The Abbreviated Pundit Round-up is a daily feature of Daily Kos.
Michael Harriot at The Root writes—To Trayvon, on Your 25th Birthday:
A 25th birthday might not be as significant a milestone as one’s 18th or 21st. Sadly, for your mother, Sybrina Fulton, for you and for all of us, you only had the opportunity to celebrate 17 birthdays. The rest were stolen from you. From Sybrina. From us.
I’ve always wondered why we don’t celebrate birthdays by giving presents to the mother. Isn’t a birthday actually an anniversary for something she did? After all, she is the one who actually gifted the world with a life. All the birthday celebrant did is live. Why are they celebrated?
Now I know why.
Because, for a black boy in America, living is an accomplishment. Our simple existence is a reason to celebrate. It would be easy to remember you as a martyr and make a ghost out of your memory. Instead, today we celebrate your accomplishments. We honor the fact that you achieved 17 years of existence. That your purloined life continues to have meaning. You are not simply a symbol of the scourge of police brutality—you were alive. You are.
There is a phenomenon that most black boys and girls spend their lives trying to avoid. I call it “involuntary suicide”—the act of unintentionally and unwillingly giving one’s life. It happened when Philando Castile reached for his firearm license; when Sandra Bland decided to smoke a cigarette; when Botham Jean sat watching TV in his own living room; when Atatiana Jefferson peered out of her window; when Eric Garner breathed. It hovers over all of us, waiting in the shadows.
Sherrod Brown at The New York Times writes—In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out of Fear:
Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.”
For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:
“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”
“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”
“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”
My colleagues know they all just might.
Will Bunch at The Philadelphia Inquirer writes—Kill the Iowa Caucus and start fixing American democracy from the ground up:
This wasn’t just a glitch, a temporary speed bump in America’s freeway of exceptionalism. No, the Iowa disaster was a dramatic example of our democratic decline. It was also a stark reminder that our rush to bring 21st century technology to voting — usually to politically wired bidders — has been an abject failure, prone to both the mundane reality of breakdowns and the very real fear of hacking by bad actors. [...]
This was supposed to be a morning for talking about the winners and losers. While there are arguably some early political takeaways to be had, including the unstoppable downward spiral of Joe Biden, it would be dishonest to name anyone else as the winner of the Democrats’ Iowa caucus but one Donald John Trump. For the next nine months, the GOP president will ask voters again and again, why they would trust the Democratic Party to run America when it can’t even run a one-night event in a small state?
And Trump’s attack line will work because — like all of his attack lines — it feeds on Americans’ basest fears and distrusts, that America’s cosmopolitan elites with their overpriced Ivy League degrees are both ethically corrupt and not as smart as they think.
I wager it’s no fun to look into the tweeted proof that sleeping would have been a better way to have spent those wee-hour efforts rather than trying to penetrate that thick David Brooks skull—MB.
Dana Milbank at The Washington Post writes—Mitt Romney’s act of bravery changed nothing and changed everything:
Romney’s act of bravery — and perhaps political suicide — changed nothing and it changed everything. Trump stood no chance of being removed either way. But here was the Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee, rebuking his craven colleagues who saw Trump’s guilt but wouldn’t risk their careers. Romney made the vote to remove Trump bipartisan (no Democrats sided with Trump), and in the process made himself a pariah in his party.
But for Romney there was something higher than partisan tribalism.
Romney said he received pressure to “stand with the team.” He said he would “hear abuse from the president.” But, he said, “were I to ignore the evidence … for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.”
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) dabbed his eyes with a tissue. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the lone Republican on the floor, walked out of the chamber. […]
Romney read his 10-minute statement carefully, his calm voice incongruous with the words. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine,” he said.
Charles M. Blow at The New York Times writes—They Acquitted Trump. Make Them Pay!
What we have watched in Washington from Republicans during this impeachment is nothing short of a travesty. Most people fully expected the Republicans in the Senate to do exactly what they did. However, it is still a strike against the country and the Constitution.
Where are we? What’s next?
I, for one, am happy that the Democrats in Congress did what they did. Indeed, they had no choice. A line had to be drawn and defended. If in fact no one in this country is supposed to be above the law, that case had to be made by someone. If the sanctity of our elections is supposed to be inviolable, that principle had to be defended.
Now that Republicans have refused to do their duty out of extreme tribalism and devotion to Trump, Democrats need to make lists and take names. There is no time for crestfallen recriminations. [...]
Anything that can be done to oust these Republican senators must be done. These races are just as important as the presidential race.
Elie Mystal at The Nation writes—Republican Senators Just Sold Out Democracy. By acquitting Trump, Republicans handed the president nearly unlimited power—and revealed the extent of their venality:
We should not be shocked that they’ve done this. Republicans feel empowered to free the president from all constraints because they never intend to be subjected to a Democratic president armed with these new powers. Republicans think they’re on the cusp of locking in one-party control of the government. Their solution to the demographic changes that will soon see us become a majority-minority country is to forge a new theory of government, in which minority white rule can withstand the popular will.
All of the Republican strategies work to accomplish this. They suppress nonwhite voters and gerrymander districts. They protect and defend an Electoral College that functions to elevate the voting power of whites in low-population states over the will of popular majorities. And they have now explicitly authorized the president to use foreign influence to corrupt and steal elections, on the theory that the reelection of that president, by definition, is in the best interests of the nation. These are not the actions of a party trying to win political power; they’re the actions of a party trying to exclude anybody else from having it.
Brittany Gibson at The American Prospect writes—Trump’s Pitch to Black Voters. Not to vote for him, but to keep them from voting at all:
The Trump team must know they’ll never win the support of African American voters. Eight in ten black Americans said Trump is racist, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos Poll from January of this year. But an economic argument may be Trump’s greatest strength in his re-election campaign. Following Steve Bannon’s 2016 recipe for populist economic rhetoric and demonizing foreigners, Trump doesn’t have to convince black voters to turn out for him, but instead try to convince them they can afford to stay home because things are OK.
Most minorities in the United States vote for Democrats, but since Obama’s 2008 campaign engaged minority voters, and black voters in particular, to turn out in record numbers, those numbers have slacked off. Such a lack of enthusiasm works to Trump’s benefit and, of course, is augmented by the Republicans’ systematic implementation of obstacles to voting in black communities: enacting voter suppression laws, purging people from voter rolls, closing down voting sites, and making it harder to restore voting rights for the formerly incarcerated.
By focusing broadly on low unemployment rates, particularly if the Democrats select a nominee who doesn’t engage minority communities, Trump could convince some people to stay away from the polls and avoid the hoops that many black and brown people in this country have to jump through to vote. Nor does it bode well for Democrats that the Iowa debacle confirmed skeptics (not just minorities) in their doubts about the value of voting.
The Miami Herald Editorial Board writes—Parkland dad Fred Guttenberg had a right to shout during Trump’s State of the Union speech:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s act of rebellion during President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night came from her sense of political savvy. Fred Guttenberg‘s act of rebellion came from the heart, a heart in pain, a heart irrevocably broken.
So it seemed particularly heartless for him to be removed from the balcony gallery by security after he shouted out in the name of his slain daughter when Trump failed to address any attempt on his part to confront gun violence in America.
Guttenberg’s daughter Jaime was killed in the 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland. Pelosi had invited him to attend the State of Union speech. [...]
Tuesday, as Trump finished saying, “So long as I am president, I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Republicans began to cheer. Guttenberg, sitting with the South Florida delegation, likely fumed at the president’s total dismissal of America’s gun-violence problem.
As the cheers quieted, Guttenberg could be briefly heard in the chamber saying: “victims of gun violence like my daughter . . .”
Security came and took Guttenberg away as the shocked members of the delegation sitting around him watched.
Heather Digby Parton at Salon writes—Trump Turned the SOTU Into MAGA Reality TV, With Limbaugh as a Guest Star:
But the real gift to the MAGA base was a brilliant reality-TV moment, one designed to fill their hearts with joy and make every liberal in America's head explode. There is no one Trump could have brought into the Capitol who could possibly have been more offensive to Democrats everywhere than Rush Limbaugh. He is among the top five people in the country responsible for the utter degradation of American politics over the past 30 years. Trump would not be president were it not for the odious path Limbaugh laid out. So naturally, when he found out that Limbaugh had been diagnosed with cancer, he invited him to a joint session of Congress as his special guest.
Trump extolled Limbaugh's virtues as Republicans ecstatically cheered, then announced that he was presenting him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and instructed First Lady Melania to put it around his neck right then and there. The moment was oddly redolent of Trump's old beauty-pageant days with Limbaugh playing the role of the surprised winner:
He wasn't actually surprised. It had been announced earlier. But that's reality TV for you.
It appears that Nancy Pelosi knows how to do reality show politics as well.
She was asked on her way out why she did it and she replied, "Because it was a manifesto of mistruths."
Trump must be steaming. She stole the show.
Henry A. Giroux at TruthOut writes—Trump’s SOTU Speech Bristled With Fascist Politics:
Authoritarian societies protect the powerful — not the poor or vulnerable — and Trump made that clear in boasting about tax policies that largely benefit the ultra-rich and major corporations. He lied about supporting workers’ rights and “restoring manufacturing rights” even as he continues to implement regulatory roll-backs that endanger both the environment and the health of workers and many other people in the U.S. His claim that he has launched the great American comeback is laced with death-dealing policies that range from criminalizing social problems, demonizing and punishing undocumented immigrants and their children, and laying claim to ultra-nationalist and white supremacist rhetoric that echoes the social and racial cleansing policies of earlier fascist societies. When Trump says in his speech “our families are flourishing,” he leaves out the misery and suffering he has inflicted on the many people who don’t fit into his white Christian notion of the public sphere, as well as on the immigrants and other people of color whom he has deemed disposable. [...]
Trump unapologetically aligned himself with the war-mongering militaristic policies that one expects in fascist societies. His most fascistic statements centered around celebrating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, conflating undocumented immigrants with “criminals,” and describing sanctuary cities as a threat to American security and safety. Meanwhile he bragged about stacking the federal courts with right-wing judges and expressed admiration for the two right-wing Supreme Court justices he has appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Trump’s State of the Union reeked with the mobilizing passions of fascism, including invocations of extreme nationalism and calls for the expansion of military power, as well as outright racism, lawlessness, contempt for dissent and anti-immigrant bigotry.
Kate Aronoff at The New Republic writes—If Bloomberg Really Cared About Climate Change, He Wouldn’t Be Running. Both Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer could be spending their prodigious wealth in much more effective ways. Instead, they're funding vanity campaigns:
Climate-friendly billionaires are a bit of a paradox. Their multihome, private-jet lifestyles spew prodigious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Even those who donate massively to environmental causes tend to be doing more to warm the earth than your average meat-eating car-driver subsisting below the poverty line.
There are two such paradoxical beings in the 2020 Democratic primary. Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg—each claiming to be champions of the planet—are running for president. If either of them really cared about the planet, there’s a better way to show that: by spending the money they’re currently blowing on their presidential campaigns on supporting Democrats in just about any other race, in the hopes of making climate change–fighting legislation a reality in 2021.
You’d be forgiven for reading these long-shot campaigns as a shopping spree. As reporter Alex Kotch pointed out, Bloomberg gave $320,000 to the Democratic National Committee in November for the first time since 1998. Last week, the DNC announced it would drop the individual donor threshold that kept him off the debate stage, breaking rules the body swore were sacred when it refused to modify its plans in order to hold a climate debate this summer. Tom Steyer bought his entry the honest way, with millions of dollars’ worth of advertising.
Lexi McMenamin at The New Republic writes—The Youth Climate Movement Comes to New Hampshire:
New Hampshire is known for its early primary election but is often on the political periphery the rest of the time. During this long presidential primary season, some, including candidate Julián Castro (who has since dropped out), called for deprioritizing the New Hampshire primary because the state doesn’t represent the demographics of the country at large. According to the last census, it’s one of the whitest states in the country, and its total population is about the same as that of Memphis, Tennessee, or Richmond, Virginia. But for 2020, some young people in the state, driven by climate anxiety and the recent rise of youth activism, are fighting to make the state’s progressive political spaces more representative and inclusive, while bringing some of the issues youth voters care about to the fore.
The New Hampshire Youth Movement has run a program this past month called Party at the Primary, inviting youth organizers from all over the country to come visit New Hampshire, swelling the ranks of volunteers in exchange for the opportunity to build canvassing skills and get direct access to the campaigning candidates. The program is funded in large part by the Sunrise Movement, the youth climate organizing group that is pushing the Green New Deal.
“The idea for this program came from sharing the privilege of our first-in-the-nation primary with people from other states, bringing people from all across the country, especially swing states and other important primaries, and getting them up here,” said Quincy. “Obviously to help us out by knocking doors, making calls, talking to candidates, but also to help them out to give them the skills to run ‘get out the vote’ programs in their home state, and to get some of that energy and electricity that comes from being in New Hampshire within a month of the primary.” Josie Pinto, a regional organizer for NHYM, added that the program helps New Hampshire “be a leader in uplifting more diverse voices, even if they don’t come from our organization.”
Bill McKibben at The Guardian writes— When it comes to climate hypocrisy, Canada's leaders have reached a new low:
Americans elected Donald Trump, who insisted climate change was a hoax – so it’s no surprise that since taking office he’s been all-in for the fossil fuel industry. There’s no sense despairing; the energy is better spent fighting to remove him from office.
Canada, on the other hand, elected a government that believes the climate crisis is real and dangerous – and with good reason, since the nation’s Arctic territories give it a front-row seat to the fastest warming on Earth. Yet the country’s leaders seem likely in the next few weeks to approve a vast new tar sands mine which will pour carbon into the atmosphere through the 2060s. They know – yet they can’t bring themselves to act on the knowledge. Now that is cause for despair.
The Teck mine would be the biggest tar sands mine yet: 113 square miles of petroleum mining, located just 16 miles from the border of Wood Buffalo national park. A federal panel approved the mine despite conceding that it would likely be harmful to the environment and to the land culture of Indigenous people. These giant tar sands mines (easily visible on Google Earth) are already among the biggest scars humans have ever carved on the planet’s surface. But Canadian authorities ruled that the mine was nonetheless in the “public interest”.