Mueller's firing is inevitable. Maybe not because of his latest move, but because it is inevitable that Trump is guilty of something and that Mueller is an honest-enough investigator to look for it. That's a firing offense, every time.
And yes, the firing will create a crisis, just as the firing of Comey did. (What do we even mean by "crisis" any more?)
Crisis: Noun. An event that makes upper middle class white people fear they may have to further enmesh themselves with evil to avoid paying a moderately higher marginal income tax rate.
This is no social crisis
Just another tricky day for you
Yeah, if [x] happens, we'll have a legit crisis is weird phrasing at any time after last November. We've been having a legit crisis for a while now.
Well, he can't fire Mueller directly, so the interesting question is how many people he has to fire before he finds someone willing to fire Mueller. I wonder if any of the prediction markets have a contract on that.
Rosenstein has already committed wrongful acts for him -- that memo providing an excuse for Comey's firing had to have been knowing misconduct. (The content of the memo was itself unexceptionable. Preparing it as a figleaf for Comey's firing when he knew that wasn't the real reason was wrong.) That doesn't mean he'll do it again, of course, but it's a strong possibility that he'll fire Mueller if Trump tells him to.
Recently I've discovered the self-harm/entertainment value of heading to Twitter whenever one of these shoes drops, clicking on the most general relevant trending hashtag, and marvelling darkly at the distance between the two planets people seem to be coming from.
The belief that there was actually no Russian interference in the election even aside from any Trump involvement, that it's all a fake story, is one that I find particularly stupefying and incidentally also one that I heard directly from my mother last night who informed me that the Washington Post is fabricating all these stories outright and isn't it just awful. (Also the major take in her world about the Grenfell Tower fire is that "the muslims" have been threatening such a thing for years).
What were we talking about? I swear this was meant to be on topic. Oh, right, Mueller. All of which is to say that yes of course we can expect the Republicans to roll with it, or whatever the worst possible thing is in any given situation, but I'm finding it increasingly hard to understand how they see these things as being in their own self-interests. Like passing some evil health bill in secret, what constituency is that even serving? All I can think is that even senate republicans are now motivated by the fantasies held by people like my mother and the reason I don't understand them is that I'm mostly not part of the conversation.
If Trump fires Mueller and the Senate Republicans just shrug, what ability do Senate Democrats have to totally gum up the works? If they can't, would it make sense for them to vacate the Senate and form a "Senate-in-exile" with constant publicity stunts aimed at influencing public opinion?
The Senate Democrats can, as long as the Republicans aren't willing to fully kill the filibuster, gum up a great deal. Vacating the Senate would just let the Republicans get the advantages of killing the filibuster without doing so. It would convince the public Democrats are really stupid.
NPR played a recording this morning of Newt Gingrich complaining that the investigation is partisan. Hypocrisy comes so naturally to him and his ilk that he probably didn't even realize that there was an issue there.
Rosenstein has already committed wrongful acts for him
This is true, of course, but I'll betcha that when it comes time to fire Mueller, that will be a bridge too far for Rosenstein. Published reports suggest that he intended to keep his fingerprints off of the Comey firing, and was offended when the Trump people tied it directly to his memo.
One of the weird things about that memo is that it is correct in all of its particulars. And Comey should have been fired for the conduct described therein. I'm sure Rosenstein thought that was enough to cover his ass.
Probably 1/3 of Senators truly believe what they're trying to do is good public policy that will make things better for everyone and doing it behind closed doors is the only way to prevent the Democrats and the media from colluding to misrepresent it, and besides that's exactly what the Democrats did to pass the ACA. Another 1/3 recognize it's terrible public policy but they need to pass something to mollify their base, they'll do whatever it takes to make a thing happen. The final 1/3 think it's great public policy but won't admit in public that immiserating the bottom 60% of the population is an actual goal, not just a regrettable fact of life; working in secret is par for the course for them.
12: I assume you mean of GOP senators?
I think it more likely that Sessions de-recuses himself or Trump fires Sessions or Rosenstein (or both).
One of the weird things about that memo is that it is correct in all of its particulars. And Comey should have been fired for the conduct described therein. I'm sure Rosenstein thought that was enough to cover his ass.
It's funny. I get why you're saying this, the first two sentences or true. And maybe he did think that would be enough to cover him.
But how could he have thought that? The context made it an obvious fraud. Thinking the content of the memo would make it look legit is like a cat trying to cover up shit on a concrete floor by scratching at it.
What's truly perverse is that all this makes Trump ever more dependent on Ryan. The day Ryan and McConnell think they're better off with Pence, Trump is gone.
I've been thinking that Trump's best play is a genuine change in the narrative: come out for a $15 minimum wage. He seemed to be making a tentative step in the right direction criticizing the AHCA, but it was too timid. What I don't get is where the hell is Bannon in this. He's got plenty to lose with Pence coming in; he needs the white working class to see real advantage in Trump over Pence.
The way I would put it is that Rosenstein thought Comey should be fired, and didn't want to resign rather than play a role in the firing. He may have misunderstood what a fool he'd be made to be -- lesson learned; I think he resigns rather than fire Mueller.
Trump's ability to put people off balance in person and turn them into stooges is pretty prodigious - Comey related how it sort of half-happened to him for a while. I think it did more or less happen to Rosenstein, hence his unsupportable actions, but Comey's post-firing communications to the press, among other things, made him realize this and shape up some. In particular Rosenstein's public testimony yesterday that he would not obey an order to fire Mueller that was not a "lawful and appropriate" order, "for good cause", and that there is no evidence of such cause.
I've been thinking that Trump's best play is a genuine change in the narrative: come out for a $15 minimum wage.
I have stopped worrying about this sort of thing. If he were actually going to propose any policies that would genuinely benefit the white working class, he would have done it with infrastructure. He could have proposed a huge job-creation program that would have actually put people to work, and could even have provided for lots of possible corrupt profits for rich people too.
If he didn't do that, I really doubt he's going to show up with anything substantive in that vein.
19 written before seeing 16 and 17, but relevant to both.
If he didn't do that, I really doubt he's going to show up with anything substantive in that vein.
It's quite true that events to date have shown he never intended to move to triangulation involving actually helping the working class, as the perfect moment for that is long past. But he's been in office less than 5 months, so I wouldn't rule out it happening later as part of a random walk.
20 Infrastructure is a big complicated deal, with a ton of moving parts, takes years to make a difference, and even then only for select people on particular jobs. A whole lot more smoke than fire.
Minimum wage is a one line piece of legislation, which he can dare the Senate to pass. Immediate impact very broadly felt. He wins a hard core of people who will never leave him.
The day Ryan and McConnell think they're better off with Pence, Trump is gone
I don't think it's that simple. The big news from Virginia was that Stewart very nearly won. His voters are the hard-core Trump supporters, and they are a huge bloc with the Republican party.
He can dare them, and the entire Republican congress will laugh in his face.
The more moderates leave, the more the shithead vote rules the primary.
I think Trump voters' problem with the minimum wage is they think some people shouldn't get more and they'll take less to keep it that way.
24 That day hasn't come yet. The idea that it can't ever come is exactly the kind of unthinking hubris that has gotten Trump into the trouble he's in.
17.1 is basically correct and definitively rebuts 17.2.
Four thousand primary voters in a state as big as Virginia? The day has come.
unthinking hubris that has gotten Trump into the trouble he's in.
Well, sure, if he had a lick of sense he wouldn't be President.
What I don't get is where the hell is Bannon in this
Bannon's Nazi hands appear to be clean of the Russian shenanigans. I wonder if it's once more a battle between Jared who must be shitting his pants at the news that Mueller was hiring top-notch experts in tracking down international financial crimes and Bannon who's got to know that firing Mueller would be like firing Comey x100 and completely grind his white nationalist revolution to a halt. OTOH, Bannon wants chaos...
I think it's better ground for him to wage the fight than protecting Kushner's money laundering.
Minimum wage is a one line piece of legislation, which he can dare the Senate to pass. Immediate impact very broadly felt. He wins a hard core of people who will never leave him.
While I don't think this is impossible as stated above, I also think you discount how thoroughly the GOP movement is straight-up class war. Your strategy might work for Trump as a president, but nobody he's ensconced with would suggest or allow it (even Bannon, definitely not the failsons or strayden). And he either buys into the same project or is too scatterbrained to come up with any alternative; remember he doesn't like any menu of options more complex than yes/no.
Minimum wage is a one line piece of legislation, which he can dare the Senate to pass. Immediate impact very broadly felt. He wins a hard core of people who will never leave him.
I would be large amounts of money this doesn't happen. It just isn't how Trump thinks, as far as I can tell.
It's unlikely for a bunch of reasons, but I feel like the idea would have to come from one of Trump's advisors, and I don't know who would propose that.
I'm with Minivet. I mean, Charley's right, it's one of the most politically effective things he could do, it just seems really unlikely that he's going to do it.
24: Trump's political pull among Republicans will be a factor as McConnell and Ryan consider whether they will be better off without him. I took the original statement to mean: Ryan and McConnell have no attachment either to democratic norms or Trump himself, and will dump him if he becomes too much of a threat to their primary goals: the re-election of their caucus and the movement of wealth to the wealthy.
Jamelle Bouie's latest seems relevant. For Republican primary voters, it isn't about politics, but channeling resentment. Trump has always been a threat to anybody with policy goals, but the Republicans have created a base where it is literally impossible to be too big of a shithead to hold office and absurdly easy to be labeled a sell-out.
Among other things, I think Trump personally would hate the idea of a higher minimum wage. (Whereas building lots of buildings, bridges, etc. could appeal to him.)
Esp. if it meant he could put his name on all of them.
I'm sure he'd love to put his name on every worker who got a higher minimum wage.
Impeachment or no the thought that this fucker is going to get a presidential library fills me with rage.
42 Maybe I'll apply for a job there.
I agree with all that: he's not going to try it.
He won the nomination by running against Ryanism. It wasn't just that Ryan is a cuck for rolling over for Obama, but also that the Republican Establishment is only out for the rich.
But how could he have thought that?
He's a bureaucrat, and he left no paper trail that implicates him in anything wrong.
And he is basically correct; he really has covered his ass, and can still come out of this with his reputation intact -- much like Comey himself, who disgraced himself much more publicly and completely.
The way I would put it is that Rosenstein thought Comey should be fired ...
I actually don't think this is likely, or that it even matters if it's true. Rosenstein is not just a bureaucrat; he's a lawyer, and his boss/client asked him for a brief against Comey. He delivered like a professional, just as he presumably has during his entire, very successful career.
When he wrote that memo, he didn't recognize that the rules had changed -- but I'm sure he gets it now and will act accordingly. As with Mueller, his dismissal/resignation is pretty much inevitable.
It's a little weird and creepy that I feel so confident that I understand Rosenstein. I've been a soulless functionary myself for so long that this all seems obvious to me, as plain as if I were reading his mind. I am the bureaucrat-whisperer!
For Republican primary voters, it isn't about politics, but channeling resentment
I don't disagree with this, but I think the causation arrow might run in the other direction. Republican primary voters don't have any policy to support, resentment is all they've got. Give them something that'll make a difference for them, and maybe something else happens.
Incidentally, as I understand it (from a Washington Post interview right after Mueller was appointed that I am too lazy to find right now) Trump could also elect to repeal/modify the special counsel regulation by executive action. I'm not certain whether this would require a long waiting time/comment period though.
They are relatively affluent and older. They don't want a minimum wage increase because that's what the kids have been in the streets asking for.
Among other things, I think Trump personally would hate the idea of a higher minimum wage. (Whereas building lots of buildings, bridges, etc. could appeal to him.)
Hotels, of course, pay minimum wage for lots of positions.
This is litigator v. bureaucrat, dueling worldviews.
He's a bureaucrat, and he left no paper trail that implicates him in anything wrong.
Yes he did! It's the date on the memo. If that memo were dated immediately after the election, Rosenstein would be completely in the clear.
That it's dated an inexplicably long time after the good reasons for firing Comey took place, and right when Trump developed a set of wrongful reasons for firing Comey, makes the real story: that Trump (through Sessions, I assume) told Rosenstein "I want to fire Comey. Write me up a good excuse for it", obvious. And Rosenstein can't possibly have not known Trump's real reasons for wanting Comey fired at the time he wrote the memo.
That memo doesn't cover his ass any better than a hospital gown.
45 I overstated: I'm guessing that R probably believes that his brief is internally consistent, and a proper statement of the case. That firing Comey based on the email thing is justifiable.
The memo doesn't cover his ass, but I think we can be thankful that it covers his genitals.
The damage a higher minimum wage would do to Trump personally is a big reason it would be so politically potent.
Thought experiment: If Rod Rosenstein refuses to fire Mueller and is fired himself, would he become a legitimate candidate for attorney general in the next regime -- whether Democratic or Republican? If James Comey can become FBI director, why can't Rosenstein be AG?
(The actual answer, one hopes, is that the Democrats aren't stupid enough to again fall for this bullshit of "reaching across the aisle" and whatnot. But still ...)
No! Whatever he does in the future doesn't clear him of having been a willing participant in the Comey firing. (Also, fuck reaching across the aisle.)
Democrats will absolutely fall for the reaching across the aisle thing again. David Frum for Secretary of State!
His ass is his having been a willing participant in the Comey firing. His dick is having been a co-conspirator in obstruction of justice (and Justice). His balls are not subject to discussion because of the analogy ban.
57: First Canadian in the cabinet since Reconstruction.
58: And there's no need to discuss the taint this has all placed on his career.
Evan McMullin will have to save us.
JACK KEITH*. You'd better bust Mueller first.
STARK TRUMP. Oh, I'll bust him, I'll-- (Angry, as an idea strikes him) Listen, Keith you get in there and dig. Get the dirt on the Special Prosecutor.
KEITH. Look here, Boss, there isn't any dirt. Not on Mueller.
TRUMP. There's always something.
KEITH. Maybe not on Mueller.
TRUMP. Listen, Keith. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption, and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something.
*Bodyguard Keith Schiller
Malcolm Turnbull mocking Trump not yet getting much attention, but now we know how the Mad Max timeline will get started.
(Taken form someone on Twitter I can;t find now.)
Thinking the content of the memo would make it look legit is like a cat trying to cover up shit on a concrete floor by scratching at it.
I would just like to applaud this line.
It's quite true that events to date have shown he never intended to move to triangulation involving actually helping the working class...But he's been in office less than 5 months, so I wouldn't rule out it happening later as part of a random walk.
Also a nice turn of phrase. (Ellipses is mine, not in original.)
Democrats will absolutely fall for the reaching across the aisle thing again.
This is the saddest truth of all.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller, without telling the White House, and apparently after getting pissed off at how they hung him out to dry over the Comey firing. He's not going to fire Mueller. He might get fired himself if Trump decides to literally recreate the Saturday Night Massacre. Do we have a Solicitor General yet?
Looks like the nominee is Noel Francisco, not yet confirmed. Scalia staffer, GWB DOJ official.
That should be an interesting confirmation hearing.
Why would they hold a hearing? Are they still required to?
To grandstand, of course. They like doing that.
I am curious as to how they pulled off the Otto Warmbier release; I assume it wasn't literally in exchange for The Art of the Deal. I've had in my head an idle quote somewhere about how the Trumpists (transition-era?) didn't mind the intense public focus on Russia because it distracted from other dealings particularly in China; probably not above the level of garden variety paranoid ramblings, but also plausible. Also definitely not either/or.
I have to watch the creeping paranoia... I always assume I'm seeing less than half the story. I tell myself it's cool as long as I refrain from extrapolating the unknown half.
Is no one else bored at work today
||
A couple of years ago I was really excited about Leyla McCalla's Veri-Colored Songs (and made Bob "smile from ear to ear")
Yesterday I happened across this concert video of her which really is one of the best things ever. I'd always liked her versions of the Langston Hughes poems, but in that performance the Haitian folk songs really grab me as well, in a way that they didn't on the album. If you're interested in something to listen to heading into the weekend, give it a try. I recommend it as highly as I can.
|>
Is no one else bored at work today
Heh. I've been a little procrastinat-y all week. I'm getting close to a deadline, and I've been double checking things for release (and finding a variety of small problems which are just annoying to fix) and I just want to be done with the whole thing.
|| my husband's sister-in-law just had her flight cancelled because of runway construction. This isn't surprise work. You think that they could have cut back on the number of scheduled flights instead of cancelling at the last minute.
|>
Oh I know. I left off the question mark to imply a half-assed use/mention distinction. I get nervous when no one comes along to bury my comments. Also: hella bored at work.
Is no one else bored at work today
Always already.
Because I'm at home, I can work on Minecraft. I have a trench that runs from the sky to the bedrock and, except for one small bit, from ocean to ocean across over a dozen biomes.
The Post is now reporting that Mueller is investigating Kushner's business dealings.
The Germans always go for the Jews first.
84: I hope his coming on board proves to be a massive unforced error for him personally but I have no faith in any manner of formal or informal justice being served in these dark days.
85: But I was not corrupt real estate developer so I did not speak up.
In one way of reading that one comes out very, very wrong.
86: This administration does seem to specialize in unforced errors.
Unforced errors to hurt itself. Deliberate attacks to hurt others.
What must it be like to be working someplace like EPA, Justice, State Dept. right now? Some functions probably just plugging away but anything remotely close to policy must just be a horrorshow.
Everybody thinks about the dedicated, competent workers, but imagine somebody who was a total shithead and working at the EPA for all these years. Now, it's his moment to shine.
OT: IBSD is "irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea," which I learned from the TV on a commercial for a medication. Drug companies suck at names. They could have had DIBS with "diarrhea with irritable bowel syndrome."
Anyway, Ken Starr managed to get his name in the newspaper again. Goodnight.
94: When I worked at UNMC, someone had gotten the office a promotional notepad, printed with, and in the shape of a 4-legged stool, with a legend along the lines of "...for a well-formed stool" and advertising some similar nostrum.
75: Trump does in fact have an interest in a major development in Taiwan, which IIRC was the first thing he mentioned during his first major diplomatic gaffe,* his phone call with Tsai. After which he just happened to stop believing in the One China doctrine. Until he met Xi.
*God help us that was only four months ago.
45tweet implying senile ire alighting on Rosenstein today.
100: Yes, I think he is setting up to fire Rosenstein first.
Also see the weird "anti-leak" statement Rosenstein put out last night. Surely done under pressure from the grifter-in-chief.
OT: Amazon is buying Whole Foods. I guess for drone parking lots near people with disposable income.
Trump really is unique in the amount of loyalty he demands and how completely unwilling he is to return it to those who have put their neck out for him.
||
Vox has a great article this morning, in which they try to ask 8 Republican Senators, "what problems do you think the Republican health care bill will solve?" and "What mechanisms in the bill will address those problems?"
It's really worth reading. The thing that strikes me is that the Senators who have doubts about the bill have much more specific answers and the Senators who are most supportive of really don't want to talk about it. For example, this exchange is priceless:
Jeff Stein: How do you think the bill will fix that problem?
Chuck Grassley: Well, by bringing certainty to the insurance market. They don't have that certainty now.
Jeff Stein:By bringing certainty to the insurance market. What certainty?
Chuck Grassley: What?
Jeff Stein: What do you mean by certainty?
Chuck Grassley: Well, they can't even file. They have to check the rates real high if they don't know what the government policy is. And so the certainty is that passing a bill gives the health insurance companies certainty.
Jeff Stein: Wouldn't not passing a bill also do that?
Chuck Grassley: No, it. Well, yeah -- it gives them certainty that you'll have a lot higher rates than if you pass the bill.
Jeff Stein: So you're saying [the bill] will lower the rates?
Chuck Grassley: Um, if you're talking about lowering the rates from now down, no. The rates could be way up here. [Points to sky] And if they -- if we get a bill passed, it maybe wouldn't go up or would go up a heck of a lot less than they would without a bill.
|>
They're going to do it, because "Fuck You." Reasons are for losers.
Poor ol' Rod Rosenstein. How many humiliations must he endure before he finally gets canned?
What are the odds that the CNN source is correct about this?
An anonymous Justice Department official told a CNN reporter Friday morning that Trump did not order Rosenstein to issue the statement on anonymous sources.
Okay, maybe Sessions ordered it.
Trump is never going to let Rosenstein live down his role in Comey's firing. Today he tweets:
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
And what can Rosenstein say in response? "I was just following orders ..."
Trump has a tiger by the tail here, though. Pissing off a prosecutor is a special kind of bad karma.
107 before seeing 100, 102 and 104.
I'm still thinking of how Trump gets anybody to work for him now. It's one thing to eat the another survivor when you're both drifting on a life raft, but it's quite another to hire somebody when that's practically in position description for anybody who is paying attention.
92: From the perspective of a contractor plugging away in the basement at one of those functions, only two differences come to mind.
1. We're shorthanded, because our Eritrean co-worker went on vacation to visit family overseas and wasn't able to reenter the country.
2. My commute is worse. It takes me very close to the WH. A year ago, that was no problem 95 percent of the time. These days, I'd say at least once a week that route is blocked off for security reasons. It's not a huge difference in distance, let's say a total of four blocks out of my way, but it's a noticeable impact on time and stress due to traffic and stuff. I don't know if this is because the current administration is more paranoid about security than the previous, more unpopular, or more disorganized about their comings and goings, and I admit I haven't been rigorous about comparing the number of incidents, but I'm as sure as I can be that there are more now.
Not problems specific to an agency that's currently out of favor, in other words, but they are among the kind of problems you'd expect from this administration.
I hate it when reporters ask anonymous officials from other countries for inside info on the US government.
Is anyone aware of any actual new WH hires, other than personal lawyers? Nominees are still trickling in, but not for the WH.
Looks like the next Bush-era staffer whose mettle will be tested after Rosenstein is one Rachel Brand.
111: The Kremlinology on the Rosenstein statement has been interesting. Ranging from Trump demanding DOJ/Sessions/Rosenstein refute the info in the leaks and that being the best they felt they could muster (and explains The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations." at the end), trough, "Must be a big anonymous drop coming from a foreign intelligence service.") I lean to something more towards the former.
112: What kind of positions need to be filled in the White House itself? Or are you talking about agency positions?
105: Actually the one that really struck me was McCain. Utterly focused on the process aspects despite the questioner trying to get him to policies. (Of course he might claim the senile/stroke excuse...)
Tara Golshan, Vox
Generally, what are the big problems this bill is trying to solve?
John McCain
Almost all of them. They're trying to get to 51 votes.
Tara Golshan
Policy-wise. What are the problems [in the American health care system] this is trying to solve -- and is the bill doing that right now?
John McCain
Well, it's whether you have full repeal, whether you have partial repeal, whether you have the basis of it. It's spread all over.
Tara Golshan
But based on the specifics of the bill you have heard so far, is it solving the problems [in the health care system]?
John McCain
What I hear is that we have not reached consensus. That's what everybody knows.
Tara Golshan
Right, but outside of getting the votes. From what you hear of the actual legislation being written, is it solving the problems you see --
John McCain
It's not being written. Because there's no consensus.
Tara Golshan
But generally speaking, what are the big problems it is trying to solve?
John McCain
You name it. Everything from the repeal caucus, which as you know, they have made their views very clear -- Rand Paul, etc. And then there are the others on the other side of the spectrum that just want to make minor changes to the present system. There's not consensus.
What kind of positions need to be filled in the White House itself?
President of the United States.
112.2: I don't see any test for Brand. I suspect she'll be right at home in her new job. Sessions/Trump won't be asking anything from her that is out of line with Bush admin priorities.
117: The Saturday Night Massacre scenario - if Trump decides to fire Mueller, is she Ruckelshaus or Bork.
And, it's only 30 some hours until Saturday night.
Actually the one that really struck me was McCain.
Aaron Carroll agrees with you. I thought it was remarkable, but just didn't want to look like I was taking cheap shots* at McCain after his incoherence in the Comey hearing.
* Not that I think it's a cheap shot, mind you, I just wanted to avoid an appearance of impropriety.
My guess is Bork, but I'll be happy to be surprised.
Have we moved far enough in 10 years that this sort of nickname is unprintable? I think so.
I don't think Putin had anything to do with 121.
Does anybody know what Trump is doing with this days? I get his emails (I enjoy opening my spam folder and seeing it there among the other obvious frauds.). He has only one event listed today (fucking with Cuba).
Just like Why Not Me?. I should go re-read that book. Except I have to be careful not to get cheese stains on it because our copy is signed now.
114: I don't know if you can speak of an objective need for more people like Stephen Miller, but I thought they still perceived themselves as understaffed in the core group of presidential aides and so forth.
In the slightly further-out circle of the EOP, per the WaPost appointments tracker, of 22 key positions, 2 have been filled, 5 nominated, 15 fully vacant. For example, Mulvaney has no deputy director yet.
128: Yes, I thought a lot of things like the liaison roles between Exec Branch and Departments were still vacant (probably on both ends).
129: For actual liaison work they seem to have a lot of stealth non-confirmed staff though.
The article in 105 was interesting, thanks. On the other hand, I thought this article by Ezra Klein about the AHCA from last night sucked. (Full disclosure: got it from teo at the other place. Sorry to disagree with you here and not there, teo, but I'm more comfortable making comments like this here.) It seems like the kind of too-clever-by-half baseless supposition Vox thinks of itself as too rigorous for. The whole argument seems to be that Democrats are now willing to go for Medicare for all.
If Republicans wipe out the Affordable Care Act and de-insure tens of millions of people, they will prove a few things to Democrats. First, including private insurers and conservative ideas in a health reform plan doesn't offer a scintilla of political protection, much less Republican support. Second, sweeping health reform can be passed quickly, with only 51 votes in the Senate, and with no support from major industry actors. Third, it's easier to defend popular government programs that people already understand and appreciate, like Medicaid and Medicare, than to defend complex public-private partnerships, like Obamacare's exchanges.
All of that was true in 2009. And yet, what we got was Obamacare. Between now and then Democrats lost, not gained seats, and in the Senate at least they're very likely to lose more in 2018.
"I have been in contact with a lot of Democrats in Congress," says Yale's Jacob Hacker, who is influential in liberal health policy circles, "and I am confident that the modal policy approach has shifted pretty strongly toward a more direct, public-option strategy, if not 'Medicare for all.'"
First, this doesn't actually say very much. Second, to the extent that this is true, it could be evidence that Medicare for all is coming, like Hacker and/or Klein seems to think. On the other hand it could be evidence that the party out of power just has to worry about pleasing their base and not about governing, which we already know very well.
Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. No one can stop them from passing a bad health care bill if they want to. But they should think carefully about what is likely to come next. Tens of millions of people losing insurance, and they're to blame.
Klein seems to be giving the American public a hell of a lot of credit for intelligence there.
It looks like he's just hoping that AHCA repeal will result in "heighten the contradictions" between the GOP position and full-on Swedish-style Medicare-for-all, and therefore everyone will go for the latter. Insanity.
First, including private insurers and conservative ideas in a health reform plan doesn't offer a scintilla of political protection, much less Republican support.
This is, I think, news since 2009. That is, I think Democrats really thought that insurance industry buy-in was worth something politically. I mean, I'm surprised that it isn't.
Full disclosure: got it from teo at the other place. Sorry to disagree with you here and not there, teo, but I'm more comfortable making comments like this here.
No need to worry. It didn't get much discussion at the other place and I don't see any problem with discussing it here instead.
All of that was true in 2009. And yet, what we got was Obamacare.
All of it was true, yes, but we didn't know it was true at the time. Obamacare came out of a set of assumptions about political constraints, not all of which have turned out to be accurate. Trumpcare is being pushed through with a different set of assumptions, some of which may well not turn out to be accurate either.
On the other hand it could be evidence that the party out of power just has to worry about pleasing their base and not about governing, which we already know very well.
This is a fair point, yeah, and one that Klein should have addressed but didn't. Another difference between 2009 and 2017, though, is that the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the left as a lot of older more conservative Dems in Congress have retired or lost their seats and as grassroots movements have pushed the remaining Dems in office leftward.
Klein seems to be giving the American public a hell of a lot of credit for intelligence there.
I don't think he is. He's just saying that when bad things happen people blame the party in power, which is definitely true, and that if the AHCA passes bad things will happen to a lot of people's health insurance, which is also definitely true.
It looks like he's just hoping that AHCA repeal will result in "heighten the contradictions" between the GOP position and full-on Swedish-style Medicare-for-all, and therefore everyone will go for the latter. Insanity.
That is certainly what he's hoping/arguing, but it doesn't seem insane to me. Single-payer is a popular idea even if the politics of actually implementing it are more difficult in practice than supports tend to imply, and the GOP position is so ludicrously unpopular that they're trying to push through their bill before anyone realizes what it does. If that really is the choice (which I'm not convinced is actually the case), then yes, I think everyone will go for the single-payer option.
That is, I think Democrats really thought that insurance industry buy-in was worth something politically. I mean, I'm surprised that it isn't.
I'm still not 100% convinced that it isn't. The GOP still hasn't actually gotten their bill through, and the insurance industry was less vocal in opposition to the House bill than other stakeholders like doctors and hospitals.
All of that was true in 2009. And yet, what we got was Obamacare.
It was true, but people didn't act like it was true. I think the point is that even the elitest of Democrats realize now that the GOP are not going to turn bipartisan no matter how much you sell out to them. No inevitability, but I think Klein is right about the ground shifting among Dems.
131: Despite my reflexive loathing of heightening-the-contradictions arguments, I thought Klein was pretty persuasive.
All of that was true in 2009.
All of the things that were true in 2009 had counter-arguments that have since been completely discredited. Not only does Klein dispose of those counter-arguments, he suggests with some backing that the Democrats in Congress are going to be inclined to reject those counter-arguments, too.
And in 2009, the Dems were a few votes away from including a public option, for example. Since then, an ancient, funny-looking Vermont socialist temporarily became a Democrat and ran a plausible presidential campaign based on democratic socialism.
The country is changing. It's polarizing. And if our pole goes to the polls, there's every reason to believe that a better solution can be contrived than Obamacare. As Klein says, Democrats are recognizing the futility of trying to appease the troglodytes.
When is the last time a major piece of pending legislation was hated as much as the AHCA? And that's before people really understand it. People weren't satisfied with the status quo in 2008; now that they've seen that something better can be contrived, they are going to be pissed when the Republicans send us to something worse than the 2008 status quo.
They are going to be pissed but for certain values of "they", they will be pissed at black people or immigrants or liberal white people who don't go to NASCAR or something.
When is the last time a major piece of pending legislation was hated as much as the AHCA?
The ACA?
138: No, the ACA was never as unpopular as the AHCA. I saw a good chart recently on this that I would try to dig up if I weren't on my phone.
138: ACA polled better than AHCA, and a noteworthy portion of the pushback to the ACA was from liberals.
Did the polls ask about "the ACA" or "Obamacare"? Only half in jest.
Here is the current view on AHCA and here is a discussion of Obamacare's polls.
Of course, Christian Scientists opposed both.
Today Trump just walked back his promise to end DACA. He's got to find a new way to hurt people or his followers will feel betrayed.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'm ready to start reading 538 again.
As I recall, the effective breakdown in support has been:
* ACA: all GOP against; most Dems for; serious lefties discontent enough to say "disapprove" to pollsters
* AHCA: only half of GOP for (the crazification factor); literally everyone else against
I don't know that universal coverage can be enacted with 51 votes. The ACA couldn't have been.
The political dynamic is much different, and I think it's a lot more likely that, whatever happens to the AHCA, the next turn of the wheel will be decidedly towards universality. Even Trump was campaigning for it.
Obviously, it's not happening before 2021.
Lots of pushback, fair enough. I want to clarify one thing in my previous comment, not really relevant to anything after it, but just to be clearer about my main point:
The whole argument seems to be that Democrats are now willing to go for Medicare for all is more likely to be implemented if the AHCA passes.
That Democrats in Congress are now more willing to go for it, I don't doubt. (Somewhat more willing but not entirely vehemently Swedish; the country may be polarized but some Democrats are more conservative than others. But, sure, more willing than they were one year ago or 10 years ago.) And if the AHCA fails, I agree that actually would bolster Democrats' spines. The thing that's driving me nuts is the idea that the AHCA passing makes the arrival of Medicare for all more likely. Democrats may want it but there's no road map to getting the amount of control over government that they'd need as a party. If they ever get that level of control, insurance companies would still be just as opposed to Medicare for all as they were in 2009. They are lukewarm to the AHCA, maybe conflicted about it, but they'd absolutely hate Medicare for all. Everyone opposed to Obamacare would be just as opposed to something even stronger for all the same reasons, including the moderate Democrats.
This is, I think, news since 2009. That is, I think Democrats really thought that insurance industry buy-in was worth something politically. I mean, I'm surprised that it isn't.
All of it was true, yes, but we didn't know it was true at the time.
If I were going to argue about this further (and, sorry, I'm going to leave the office in 10 minutes, maybe over TV tonight or something), I'd try to define "2009" more closely. I mean, some of that stuff was known by the 2008 election, some wasn't really known and proven for sure until after the whole Obamacare debate had happened. Obamacare wasn't a half-measure because Democrats in Congress had wrong assumptions about what was possible, it was a half-measure because that really represented what Democrats in Congress wanted.
The needle is a little further the left now, but not far enough to go even farther than Obamacare, from a baseline even farther to the right than the pre-Obamacare status quo, which the AHCA would be.
The thing that's driving me nuts is the idea that the AHCA passing makes the arrival of Medicare for all more likely. Democrats may want it but there's no road map to getting the amount of control over government that they'd need as a party.
The backlash to the GOP passing a bill as unpopular as the AHCA is the road map. It's not just a messaging thing; millions of people are going to actually lose the insurance they have now.
If they ever get that level of control, insurance companies would still be just as opposed to Medicare for all as they were in 2009. They are lukewarm to the AHCA, maybe conflicted about it, but they'd absolutely hate Medicare for all.
I think the bigger opposition would likely be from doctors and hospitals, actually, since Medicare for all would mean lower payments than they currently get from private insurance. Insurance companies may well be able to find a niche in administering some aspect of the program.
Gradually, different insurance companies would evolve different types of beaks that were suited to that aspect of administration.
Obamacare wasn't a half-measure because Democrats in Congress had wrong assumptions about what was possible, it was a half-measure because that really represented what Democrats in Congress wanted.
That's breathtakingly stupid. It is absurd to believe that Obama or the median Congressional Democrat saw themselves as being unencumbered by by political constraints, with the ability to pass whatever they wanted to.
It may be sleep deprivation talking, but 150 made me laugh strenuously. Like a kookaburra, perhaps.
151: If they were aware of political realities, you'd think they would have started with some common-sense negotiating tactics, like proposing something extreme and being prepared to give a lot up in compromise. Instead, what was proposed was very moderate to begin with.
But then, at some point I should define "they" - Democrats in Congress in 2009, or the Democratic caucus in that era (not the same thing), or the Obama administration, or what - but it won't be now, sorry. Still can't engage much, this is just in the 10 minutes it's taking to heat up the grill. Really, I'm reacting to two annoying things in that article.
1. Optimism about politics is a waste of time and energy these days.
2. I often sympathize with the more radical left just a tiny bit, and "heighten the contradictions" is their thing, and Klein is a centrist wonk, definitely not a radical. You can't have that word, that's our word.
it was a half-measure because that really represented what Democrats in Congress wanted
I just wanted to echo pf on how terribly ahistorical this is. And it wasn't the median Democrat that mattered, but the 60th. There was no chance at all that the 60th vote was going to go for anything further than the ACA -- as a matter of fact, House Democrats were wrong about their ability to survive passage of the ACA.
The political situation is completely different now. I've thought since the AHCA was first proposed that we'd end up moving more towards universal coverage, and with a stronger public component, even if the AHCA fails. As it still might.
They had the negotiation you suggest within the caucus.
I often sympathize with the more radical left just a tiny bit, and "heighten the contradictions" is their thing, and Klein is a centrist wonk, definitely not a radical. You can't have that word, that's our word.
I never cease to be amazed at the left's reluctance to take "yes" for an answer.
And Klein didn't even use the phrase "heighten the contradictions."
It's almost as if the self-identified "radical left" isn't tied to any particular policy priorities as much as to their own identity as "radicals" in contrast to "centrists," so that whenever the "centrists" co-opt their policy ideas they respond by embracing even more radical ones.
158 isn't really directed at Cyrus, who isn't doing that here. Just a general observation.
like proposing something extreme
Thus.
Technically, building seawalls to control tree effects of global warming is heightening the contradictions.
160: I suggest "echinacea, prayer, and a hug" as the new mouseover.
House Democrats were wrong about their ability to survive passage of the ACA
I'm probably repeating myself, but I've always thought the only real hope for something further than the ACA would have been for Dems who were going to lose on a weaker bill to acknowledge that future and go out voting for something better.
I know, that's too much to expect and maybe even too much to ask, at least of people who don't really believe that there's a moral obligation to provide health coverage to all.
154 - the thing that really pisses me off about that era is their insistence on keeping the filibuster, thus making it number 60 and not number 50/51 that mattered.