, Bannon said, will repeal and replace "Obamacare," and will negotiate Trump-style trade deals that "represent you and the American people."

"We're building a grass-roots army," Bannon said.

McConnell, who spent something like $10,000,000 against Bannon and Roy Moore in Alabama-- only to lose miserably-- isn't giving up. His team says they will fight back against the threat from the Mercer/Bannon extremists. Crooked Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who is certainly in Bannon's sites, told the media he thinks Bannon is "going to back off on that. He certainly should. He’s a smart guy, and he’s going to realize that’s unfruitful. Where he ought to be spending his time is going after those who are screwing up the country all these years, and they don’t happen to be Republicans... I like Trump. I endorsed him. I think he’ll endorse me."

Hatch, 83, vowed when he ran in 2016 that he wouldn't run again, but he's addicted to the power and prestige of his corrupt life in the DC swamp, making him easy pickings for Bannon and Mercer. McConnell, who isn't up for reelection this cycle, is trying to portray himself as in control and not freaking out. He isn't in control and he is freaking out. Tuesday he pledged to use the power of the purse to back incumbents, the key to his own power.

“We had an experience in 2010 and 2012 nominating candidates in primaries who couldn’t win the general election,” he said, citing past conservative challengers who defeated candidates backed by the party leadership only to lose to Democrats on Election Day.

One famous instance was in 2012 when conservative candidate Richard Mourdock beat longtime GOP incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) before losing what was thought to be a safe Republican seat to Democrat Joe Donnelly.

“Our strategy going forward is to protect our incumbents and to help people get nominated who can actually win elections,” McConnell told reporters after meeting with colleagues over lunch.

It was a signal to colleagues that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC linked to McConnell, would pour money into primaries next year if necessary to protect incumbents.

“The message is that [McConnell is] going to be there and we’re going to be there to back incumbents and candidates that we think are electable,” said Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (S.D.), the third-ranking member of the GOP leadership.

Thune said he expects the NRSC will spend resources in primaries to defend incumbents.

...The committee’s spending on Senate GOP primaries next year will depend on state-by-state coordination limits and how much traction a conservative challenger may be gaining against an incumbent, said a GOP strategist familiar with internal discussions about the 2018 races.

Senate Republicans say they hope McConnell can persuade Trump, with whom he has had a rocky relationship this year, to pressure Bannon to back off loyal incumbents such as Senate Republican Policy Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), who are both up for reelection.

Trump acknowledged McConnell’s concerns at a joint press conference with the GOP leader Monday and hinted that he may step in.

“Some of the people that he may be looking at, I’m going to see if we talk him out of that, because frankly, they’re great people,” Trump said Monday of some of the GOP lawmakers in Bannon’s sights.

Senate GOP leaders argue it would be smart for Trump to support the incumbents he will need to vote for tax reform and other items on his agenda.

“I hope he will; I think he will,” Thune said. “They’re the kind of people he’ll need to get his agenda through.”

Barrasso and Fischer, two Republicans on Bannon’s target list, say they will focus on doing their jobs and serving their constituents. Neither said whether they would seek an endorsement from Trump.

But what happens if Miss McConnell opens his purse and there's nothing in it but moths? That's exactly what Mercer and Bannon are trying to make happen. Yesterday Bannon took his circus routine to an event for contemptible billionaires that the Mercers put together in New York. Alex Isenstadt, writing for Politico reported that Bannon and Mercer are persuading big McConnell donors that McConnell is a sinking ship they should abandon before it's too late. Last week Bannon was in Atlanta wooing vile GOP fatcat Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who's spent millions on Senate Republicans and now complains about "the lack of return on his investment." Bannon has been running around the country talking to the overly entitled GOP sugar daddies like Marcus-- under-taxed right-wing multimillionaires and billionaires, including John Childs, Foster Friess, Susan Gore, Sheldon Adelson, Ed Bosarge, Eric Crown, Dan Eberhart and Scott Bessent.

How many Republican givers will sign on with Bannon is an open question; people close to him declined to say whether he had financial commitments. Ideologically and temperamentally, the pugilistic head of Breitbart News isn't exactly a natural fit with the traditional Republican moneyed set. There is also concern in the donor world that having Bannon-aligned outsiders in the Senate Republican Conference would make it harder, not easier, to reach consensus on legislation.

But Marcus is thinking about joining Bannon. An adviser, Steve Hantler, said the billionaire intends to give his party until the end of the year to pass legislation and then would weigh his options.

“Like many donors, if the gridlock continues in Washington, Mr. Marcus will consider new approaches to breaking the gridlock, including those proposed by Steve Bannon and others,” he said.

Asked whether Marcus is open to funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents, Hantler responded: “You will have to draw your own conclusion.”

...There is serious skepticism at the highest levels of the party apparatus that Bannon's donor initiative will succeed. Some contributors who’ve met with him say the outreach is still in its nascent stage. Others have reacted coolly to the idea, reluctant to go after lawmakers just as the tax reform fight is about to begin. Adelson has told people close to him that he’s not interested in funding primary challengers, though Bannon didn't ask him for money during their meeting.

...The party establishment is racing to lock down financial support. On Thursday evening, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host a fundraising reception and dinner for Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, just two days after Bannon attends a donor event for his primary opponent, Kelli Ward. McConnell, meanwhile, has reached out to Adelson in the past month to gauge his interest in giving to Senate Republicans.

Senior Republicans are also trying to assure givers they hear their frustrations. The NRSC, which has seen its fundraising plummet in recent months, held a retreat in Sea Island, Georgia, over the weekend that drew about 300 lobbyists and bundlers.

Tax reform was front-and-center at a breakfast panel discussion that included Georgia Sen. David Perdue, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner. As the audience piled their plates with eggs and bacon, the senators acknowledged in blunt terms that the political consequences would be dire for Republicans if they don't pass tax legislation, according to two people present.

Bannon declared at a gathering of evangelicals last week that "money doesn't matter anymore" for Republican incumbents trying to fend off insurgent challengers. The message was this: Huge war chests can no longer save incumbents against underfunded outsider candidates with fervid grass-roots support.

But given his activity, Bannon believes his candidates will need some money to take out incumbents.

While Bannon is orchestrating much of the anti-establishment campaign on his own, he has also gotten a boost from the White House. Earlier this month, Nick Ayers, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence and a veteran GOP strategist, told a group of Republican National Committee donors they should withhold their financial support to incumbents and instead give to primary challengers if Congress fails to pass President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The message was warmly received by many of the influential donors in the room, including Louis DeJoy. The North Carolina business executive, who has given over $30,000 to the NRSC this year, said he isn’t interested in bankrolling GOP challengers.

But he and other donors are fed up with the failures of the Republican Congress.

"I raise money, and I hear the frustration from everybody," DeJoy said. "Everybody knows the money is drying up."