Trump had a rough weekend in Dayton. Among other things, saying about undocumented migrants that “In some cases, they’re not people.” And saying that if he’s not elected, there will be a “bloodbath.” Now, in fairness, many Trump Apologists insist he was only talking about the auto industry. And in the context of his speech, it was in the part about cars -- though as long as we’re being literal he never says the “bloodbath” is about the auto industry. Just that "Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole…that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country." But what else could he have possibly meant, the Apologists wonder so doe-eyed. What else could he have possibly meant when he said (his words) there will be a bloodbath "for the country," not merely the auto industry -- and that a bloodbath for the country will be (his words) "the least of it?" What else could have have possibly have meant when he told his most diehard supporters to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 so they could just stand together in a massive crowd waiting for his opponent to be officially declared President? O what else could he have meant?! By the way, the Dayton crowd in attendance on Saturday knew exactly what he meant by "bloodbath" because the video shows just seconds before they were cheering and applauding his approval, as they did through most of the speech (and do through most of his speeches), but the moment Trump brought up how "If I'm not elected there will be a bloodbath" -- a line you'd think would raise them into Full Trump Roaring Mode -- the yelling stopped almost immediately and there was near silence as he went on. Sort of an, "Oh. Wait, no, that's not good..." reaction. But don't take my word for it. Pro Tip: When you've spent the past seven years calling for the army to shoot protesting U.S. citizens. Calling for the hanging death of your vice president. Calling for the execution of your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Telling police that they should rough up people they put in their squad cars. Say there are many fine people among neo-Nazis. Tell the violent white supremacist Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by." Call legally convicted Insurrectionists "patriots" and "hostages" -- you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you say if you're not elected there will be a bloodbath. But...but...but what else in the world could Trump have ever possibly meant. After all, it's like just a few weeks ago, Trump only meant COVID vaccines they cried, not all vaccines when he brought up vaccine and masks and said schools should be defunded if they mandated vaccines. Except, well, you see the problem is that in his speeches since, he doesn't mention COVID vaccines but talks only about any mandated vaccines, period -- something schools have been doing for public health for far over half a century, of course -- which was clear at the time what he "really" meant. No matter where it came in the speech. No matter how much his Apologists tried to explain it at the time. But no, let us "explain" what he meant... After seven years, others trying to "explain" what Trump "really meant" after he said something truly awful has worn out. Especially since what he says turns out to be exactly the dog whistle he wants his base to hear. Bloodbath, animals, poisoning blood, dictators, it's all of one piece. At a certain point, most people want leaders whose words mean something and they say what they mean – and don’t keep needing others to “explain” what they really meant. So, there they are (again) explaining this time what Trump “really” meant by “bloodbath.” Swell -- and now explain what Trump meant by "In some cases they're not people." And explain what he meant by wanting to be a dictator on Day One. And explain what he meant by "poisoning the blood." And "animals." And "Third World sh*tholes." And explain what he meant by "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" to our NATO allies. And explain what he meant by "I trust Putin" more the U.S. intel services. And explain what he meant by "They let you grab them by the p*ssies." And explain what he meant by calling legally convicted Insurrectionists "hostages." And explain "Jan. 6. Will be wild." And explain and explain and explain. Explain, too, "Venezerguela." And explain "I beat Obama" in 2016. And explain saying "Nikki Haley was in charge of security" on January 6, rather than Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And explain calling Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban the President of Turkey. And explain saying there were airports in the Revolutionary War. And explain saying that wind turbines cause cancer. And explain that COVID will disappear like a miracle in two weeks. And explain taking deadly bleach. And explain saying that President Biden will start World War II. And explain misidentifying E. Jean Carroll in a photo as his ex-wife Marla Maples. And explain saying you don't remember saying you have the best memory in the world. Explain, explain, explain. And explain Trump being found liable twice by a jury for the equivalence of rape. And found liable twice for defamation. And found guilty of business fraud. And had his charity foundation shut down for a shocking pattern of illegality. Explain, explain, explain. It's a witch hunt, it's political, it's New York juries, he didn't mean that, what he really meant was, ...but Hillary's emails!, what about Hunter Biden?, explain, explain, explain, explain. But no, no, Trump only meant the auto industry when he said there would be a bloodbath if he wasn’t elected. Just like a mob boss is only concerned about your well-being when he offers to protect your business for a fee and says so thoughtfully, “It would be a shame if something happened to your lovely store.” By the way, I'm at the point where I'm sort of okay with Republicans trying to explain away what they insist Trump really meant about "bloodbath" -- because it keeps the story of Trump saying there will be a bloodbath if he's not elected in the public eye. And no matter what the Apologists cry out what he "really meant" because he was talking about cars...pretty much everyone else has heard Trump long enough that they recognize the dog whistle and know what he meant. But on and on they go, explaining that Trump was only talking about cars. It must be wearying for Trump Apologists having to keep explaining what Trump "really" meant so much of the time for the past seven years. But as a kindness, I'll make it easy for them all -- You don't have to explain what he really meant. We get it. He means what he says.
0 Comments
Oh, just frigging sigh. This is what the country has to deal with, every day. After day. After day. But then, this is who the GOP has pushed on itself to the front of its party as one of its leading voices. Here is what Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted on TwiXter yesterday, retweeting something she came across and -- without thinking or checking with her staff or seemingly caring that it was idiotic -- wanted to make sure she passed it along to others, because she thought it was a truly great idea. And what was it she was replying to and retweeted that this Great Thinker thought we should do in the United States to make things great in our country? Emulate Argentina. Yes, Argentina! And why? Well, because -- Yes, this is what Marjorie Taylor Greene thought was SO tremendous that United States should copy it and the lunatic leadership of the crazy, clownish newly-elected leader of Argentina Javier Milei. That inflation that had dropped by half in two months. Now, yes, that's impressive -- unless, of course, you actually looked at the numbers and actually understood what actually was actually going on in Argentina For starters, even if you didn't pay much attention to the news, I think most people can look at these first numbers and grasp instantly that a monthly inflation rate of 13.2% seems really, incredibly high. (And that's the low number.) That's because a monthly inflation rate of 13.2% is, in fact, really, incredibly high. By contrast, the annual inflation rate in the United States -- which one would think Marjorie Taylor Greene would and should know is only 3.2% Which, if I take out my abacus and check, is a smaller number than a monthly rate of 13.2%. Indeed, a massively smaller number when it comes to the inflation rate. The U.S. was understandably in an uproar when inflation here was 8%. Just imagine for a moment the reaction if inflation was over 50% higher than that! And by the way, if Ms. Greene didn't know that the annual inflation rate in the U.S. was 3.2%, she could have asked someone on her staff. Surely somebody there would know. And if not, which I guess is possible, given that this is, after all, Marjorie Taylor Greene's staff, she could have done what I did to get an exact figure -- just go to Google Search and checked for "annual inflation rate." It took about eight seconds. Try it. You don't even have to put in "U.S." which saves time. The very first result will give you the answer. But what about that "budget surplus" thing? That's sound pretty good, doesn't it? Well...yes, it does -- as long as you don't want to destroy everything about your society that makes it livable. You see, when Millei took office, Argentina had horrific problems, and (as you can see) its inflation was over 25%. But rather than work on putting a mature, manageable economic program in place, Millei (who you may recall campaigned with a chainsaw, to show what he'd do to Argentina's economy) instead installed an austerity program. It raised taxes (imagine Republicans doing that), cut subsidies to industries across the country like to energy (imagine Republicans doing that), and poverty for the country skyrocketed to 57.4%, their highest in 20 years!! That means over half of Argentina was pushed by the policies of Millei into poverty! And this -- this! -- is "the same thing" that leading economist and Great Thinker Marjorie Taylor Greene, sitting up there high on Capitol Hill, wants the United States to do!!! Because, she says, it will "save America." The 57.4% of Argentina living in poverty with higher taxes and a 13.2% inflation rate might disagree. Last year, Ms. Greene posted a comment on TwiXter in which she whined about liberals calling her stupid. She might want to take a step back and look at the things she says like this to realize why. Or at the very least, as she ponders her Great Thoughts up on Capitol Hill thinking that that gives her a wisdom she never had at home, she should remember the words of Abraham Lincoln who founded her party -- "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." It’s now official, and Lara Lea Trump is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee. The amazing thing is not that she is now the co-chair of the RNC (though that’s pretty amazing, given her total lack of experience for the position), but that the rest of the Republican Party is okay with it. At least publicly, while muttering under their breath and gnashing their collective teeth.
Because, of course, they’re okay with it and not rising in public outrage. This is today’s Republican Cult, after all. If Trump wants to put his totally unqualified daughter-in-law in charge, that’s the way a cult seems to work. But no matter how much an entire party is fine with gutting itself for the sake of an adjudicated rapist and adjudicated fraud, with four indictments, it’s still amazing. After all, on the day that her father-in-law proposed her for the job, her official statement was that the point of the Republican National Committee was to elect her father-in-law and that all money will be going to him. (Which we can fairly assume means it will go to help pay off his legal debts, not go to his campaign.) Of course, the reality is that, no, the point of the RNC has never been to elect the president. That’s always been a part of their mission, but it’s mainly been to help the entire Republican Party, most especially all the down-ticket races across the country. And with Lara Lea Trump sitting there at the top – alongside a Trump-nominated election denier – it certainly seems like very little of RNC money will be going to help Republicans in races around the country. To be clear, I’m okay with this. It’s just weird that Republicans are, too. At least on the surface. Certainly, there have been rumblings of discontent underneath. There’s has to be. Just because you give up your soul doesn’t mean you can’t still grumble as you sink into the abyss. As evidence of the mutterings of discontent, Lara Lea Trump wanted the party to know about “patriots all the way down the ticket being supported.” This assurance was given from the daughter-in-law of the megalomaniac who promised that Melania Trump would be holding a press conference about her immigration status in two weeks. That was eight years ago in 2016. And promised that he would be presenting a big, beautiful new healthcare bill in two weeks. He promised this in 2016. And 2017. And then in 2018 – several times. And promised he would be releasing his tax returns as soon as they were finished being audited. (Even though there’s no law against making one’s tax returns public at any time.) And the list goes ever on… So, you can take a Lara Lea Trump assurance to the bank. Just don’t apply for a big loan that you are certain you can pay back based on a Trump Promise. After all, even Lara Lea left herself a big loophole and never said how much the patriots all the way down the ticket would be supported. (“Here, kid, here’s a quarter. But yourself an ice cream and a car.”) Even if (and it’s a massive “if”) money gets spent down-ticket, it’s near-impossible to think that the bulk won’t go to Trump. After all, why make your unqualified, inexperienced daughter-in-law co-chair of the Republican National Committee? The only honestly-imaginable reason is to watch and control the purse strings heavily in your favor. And that perception isn't helped by the reality that since Lara Lea Trump and her election-denying, Trump appointed partner took over, they...well, took over. And fired all the RNC leadership and around 60 lower-level staffers who make the whole thing run. All to be replaced by Trump loyalists, no doubt. After all, why make your unqualified, inexperienced daughter-in-law co-chair of the Republican National Committee? The problems with this are massive. First, the money will likely be shifted to Trump to pay his massive legal bills and fines (the latter now being over $600 million). That means he and the RNC still have to raise a billion dollars and more for the presidential campaign. Second, how many major donors will want to make their standard massive donations to the RNC, knowing that it will only be going to pay Trump’s legal bills and fines? Third, similarly, how many basic donors will want to do the same? Fourth, what will down-ticket candidates across the country do without the infusion of cash they always expect from the Republican National Committee? Most surely, people will donate to individual candidates. But many smaller candidates don’t have the operations in place to do the national fund-raising needed to replace the money they were expecting from the RNC. And only the most high-profile races and candidates are likely to get the most individual donations. I have no doubt that the Republican National Committee will figure out something to do. But whether what they figure out will be enough to not only impact the party across the country like it’s supposed to, and whether they’ll be able to get over the suspicion of everyone that with the unqualified, inexperienced daughter-in-law of Trump as co-head of the RNC (along with Trump-appointed election denier Michael Whately), everything she said in her original statement about the point of the RNC is to elect Trump and all the money will be going to him isn’t the reality, regardless of whatever she and the RNC insist later. Especially when her first insisted to the contrary is as laughably weak as “patriots all the way down the ticket being supported.” But as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. And sometimes that isn’t a metaphor, but literal. As readers of these pages know, I've been a big political supporter of Nick Melvoin, since he was first-elected to the Los Angeles School Board, and then won re-election two years ago. He's the son of my friends Jeff and Martha Melvoin (who I believe were the only parents of any candidate in the race who walked through the district knocking on doors...), and has a wonderful background in law, politics (having worked in the Obama Administration) and teaching, as well as community activity. And he recently ran for Congress in the CA-30 district, hoping to win the seat vacated by Adam Schiff in his run for the U.S. Senate. Though Nick got some good endorsements, including the Los Angeles Daily News and Collin Allred (who just won the Democratic nomination for a U.S. Senate race in Texas against Ted Cruz), unfortunately he didn't finish in the top two of the "jungle primary" for the House nomination. Among other things, the 30th District didn't overlap the district that Nick represents on the School Board, so it was a tough battle against several well-known representatives in the state. Happily, he didn't have to give up his seat on the School Board, and I think he still has a great future. What also stood out for me was the "concession" email he sent out to all supporters. It was pure Nick -- gracious and thoughtful, upbeat and forward-looking, not a slam at anyone in sight, and I think it could stand out as a template for all candidates who don't win their race. It was so good that I thought I would post it here. Hey Robert -- Today, I'm reaching out to share some thoughts following Tuesday's election. Although there are still tens of thousands of votes to count, things did not go our way and we won't be advancing to the November election. I'm incredibly humbled by the support I've received throughout this campaign. I want to thank everyone — family, friends, volunteers, campaign staff, and community leaders — who joined our campaign and shared our message of solutions-oriented leadership. Building this movement would not have been possible without you, Robert. While these aren't the results we wanted, I am happy to congratulate my friend Assemblymember Laura Friedman on her successful, hard-fought campaign; it looks like she will be taking on a Republican in November. Getting to know the other candidates eager to uplift our community has been such a gift in this experience. I look forward to working with all of them to deliver for the communities of California's 30th congressional district. I am so proud of this campaign, but, more than that, so humbled by the experience. My overwhelming sentiment over the last 24 hours has truly been one of gratitude: I'm grateful for my community, for my family, and for all of you in my corner. You make the successes all the more satisfying and the losses all the easier to bear. It has been said that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan; I have not found that at all true with you. I believe in politics because I believe in people–in our ability to do amazing things when we come together. That belief is undeterred. At a time when our politics seems so cynical and our world so bleak, I remember that we are here because of the choices people make. We can make better choices. Not just the big important ones in elections every few years, but the little ones every day. How we treat one another. How we show up for each other. It struck me as I was talking to voters at their doorsteps over the last few weeks that the world is not often changed by grand gestures, but by almost invisible ones: acts of kindness and inclusion and tolerance that start to change the way we treat one another. At its best, that is what public service can be: a manifestation of our belief in one another. I remain deeply committed to that work, on the School Board and as a citizen, and I thank you for the opportunity to serve. Onward, Nick Before she fades into the 2024 background, I think it’s only proper to have a few final words on Nikki Haley.
So much for “Last Person Standing,” eh? That was the whole “argument” that analysts have been giving for the last month or so on why Haley was staying in the race. It was a ridiculous, meaningless position, as I’ve noted, since it’s not how any party selects their presidential nominee. In the GOP’s case, you have to get 1,215 delegates. “Have to” as in It’s Required. Being the “Last Person Standing” isn’t how it works. It’s not a cage fight where half a dozen boxers pummel each other until there’s only one less. And the proof that the “argument” was ridiculous and meaningless (other than Republican Party by-laws) is that once Haley dropped out, not one analyst talked about how she no longer has a chance of being the GOP nominee because she isn’t the “Last Person Standing” anymore. After all, the way reality works, if for any reason Trump drops out of the race or is forced out, that doesn’t mean Republicans won’t put forth a nominee because they no longer have a “Last Person Standing.” It means the playing field is wide open – as it always would have been, if for any reason Trump dropped out of the race or was forced out – and Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and even Vivek Ramaswamy…and any Republican on Earth can throw their hats back in the ring and try to get those 1,215 votes. All the while with Trump ranting at them, and crying out that the whole process is rigged. (As it almost really would be this time, if he was forced out.) The additional point is that Nikki Haley’s long-insistence that she was in the race to the end clearly was untrue. She stayed in the race because it raised her profile and because she had the financial backing – mostly from the Koch Bros. When that spigot turned off, so did her insistence that she was in the race to the end. The remaining question is whether or not she will ultimately endorse Trump. Being Nikki Haley, she pretty much has said, “Yes.” On the one hand, she’s said that she signed a pledge to endorse whoever the Republican nominee is. (And she had to know at that point it would almost certainly be Trump.) One the other hand, she’s said it was just a pledge for the debates and she hasn’t endorsed anyone yet. I have no idea what she’ll do. Which is fair, since I wouldn’t be surprised if Nikki Haley has any idea what she’ll do. If she truly meant what she said when running (which is a near-laughable proposition given her statements like how the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, and then backing off such a ludicrous comment and saying, well, okay, yes, it was) that Trump was a disaster, she would endorse Joe Biden. But I think we can dismiss that. So, there are three possibilities – One, that she won’t say anything. I don’t think she’ll do this, though I think it’s her best option. She can say she’s considering what to do, and she’ll announce it when she’s ready, and keep putting it off – and as the race nears an end, everyone will be focus on the two candidates, and Nikki Haley’s endorsement will largely slip through the cracks. Some people might keep asking, but her silence would be unimportant. Two, that she’ll won’t endorse Trump, but won’t endorse anyone, and say that people should be free to make their own choice. This is a good option if she doesn’t want to be tied to Trump, in case she decides to run in 2028. Though if she doesn’t endorse Trump, and said all those mean (albeit true) things about him at the end, I don’t think she has a chance in 2028, since the Trump base will still be so huge to the party. (Actually, conservative analyst Tim Miller has said he doesn’t think she has a future running for president anymore.) Third, she’ll say I signed a pledge to endorse the Republican nominee, and I do that now. But without necessarily saying the name Trump. (Though she could get away with saying his name, if couched as “I’m required to.”) I think this is her best bet if she does decide to endorse him. But it probably wouldn’t placate the Trump acolyte base. See 2028. (See, also, Tim Miller.) Though it might allow her to still be involved in GOP politics. Which leaves, fourth, endorsing Trump. Considering how heavily she slammed him at the end, this would be an egregious thing to do. But then, this is Nikki Haley whose inconsistency has become impressive. I would say, given what’s she’s said about Trump, it’s almost unthinkable that she would out-and-out heartily endorse him. But this is today’s Republican MAGOP. J.D. Vance called Trump American’s Hitler, and now has guzzle the Kool-Aid for him. Lindsay Graham called Trump crazy and that he’d destroy the Republican Party – and he’s probably the biggest Trump lackey today. Ted Cruz heard Trump insult his wife’s appearance, and suggest his father helped assassinate JFK, and Cruz slammed Trump as a liar – and has gone Full Trump in his support. Mitch McConnell (about whose wife Trump made racist comments) said Trump was responsible for the January 6 Insurrection, and said the courts were the proper outlet to try him, and he endorsed Trump, And on and on and on, in today’s Republican Party. So, could Nikki Haley still endorse Trump??? Absolutely. But it probably wouldn’t placate the Trump acolyte base. See 2028. (See, also, Tim Miller.) Though it might allow her to still be involved in GOP politics. I don’t have a clue what Nikki Haley will do. If I absolutely had to place a bit, it would be for her inconsistency and political self-preservation, and that she will – in one way or another – endorse Trump. She praised him through the GOP primary, after all, only until she was the “Last Person Standing.” And if I had to pick one of the “endorsement” options, it would be that she qualifies it as having signed her pledge, but she’ll name him and repeat all the positive things she said about him on the debate stage. But…I don’t know. And as I said, she likely doesn’t either. She’s Nikki Haley, after all. No longer the “Last Person Standing.” But waiting with all the others in the wings… There’s been an abundance of analysis of President Biden’s State of the Union Address last Thursday. Almost all positive, unless perhaps one watches Fox, in which case it still got some positive comment, but complained a bit how aggressive he was – a very positive complaint for someone who had previously been described as sleepy and feeble. Rather than get into any specifics, particularly at this point, I think it’s most worth noting that what stood out to me most (other than watching Mike Johnson in angst sitting behind the President) was the larger view – that this was President Biden throwing down the gauntlet and saying, “Okay, this is what the presidential campaign is going to be about, and it starts right now.” Right after the speech, a friend called me. He loved it, but had one big complaint. The economy, he said, is always the most important thing to people. And it’s always talked about first. And Joe Biden talked about Ukraine first, and that was a big mistake. I told him that I thought he was very wrong. It was clear from everything Biden said during the speech that the election was going to be about democracy at risk. Just like that was the driving issue for the 2022 Mid-Terms – and Democrats did extremely well then, and staved off the expected huge “Red Wave.” And if democracy is going to be your theme, then you put it first. And make it loud, aggressive and pointed. And the thing about Ukraine is that, other than Trump and the most-extreme right, polls show that most Americans support helping Ukraine. And understand that it’s about defending a democratic ally that is fighting against our enemy Russia. He wasn’t convinced – but as a few days passed, he called me up and said he’s changed his mind. That it was good that was hope the President began. But the “larger view” is not just that President Biden made clear that democracy would be the issue of the election, but in being as loud and aggressive about it all…and telling off the Supreme Court directly for overturning a 50-year right for women…and standing on his feet for an hour and 10 minutes – after taking what seemed like forever walking in and shaking hands… and then taking another half hour after the speech staying around shaking hands, taking selfies and talking with members, despite the entire room almost emptying, going home and to sleep, he put an emphasis on his stamina and determination. By the way, what didn’t get reported much was that at the end, Joe Biden stayed around to take selfies with Congressional staffers. But not just any staffers, but staff who worked for Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. The end result of it all is that not only has the campaign begun, but the whole complexion of it changed. That’s not to say that everyone’s opinion of President Biden has risen – or even most people’s opinion. But the sense of what the race will be changed. This was not Sleepy Joe or Uncle Joe or Befuddled Joe. This was a decent leader who was outspoken about the issues helping people that were important to him and that over all those issues, protecting democracy against fascism colored everything – and that he would be aggressive in his efforts, most especially against who he made very clear that he knew (and wanted everyone to know) who it was putting it all at risk. Clearly, not everyone agreed with him, or liked what he said. But then, those are the very people putting democracy at risk or enabling it. For the rest, I think most everyone understand that the campaign was on. And as blunt and pointed as President Biden was in the State of the Union Address, that was the polite version since (as political as it was) it was not a political speech and there was much he couldn’t say. The campaign is now one. And he can say it all. And he let people know that he will. With a shout-out thanks to Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) for contrasting President Biden so profoundly that she showed the advance of age and experience over youthful incompetence. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|