As we continue through Woodward week, the portrait of a president who knows he's going to be impeached (and parallel to that, political demands that no one say that except Rs) is a bizarre spectacle
Brian Beutler/Crooked:
Brett Kavanaugh’s Disqualifying Bad Faith
Whether Kavanaugh perjured himself in a prosecutable sense or just in a spirit-of-the-law sense is, in a way, less important than the indisputable fact that he was not candid—at all—with senators trying to fulfill their advice and consent obligations. It would be karmically just for his nomination to fail as a result, but it would also be a much needed blow against the scourge of bad faith that dominates conservative politics.
Judicial nominees famously conceal their views about legal controversies and precedent when they testify before the Senate, but what Kavanaugh has done all along is try to conceal the kind of person he is.
To me, the most intelligence-insulting thing Kavanaugh has testified to had nothing to do with judicial nominations or the law. It was in 2004, when he told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) “my background has not been in partisan politics.”
It’s hard to imagine more disingenuous horse shit, and all of his current troubles stem from his unwillingness to let go of that absurd conceit.
EJ Dionne/WaPo:
Two Republican senators could derail their party’s court-packing: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Moderates and progressives appreciated their willingness to break with their party in previous instances, particularly in saving the Affordable Care Act.
But by voting to confirm Kavanaugh, they would be ratifying everything in politics they claim to be against. This is not just about their pledges to protect the right to choose on abortion. It’s also a test of whether they mean what they say about wanting politics to be less partisan and more consensual. Caving in to the power brokers and ideologues on this will follow them for the rest of their careers.
Won’t happen. They will fold.
Kris Kolesnik/The Hill, GOP staffer:
GOP destroyed oversight; Dems obligated to clean up mess if elected
There are no Republicans left in Congress, that I know of, who know what is or isn't credible oversight. Their ignorance prevents them from understanding the mess they have made. Oversight by Congress is a lost art. What Republicans have wrought is downright destruction. If Democrats re-take either chamber of Congress in November, they are obligated to resuscitate that function Republicans have allowed to atrophy in service to their president.
I entered Congress in 1982, working for Chuck Grassley. I was trained by post-Watergate staff, Republicans and Democrats, at a time when Congress was taking back power from the Imperial Presidency. We kicked some patoot during the Reagan years when corruption, greed and mismanagement were rampant. I was a Republican, but I worked with good-government members on both sides. We won. My boss was re-elected because of our oversight campaign against profligate defense spending. When we started, his approval rating in Iowa was under 50 percent; when we finished, he won re-election by 66 percent in 1986. He is still in Congress.
As a 34-year veteran of government oversight, I am horrified by the assault from Republicans on oversight norms. It has hobbled the credibility of the institution. Senate and House leaders are to blame for a Wild West approach by committee chairmen and staff.
NBC:
Shhhh! Dem leaders don't want to say 'impeach.' Bill Clinton's case explains why.
The top three Democratic leaders in the House — Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn — were all there in '98.
Strategically, Democrats wanted to portray the impeachment push as a partisan crusade led by Republicans who were hell-bent on taking down the president. Just before the vote, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., looked out at the Republican side of the chamber and warned: "The voters will be judging you on November the 3rd."
By planting the impeachment flag, Republicans believed they were motivating their core voters to turn out on Election Day. They were also calculating that Democrats, demoralized by their president's reproachful behavior, would end up sitting the election out.
Narrator: The Republicans were wrong.
Andrew Sprung/healthinsurance.org reminding us about unspoken Medicaid threats behind the spoken pre-existing condition threat:
The assault on pre-existing conditions is the least of it
Republicans are coming after their constituents' Medicaid. Can we talk about that too?
Morrisey is pursuing complete ACA repeal – which, again, would affect most of the 189,000 thousand West Virginians who gained Medicaid coverage via the ACA. Were he to personally guarantee issue to everyone enrolled in the state’s individual market, the suit he is party to would still double the uninsurance rate.
For Manchin, however, the word “Medicaid” may be almost as toxic as “Obamacare.” Mina Schultz, a professional ACA enrollment assister who worked in West Virginia, recalls:
While signing folks up for insurance in WV they’d stop me half way though the app to ask, “Wait a minute, is this Obamacare?!” I had people with diabetes and cancer walk out without insurance rather than take expanded Medicaid.
What does work is to talk about pre-existing conditions – politically the red-hot tip of the healthcare spear. According to recent Kaiser Family Foundation polling, 72 to 75 percent of Americans say it’s“very important” to preserve the ACA’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. That’s got Manchin fired up...
NBC:
Beyond Obamacare: Democrats have plans, GOP is out to destroy them
The GOP is bombarding the opposition across the country with midterm ads blasting single payer and Medicare for All.
The vast majority of the Republican attacks cite the $32 trillion cost estimate of a Bernie Sanders-backed proposal to cover all Americans with a more generous version of Medicare. Many Republicans ads also warn that new health care programs would harm traditional Medicare.
A National Republican Congressional Committee website that compiles opposition research is currently dominated by "Medicare for All" references. Sample talking points: It "ends Medicare as we know it," is "one-size-fits-all government health care" and even "could be used to pay for illegal immigrants' health care" (the leading single-payer bills in Congress leave it to the executive branch to decide who qualifies).
A reminder:
David Drucker/Vanity Fair:
Midterms
“THE HOUSE IS ALREADY LOST”: AS THE MIDTERMS APPROACH, G.O.P. INSIDERS PREPARE FOR AN ELECTORAL D-DAY
Inside the swamp, Republican operatives have already made their peace with losing the House. But the coming Democratic wave won’t affect all Republicans equally, purging moderates and leaving only Trump loyalists behind. The result could be a divided Congress in which Trump, ironically, is more powerful than ever.
As one House Republican’s chief of staff pointed out, it’s the establishment rank and file that has essentially forced Trump to govern as a “conventional conservative.” Tax cuts, deregulation, banking reform, chipping away at Obamacare, stricter economic sanctions on Russia—these are all priorities of the Ryan-era House. With many of them gone—and with the possibility of a larger, more Trump-friendly majority in the Senate—there will likely be far fewer intraparty restraints on Trump, be it on international trade, attacks on the media, or long-standing norms of governance, both at home and abroad. That means more Republican unity, but on the president’s terms. “If the House flips, Trump will be more of a factor because there will not be a figurehead like Ryan to counter him—and House Republicans will be focused entirely on defending the president against hearings and impeachment, so they’ll be one and the same,” the chief of staff said.
And so completely on the defensive about Trump’s growing and “made public” scandals that it will be harder to imagine anything that Trump wants getting done, especially if Ds gain in the Senate, now a(n uphill) possibility.
Don’t forget, for many voters, to know Trump is to loathe him and without the restraints, he’s North Carolina w/o a D governor.
Speaking of which:
WaPo:
Voter backlash to Trump, bathroom law has put conservative N.C. legislature in play
The campaign reflects an often-overlooked subplot of the Democratic Party’s broader push to engineer a “blue wave” across the country in the November midterms — tapping into voter anger over President Trump as well as Republican policies on school funding, taxes and health care to chip away at GOP dominance in state capitals.
From Kansas to North Carolina, the hard right GOP agenda is unpopular. That’s the subtext. Add Trump, and you get a wave.
Trump has had some awful poll numbers this week.
Axios:
The bottom line: The signals look every bit as bad for Republicans as they did for House Democrats when they got wiped out in the 2010 Tea Party wave.
- "Every metric leads you to one conclusion: The likelihood of significant Republican losses in the House and state/local level is increasing by the week," said the Republican operative who did this statistical comparison to 2010.
- "The depth of losses could be much greater than anticipated and the Senate majority might be in greater peril than anticipated."
And now for something completely different.
Matthew Gabriele/Forbes:
How LeBron James Might Help Explain A Surprising Find About The Early Middle Ages
A recent discovery related to a 1,400+ year-old grave site in Germany is offering some new insights about the end of the ancient world and beginning of the Middle Ages. The archeological site itself has been known for some time, as it was discovered in 1962. Filled with some spectacular finds, including a fascinating helmet, scholars have used the items found in the graves, to offer some conclusions on the 13 people found buried there. They were nobles, likely from a group called the Alemanni, and they died sometime during the 7th century CE.
But we were a bit stuck in trying to learn more than that. That is, until now.
it’s about identity, and a good read. And if you think it’s only the early Middle Ages: