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.

Saudi Arabia Needs EMILY's List... And France Needs To Remember How Bad Fascism Is

France was an absolute monarchy in 1302 when the aristocracy (including ecclesiastics) forced a semi-parliament, the Estates-General, on the crown in return for agreeing to pay taxes. With few exceptions, the body had little power and France remained an absolute monarchy. When Louis XVI summoned the Estates-General in 1789-- the first in 175 years!-- he wanted taxes but was surprised when the Third Estate (representatives of the common people) declared a National Assembly and started writing a constitution and eventually helped bring on the French Revolution, the First Republic, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the end of the monarchy.

This weekend France voted for regional assemblies-- and Saudi Arabia, which is still an absolute monarchy where elected bodies have virtually no real powers, allowed women to vote in municipal elections for the first time. I think New Zealand was the first country to give women the right to vote (1893). The first European country to do so was Finland (1907), although it didn't matter much since Finland was a Grand Duchy ruled by the Tsar of Russia. Norway gave women the right to vote in 1913, as did France in 1944, not that long ago. The 19th Amendment to the U.S> Constitution was finally approved in 1920 giving all American women the right to vote. Switzerland didn't do it 'til 1971 and the ladies of Liechtenstein didn't get the vote until 1984. This weekend, Saudi women had their first chance to vote and to run for office. (They still can't drive though.) So far something like 17 women were elected to municipal councils. Only 1.32 million men and 130,000 women out of a population of 20 million bothered to vote. (There were no elections at all before 2005 and this was the country's third.)

No candidates addressed the broader issues of democracy, human rights or the role of sharia law and punishments, which attract so much attention abroad. Saudis who boycotted the poll dismissed it as window dressing, arguing that real the power rests firmly with the royal family, the religious establishment and male ministers.

...No candidates addressed the broader issues of democracy, human rights or the role of sharia law and punishments, which attract so much attention abroad. Saudis who boycotted the poll dismissed it as window dressing, arguing that real the power rests firmly with the royal family, the religious establishment and male ministers.

It was a very different story in France, where women have been voting for almost a hundred years and where one, a crackpot neo-fascist wants to run for president next time. Even though National Front leader Marine Le Pen sought to distance herself from Herr Trumpf before today's run-off regional elections, it was too little, too late. Increased voter turn-out in the face of fascist inroads in the first round, swamped her xenophobic party, which didn't win a single region and came in third nationally. She and her niece both lost their own elections as well-- Marine in the Nord-Pas de Calais region where she was beaten 57-42% and Marion Marechal-Le Pen in the southern Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur region where she lost 55-45%. All 13 regions went to the center right (led by Sarkozy) or the center-left (led by Hollande). Still, support for the fascists was the highest its ever been, with nearly 7 million voters casting their ballots for the National Front.

Le Pen's campaign was largely based on anti-immigration hysteria and anti-EU fervor. In last weekend's first round, her National Front fascists were leading in 6 of the country's 13 regions and were drooling at the prospect of winning even one, since they have never managed to do so, But a 7% increase in voter turn-out dashed her hopes as region after region reported. In the first round the National Front took 30.6% of the vote and the center right (Les Républicains) took 27%, while the Socialist Party collapsed at 22.7%.

Yesterday Les Républicains won Ile-de-France (the Paris region), Normandy, Pays de la Loire, PACA, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine, Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie and the Socialist Party won in Brittany, Centre-Val de Loire, Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées, Aquitaine and Burgundy. (Corsica voted for an independent regional party.) The Socialists had pulled their candidates from the Provence Alpes Cote d’Azur and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais regions and the and told their supporters to back Les Républicains to keep the fascists out of power. Le Pen had a fit and accused Hollande of undemocratic moves.

But, don't kid yourself, the National Front won almost 7 million votes, their most ever and France is a lot closer to having its first fascist government since Vichy's Philippe Pétain moved to Germany in 1944. (He was tried for treason in 1945 and sentenced to death, although DeGaulle commuted his sentence to life imprisonment and he lived on a tiny Atlantic island, the Île d'Yeu until he died there in 1951. He is also buried there but if the National Front ever comes to power, they will probably dig him up and re-bury him at Verdun, the scene of his greatest historic moment. Pétain's fellow fascist traitors, François Darlan and Pierre Laval, met the kind of ends that all fascists deserve, assassination for Darlan and a trial and firing squad for Laval.

On this day in 1975, Patti Smith's debut album, Horses was released. Most politicians don't impact anyone's life in any real way, except for the bad. Patti, on the other hand... How many women and how many men had their lives changed because of Patti Smith? Just sayin'.

Women Can Be Dangerous

I've learned long ago to distrust and ignore mass e-mail strings. They're usually just crazy right wing propaganda. But my neighbor Cynthia sent me one yesterday that is anything but crazy or right-wing or propaganda. Coincidentally, it comes right in the middle of a limited run Los Angeles performance by an old friend, actress and writer Amy Simon. The new play is She's History-- The Most Dangerous Woman In America... Then And Now and asks the question, "Why do we know more about Paris Hilton than Abigail Adams?" The e-mail chain, however, was about a new-to-HBO movie, Iron Jawed Angels, about the women's suffrage movement. Here's the trailer; give it a look:



The woman who started the e-mail chain described it as "a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder." We all need to be reminded-- which is why I love Mike Lux's book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, so much. Better than anyone else has, Mike contrasts-- historically-- the progressive worldview with the conservative worldview from the conservative rejection of the Declaration of independence to the conservative rejection of the Bill of Rights to the conservative rejection of universal suffrage, to the conservative rejection of unions, child labor laws, public education, national parks, regulations for businesses, minimum wage, healthcare, Social Security... if you're reading DWT you probably know all this already... and of course, to the conservative rejection of enfranchising women.

It always amazes me how quickly we forget how "our" group-- whether "we" are Irish, Italian, Asian or Jewish immigrants or Blacks or women or people with handicaps or poor people or workers-- forgets how "we" had to fight for our legitimate aspirations against conservatives who, by nature, always oppose change. I mean, that's what defines a conservative-- they are against change. They want to pull up the ladder and kick any under them in the mouth. I want to go back and quote the woman who sent out the e-mail about the movie again:

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.
 
The doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."

Just below it is this picture of Helena Hill Weed from Norwalk, Connecticut serving a 3 day sentence in a Washington, D.C. prison for carrying a banner that read, "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." There were pictures of other women arrested, jailed, beaten. "By the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic... They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cell mate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.
 
Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food-- all of it colorless slop-- was infested with worms."

Something tells me none of this is going to be in the new history books being written for what's left of the American school system by a roomful of Texas crackpots and religious fanatics. And that makes movies like this and plays like Amy Simon's all the more crucial. On her blog, Amy has pages of Fabulous Female Facts. I had never heard of Prudence Crandall (1803-1890) until I read about her there.

A lucky educated Quaker teacher who wanted to share the gift of schooling, dear Prudence opened a private school for girls; The Canterbury Female Boarding School in 1831, in Connecticut. It was a gutsy move. Historically, education was denied to females, as they were considered intellectually inferior with tiny brains (and an oversized pelvis-- there were actual drawings by medical doctors!) and belonged in their “domestic sphere." The school had a great reputation and enjoyed success-- until dear Prudence admitted twenty-year old Sarah Harris, an African American girl who wanted to become a teacher. Well! The town of Canterbury went ballistic, with many white parents withdrawing their daughters and basically closed the school down. Undaunted, dear Prudence re-opened but this time just for “young ladies and little misses of color." She had the support of many nationally prominent abolitionists, including famed William Lloyd Garrison and the entire Anti-Slavery Society, but that did not stop the citizens of Connecticut from showering the school with mud, eggs and stones, and ultimately passing “The Black Law” prohibiting black students from attending school in their fair state. Poor Prudence was attacked by a mob, arrested twice and even had her home partially destroyed. Who could blame her for leaving town?  She moved with her hubby to Illinois where she continued advocating for women’s rights. The state of Connecticut tried to make it up to her by sending her $400 a year until her death in 1890. Today you can visit the Prudence Crandall Museum, a National Historic Landmark, observe Prudence Crandall Day and in 1995 she was declared Connecticut’s State Heroine.

I May Be The Only Person In America To Feel Some Sympathy For Thomas Mitchell

Not many Americans know who Thomas Mitchell is. But in Las Vegas they do. He's the powerful, somewhat deranged publisher of Nevada's biggest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The New York Times it's not, but Mitchell's own blog on the paper's website is crackpot central. Last week he made a jackass out of himself advocating repealing the 19th Amendment, the one giving women the vote. (Conservatives have been gung-ho lately on repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, but Mitchell is the first loon I've heard publicly call for taking away the right of suffrage from women.)

[W]e must repeal the 19th Amendment. Yes, the one granting suffrage to women. Because? Well, women are biased.

Just look at the poll results in today’s newspaper.

Men favored the attractive former beauty queen Sue Lowden over the graying Harry Reid by 22 points, while women shunned their gender mate, choosing Reid by a 2-point margin. Which proves women favor Democrats... Men are consistent. Women are fickle and biased.

His right-wing paper has no women on its editorial board, and it's a paper that had to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit with a former female editor who was passed over for a promotion. All major news decisions are made by men. The female city editor and news editor report to Mitchell. So why do I feel sympathy for this somewhat malevolent nut-case?

I'm thinking that he might not actually know any intelligent women. (7.4% of Nevadans are Mormans-- more than other state other than Utah, Idaho and Wyoming.) Maybe all the women he knows are like Sue Lowden, who he holds up as an icon of femaleness, or at least political femaleness. Lowden is something of a national laughingstock because-- as the primary GOP opponent to Harry Reid-- her healthcare plan has been, basically, to try to barter with your doctors and hospitals. She thinks people with cancer should bring some chickens to the doctor in return for their treatment. She's clearly delusional-- as you can see in the video below-- but this is what conservative Republican men in Nevada think women are all about. In fact, yesterday Lowden's campaign sent Mitchell's paper a letter from a Republican doctor, which of course Mitchell duly published, which claims that he has "bartered with patients-- for alfalfa hay, a bathtub, yard work and horse shoeing in exchange for my care."

Let's hope the former beauty queen turned gambling executive isn't suggesting that women pay for their care Chicken Ranch-style. It could be some GOP scam, though, which gives doctors a way to evade paying taxes, especially if the chickens are pregnant or there's no accurate way to weigh the hay. In any case, this is surely not a serious plan-- although it probably works better than what Boehner and Ryan and Blunt came up with (nothing)-- that the GOP wants to present as an alternative to a health care reform plan... is it?

This is the degree of seriousness with which conservatives take the healthcare crisis for ordinary American working families. Harry Reid may have some shortcomings, but he combines the best traits of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt compared with Sue Lowden. And Thomas Mitchell... he needs to get out more. (And, yes, I know, Reid is a Morman too. That wasn't the point.)

Should Women Have The Right To Vote On The Same Basis As Men?

Should this alien be deported?

A few months back I was continually blogging about Mike Lux's fantastic new book, The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be and what I tried getting across-- and I believe what Lux has tried getting across-- is that all the best in America, from the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the Bill of Rights, the emancipation of the slaves, the right of women and minorities to vote, the right of working people to form unions, the minimum wage, to Social Security, Medicare, the national parks, consumer protection, etc-- was a pitched battle between progressives pushing for these things and conservatives trying to prevent each and every one of them. Conservatives have always been, and continue to be, on the wrong side of history.

Yesterday a prominent conservative author and pundit, John Derbyshire best known for his reactionary columns in the National Review, was on the radio defending a chapter in his new book that has gotten some attention, "The Case Against Female Suffrage.” Basically, he is willing to admit what conservatives in general believe but keep to themselves, that their vision of the American Dream does not, has never, and will never include women being allowed to vote.

“The conservative case against it [women's suffrage] is that women lean hard to the left,” Derbyshire explained to an appalled Alan Colmes. “They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it-- and in the present days, they’re not much-- then they’d like the state to do it for them.” Like most conservatives, he doesn't just want to take away the right of women to vote. He also doesn't see why minorities should be voting and freely admits opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Are all conservatives as reactionary as Derbyshire? If you dig deep enough, absolutely. The Republican gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, Robert McDonnell, has written about how America would be a better place if women stayed home and didn't trouble their little heads with such things. And what about women conservatives, some of whom will certainly be voting for McDonnell and others like him? Yes, them too!

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this-- if it were to be, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.

COLMES: We'd be a better country if women didn't vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don't you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here.

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

Imagine the tizzy fits and paroxysms of rage and reveling in victimhood, conservative's default mode, were someone to ever go on the radio and make a case that men-- particularly wealthy white men, those who have done so much for so long to make the world unbearable for so many-- should be deprived of their right to vote. Think about it for a minute or two.