The reason this double scandal (spousal abuse, security clearance) is such a big deal is that it highlights the incompetence of the principal in the Oval Office, the need for the WH staff to protect him (you can’t highlight abuse to Trump as a problem any more than you can highlight Russia probe stories), the lack of ability of those serving, and the inability to attract truly competent people.
You may not be able to beat Trump on policy, as much as you think ours is better (on whatever topic). But Trump’s personal characteristics are repelling independents and driving the resistance, especially among women. This scandal has been the top story for a week, and is not going away any time soon.
Michael Gerson/WaPo:
Among the more revealing moments in the ongoing White House nervous breakdown came in Chief of Staff John F. Kelly’s initial defense of staff secretary Rob Porter. As accusations of domestic abuse against Porter became public, Kelly pronounced him a man of “true integrity and honor.”
I have never been in the military and have great respect for Kelly’s distinguished service. But I suspect that, for most people in uniform, this is not what they mean by “honor.”
NY Times:
White House Let Rob Porter Keep Job Even After Receiving Final F.B.I. Report
In testimony on Capitol Hill, Mr. Wray upended the White House’s timeline of the events that led to Mr. Porter’s departure, contradicting the contention of top officials that his background investigation was “ongoing” at the time of his resignation.
Mr. Wray also told lawmakers that the bureau delivered its first report on Mr. Porter to the White House in March, months earlier than White House officials said they learned of the problems with his background check. Mr. Wray did not disclose the contents of that initial report, but Mr. Porter’s two ex-wives have said they told F.B.I. agents of the abuse in interviews conducted in January 2017.
Mr. Wray’s testimony pointed up a contradictory and frequently changing story line from the White House about a scandal that has engulfed the West Wing. It has raised questions about the credibility of President Trump’s most senior advisers, their awareness of serious allegations against an aide who had access to some of the nation’s most sensitive information, and the degree of tolerance they may have shown to an ambitious colleague apparently eager to cover up a dark past.
Morning Consult:
While Trump’s net approval rating remained 7 points underwater in January — with 44 percent of registered voters approving of his job performance and 51 percent disapproving — the number represents a 2-point bump compared with his rating in September and a 4-point bump from October and November.
Much of that gain was driven by an increase of enthusiastic support from Republican voters: Forty-eight percent of those voters in January said they strongly approve of Trump, compared with 43 percent in September.
Some experts suggest Trump’s improved standing with the public, and Republican voters in particular, was partly due to rosy economic indicators during this period — from stock market gains to strong employment figures — and Republican lawmakers’ overhaul of the country’s tax code, despite the public’s mixed response to certain parts of the legislation.
James Hohmann/WaPo:
Trump budget highlights disconnect between populist rhetoric and plutocrat reality
THE BIG IDEA: President Trump campaigned like a populist, but the budget he proposed Monday underscores the degree to which he’s governing as a plutocrat.
Many of his proposals are dead on arrival in Congress, but the blueprint nonetheless speaks volumes about the president’s values — and contradicts many promises he made as a candidate.
“This is a messaging document,” Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters at the White House.
Here are eight messages that the White House sends with its wish list:
Philip Bump/WaPo:
A chunk of Republicans appears to be becoming independents
Trump is president in large part because Republicans skeptical of his candidacy overcame their skepticism to vote for him in 2016 anyway. Some of this was probably distaste for Hillary Clinton, and some of it was probably party loyalty.
Neither this year nor in two years’ time will Clinton be on the ballot (we assume). And if the Republican Party can’t lure those voters back, it’s not clear if they’d necessarily line up to cast a ballot for the party’s candidates.
Trump’s strategy of insisting on boosting his base has appeared to keep his base loyal to him. But to some small extent, his party eroded over the course of 2017, which, given his margin of victory two years ago, bodes poorly for a reelection.
Wired:
INSIDE THE TWO YEARS THAT SHOOK FACEBOOK—AND THE WORLD
Facebook prides itself on being a place where people love to work. But Fearnow and his team weren’t the happiest lot. They were contract employees hired through a company called BCforward, and every day was full of little reminders that they weren’t really part of Facebook. Plus, the young journalists knew their jobs were doomed from the start. Tech companies, for the most part, prefer to have as little as possible done by humans—because, it’s often said, they don’t scale. You can’t hire a billion of them, and they prove meddlesome in ways that algorithms don’t. They need bathroom breaks and health insurance, and the most annoying of them sometimes talk to the press. Eventually, everyone assumed, Facebook’s algorithms would be good enough to run the whole project, and the people on Fearnow’s team—who served partly to train those algorithms—would be expendable.
WaPo:
The Obamas’ portraits are not what you’d expect, and that’s why they’re great
The Obamas’ potential to change the tone and political culture of this country was blunted by the persistence of that racism before and during their time at the country’s political apex. Now that they have left office, now that their fundamental decency is in high relief by contrast with the new political order, memory is refreshed. They look a bit older than the two people who carried so much collective fantasy of a different America with them to Washington nine years ago. That fantasy was premature and unrealistic, and it is only now clear how powerfully it animated the meanest impulses of those who reject it. But these portraits will remind future generations how much wish fulfillment was embodied in the Obamas, and how gracefully they bore that burden.
Here about “the box”? Politico:
The Trump administration is proposing to save billions in the coming years by giving low-income families a box of government-picked, nonperishable foods every month instead of food stamps.
White House OMB Director Mick Mulvaney on Monday hailed the idea as one that kept up with the modern era, calling it a "Blue Apron-type program" — a nod to the high-end meal kit delivery company that had one of the worst stock debuts in 2017 and has struggled to hold onto customers. Mulvaney said the administration’s plan would not only save the government money, but also provide people with more nutritious food than they have now.
It didn’t get a great reception.
Kevin Concannon, who oversaw SNAP during the Obama administration, was aghast when he saw the proposal.
“Holy mackerel," said Concannon, who said it reminded him of when poor people had to line up and wait for local officials to dole out food and other welfare benefits. "I don’t know where this came from, but I suspect that the folks when they were drawing it up were also watching silent movies.”
Other anti-hunger advocates said the concept was reminiscent of wartime rations or soup lines during the Great Depression. The Food Research and Action Center, a prominent nonprofit group, called the harvest box idea “a Rube-Goldberg designed system” that would be “costly, inefficient, stigmatizing, and prone to failure.”
Not to mention those who have food allergies, GI illnesses, diabetes, etc. And you have to love the Politico write-up comparing the program to a failing high end company. Running the government like a business is an awful idea.
WaPo:
Democrat wins legislative seat in Florida as once-sleepy state races heat up in Trump era
Democrats continued a streak of special election wins with a victory along the Gulf Coast of Florida on Tuesday, the 36th red-to-blue switch in a state legislative race since the 2016 election.
Democrat Margaret Good triumphed by seven points in the Sarasota-based 72nd District, defeating Republican candidate James Buchanan in an area that backed Donald Trump for president in 2016 by more than four points.
The upset is likely to reverberate through the two major parties as they gear up for the midterm election cycle. Although Republicans have been buoyed in recent weeks by the sense that their tax legislation will be popular among voters, and by new polling showing that Trump’s popularity has ticked up, Tuesday’s outcome offers yet another data point that voter enthusiasm lies with Democrats.
The uptick is not enormous. The D enthusiasm is.
See how this post started off. This stuff matters: