Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

From Now Isn't the Time for a Boeing-Airbus Trade Row by Chris Bryant at Bloomberg:

 

Late on Monday, the Trump administration decided that now is the moment to ratchet up a longstanding trade dispute between Boeing Co. and Airbus SE. The U.S. is threatening to impose $11 billion of punitive tariffs on a range of European products from aircraft to cheese.

 

The dispute is unrelated to the crash of two Boeing 737 Max aircraft – but the world of commercial aviation is in turmoil, and such a move looks particularly bad right now. It risks looking like a bully lashing out under pressure.

 

Boeing’s dispute with Airbus at the World Trade Organization dates back years. Each accuses the other of benefiting from unfair subsidies. The details are complex, and neither side is blameless. After all, establishing a competitive commercial aerospace industry is difficult without some form of government support.

 

The two sides should have moved on long ago, but still can’t. The U.S. seems unable to forgive Airbus for breaking its dominance of large commercial aircraft production – each now has about 50 percent of the market.

 

President Donald Trump appears to loathe the WTO, until it is useful to him. By making threats just as the European economy shows signs of weakening, he doubtless intends to make a show of strength. He seems to believe international governments can be browbeaten into making trade concessions that he can then celebrate as a “win.”

 

Germany’s car exports are in no way a threat to U.S. national security, but claiming otherwise makes for a useful negotiating tactic. Similarly, part of the administration’s beef with Airbus relates to development loans that European governments provided for the A380 superjumbo, a plane that has now been scrapped due to a lack of orders.

 

On Monday, Airbus shares had hit a record high amid expectations that the plane maker could gain some advantage from the 737 Max’s prolonged grounding (though the European company has been at pains to emphasize it won’t try to capitalize on the tragedy.) On Tuesday, the stock dipped only slightly on the news of possible tariffs – because if the U.S. did take punitive action, Europe would be all but certain to retaliate and hurt Boeing.

 

It looks unwise for the U.S. to step up a commercial dispute when its domestic aerospace champion is reeling and reliant on the goodwill of aviation authorities around the world to help get the 737 Max flying again. Distrust is already running high, with the Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about its rigor in approving the jet and why it took so long to ground the plane.

 

In view of the lives lost in the twin Boeing tragedies, and the importance of understanding what went wrong, talking about aerospace trade disputes feels distasteful. But, in such circumstances, it would be remiss not to mention one thing.

 

Back in 2011, when Airbus began winning a string of orders for its new fuel-efficient single aisle jet, the A320neo, Boeing scrambled to launch a product that would help it fight back. It now turns out that plane, the 737 Max, was unsafe. With Boeing’s top-selling jet grounded for the foreseeable future, perhaps it is fortunate commercial aviation didn’t end up a monopoly.

With the FAA and Congress in the pocket of the U.S. aviation industry, it is indeed fortunate for U.S. air travelers that Airbus exists and other countries are stepping out of the FAA's shadow. Alas, poor Boeing. With Trump on their side, things can only get worse.

[Winstonm]

This is now the world in which we live:

 

....we are now experiencing the kind of politicization of senior positions normally only seen in authoritarian states, where appointments are kept within tight circles of people whose commitment (or family connection) to the leader is more important than experience or knowledge. Trump’s appointments are more and more obvious attempts to capture the machinery of government not for partisan interest, conservative ideas, or even the passing interest of some beloved donors, but purely for the sake of Donald J. Trump.

 

Cain and Moore are not unintelligent or unskilled men, but their nominations are straightforward examples of nominees whose primary qualification is their public obeisance to Trump’s personal priorities. Trump does not like the Federal Reserve’s ability to set interest rates without his permission and in ways that do not serve his needs, and he intends to put a stop to it. Cain and Moore will do what Trump tells them to do, even if it means undermining the independence of the Fed. This makes them, in the president’s eyes, qualified.

[y66]

Dems sleeping on the job in Wisconsin is making David Nir at The Daily Kos really, really angry:

 

I’m angry. I’m really, really angry. And I’ll tell you exactly why.

 

Progressives lost an exceptionally important election in Wisconsin that took place a week ago by a bitterly narrow margin—just 6,000 votes. Yet in all likelihood, most folks never even heard about it in the first place.

 

This race was a battle for a seat on the seven-member state Supreme Court held by a retiring liberal icon, Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Hold the seat, and progressives would keep the conservative majority to a slim four-to-three, with an excellent chance at flipping the court next year.

 

Lose, and the chance would disappear for years. And now, that’s exactly what’s happened.

 

The timing is everything. State supreme courts are important for a thousand and one reasons, but winning in Wisconsin was a burning priority at this precise moment. In 2020, the next census will get underway. Once it’s completed, a new round of redistricting will begin, affecting both Congress and state legislatures everywhere.

 

And in Wisconsin, as I’ll bet you know, Republicans have gerrymandered the lines to within an inch of death. Here’s one way to look at it: Democrats won every single statewide race in 2018, yet the GOP won almost two-thirds of the seats in the state Assembly. In no universe is that reasonable.

 

Yet Republicans have gotten away with this brazen, years-long plot to stymie the will of the majority of voters precisely because they know the judiciary won’t check them. John Roberts doesn’t give a good ***** about gerrymandering. Neither do the state courts, packed as they are with Republican appointees and conservative ideologues.

 

But we had a chance to change all that: Elect fair-minded jurist Lisa Neubauer this year, unseat Scott Walker appointee Dan Kelly next year—on the same day as the Democratic presidential primary, no less—and suddenly we’re looking at a four-to-three liberal majority on the state’s highest court. That’s the kind of court that would stop to scrutinize unfair district lines—and impose proper ones as needed.

 

Forget it, though. That future won’t happen. And why?

 

Because Democratic Party leaders went AWOL, and large swaths of the progressive movement just weren’t paying attention.

 

So yeah, you bet I’m angry.

It's not just highly regarded jurists who can't win in Wisconsin. The Packers finished 6-9-1 last year and FoxConn is confusing the hell out of everyone.

[y66]

From Pete Buttigieg, Gay and Christian, Challenges Religious Right on Its Own Turf by Jeremy Peters at NYT:

 

WASHINGTON — As a religious gay man who believes his party has ceded discussion of religion and spirituality to Republicans, Pete Buttigieg, a Democratic candidate for president, is talking about God and sexuality in an unconventional way: He is using the language of faith to confront the Christian right on territory they have long claimed as their own.

 

Mr. Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., has provoked a backlash from conservatives in the last few days after questioning the moral authority of evangelicals like Vice President Mike Pence who remain silent about President Trump’s personal conduct yet disapprove of same-sex marriages and oppose gay rights.

 

Though many conservatives were initially reticent to engage Mr. Buttigieg because they feared it would only add to his growing stature as a 2020 contender, they jumped on his latest comments. Some suggested he was attacking the vice president to further raise his profile. Others challenged Mr. Buttigieg’s understanding of Christianity and accused him of smearing the religious convictions of the very people he wants to win over.

 

A devoted Episcopalian who fluidly quotes Scripture and married his husband, Chasten, in a church service last year, Mr. Buttigieg is making the argument that marriage is a “moral issue.” In a speech on Sunday to the Victory Fund, a group that supports gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender politicians, he said his relationship had made him “more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent.”

 

He then directly addressed Mr. Pence, as one man of faith talking to another: “And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God.”

 

This is not the domain where social conservatives and gay rights advocates are used to doing battle. In the decade and a half since same-sex marriage became a galvanizing issue for both sides, the national debate has largely focused on the tension between civil rights and individual freedoms.

 

Mr. Buttigieg has reframed it in religious terms, raising questions about God, morality, sexuality and intolerance that depart from the familiar left-right fault lines. That quickly caught the attention of Republicans and conservative media commentators, who tried to cast his remarks as an unprovoked attack on faith-abiding Christians.

 

Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, insisted Tuesday that her husband has no quarrel with Mr. Buttigieg. “I don’t think the vice president does have a problem with him,” she said in an interview with Fox News radio. “I think in our country we need to understand you shouldn’t be attacked for what your religious beliefs are,” she added, noting that the speech was probably “helping Pete to get some notoriety.”

 

Mr. Buttigieg has reframed the fight over gay rights in religious terms, raising questions about faith, tolerance and morality that depart from the familiar left-right fault lines.

 

Mr. Buttigieg, who has been the mayor of South Bend since 2012, had a friendly working relationship with Mr. Pence while Mr. Pence was governor of Indiana. They toured factories together and occasionally exchanged text messages. Mr. Buttigieg has cited Mr. Pence’s support for legislation that made it easier for religious conservatives to refuse service to gay couples as a reason he decided to come out publicly in 2015.

 

Mr. Pence’s office responded to Mr. Buttigieg’s comments this week by releasing an old video clip in which he praised the mayor as a “dedicated public servant and a patriot.” Mr. Buttigieg’s ramped-up attacks on Mr. Pence have miffed the vice president, who has privately told allies that if Mr. Buttigieg had questions about his religious beliefs, he could have asked him at any time during their friendship.

 

The issue followed the vice president to the United Nations on Wednesday, where reporters shouted questions at him about whether being gay was a choice. Mr. Pence walked away without answering.

 

The reaction from other conservatives was less measured. A Fox News host, Todd Starnes, accused the mayor of wanting “to shove evangelical Christians into the closet.”

 

Erick Erickson, an evangelical blogger, said that Mr. Buttigieg’s comments about religious conservatives who support Mr. Trump suggest that he “would be O.K. with using the government to persecute Christians.” After Mr. Buttigieg spoke about his beliefs in an interview with USA Today, Mr. Erickson wrote a blog post headlined, “Mayor Pete Buttigieg Apparently Thinks Jesus Would Be Okay With Beastiality.” (Mr. Buttigieg actually said nothing on that subject, though he did quote a favorite Bible verse: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.”)

 

Mr. Buttigieg has provoked a mixture of concern, derision and faint admiration from conservatives. Some built him up early as an undeniable but stealth force in the race. Rush Limbaugh warned his listeners that someone as articulate, personal and seemingly reasonable as Mr. Buttigieg would be a strong opponent. Ben Shapiro, the writer and podcast host, argued that he was the candidate who could most likely beat Mr. Trump. “Really. He’s not crazy, he’s from the Rust Belt, he served in Afghanistan,” Mr. Shapiro wrote on Twitter.

 

But this week provided a moment of clarity on the right, and the backlash was a reminder of how galvanizing religion and homosexuality can be when evangelicals and other conservatives of faith are convinced that their values are under attack. This sentiment, which was stoked by Mr. Trump and his allies in the Christian right in 2016, was a major factor in the president’s huge margins with white evangelicals. Eighty-one percent voted for him, compared with 16 percent for Hillary Clinton.

 

Indeed, if Mr. Buttigieg continues to gain in the polls, it could prompt the religious right to draw attention to numerous comments he has made about evangelicals and Mr. Trump — “the hypocrisy is unbelievable,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this week — as conservatives did after Mrs. Clinton called Trump voters a “basket of deplorables.”

 

Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said Mr. Buttigieg’s approach struck him as odd given how so much of his message has been focused on unity and restoring the Democratic Party’s relationship with voters who are more religious and conservative. “It seems to me the solution to that is not to attack the faith of anyone else, whether it is the president, the vice president or anyone else,” Mr. Reed said. “The solution should be to talk about their own faith.”

 

Mr. Buttigieg’s words suggest that he will spend little effort trying to entice any of the president’s most loyal religious supporters. But by pushing the discussion of homosexuality and marriage toward morality and the Bible, he is opening a door to voters of faith who are turned off by the dominance of the Republican Party’s far right but are not yet convinced they could vote for a Democrat.

 

That approach would be similar to the one Barack Obama took in 2008 when he received 26 percent of the white evangelical vote. Mr. Trump’s approval rating among white evangelicals has remained high — 69 percent as of January, according to the Pew Research Center. But that has slipped 9 points since his inauguration.

Some evangelical Christians say that the fracture over Mr. Trump within their community runs so deep that the desire for an alternative — especially one like Mr. Buttigieg, who is so temperamentally different from the profane, brash and unpredictable president — will remain strong.

 

Pete Wehner, an evangelical who worked in the George W. Bush White House and has split with his community and his party over Mr. Trump, said the way Mr. Buttigieg speaks with ease and familiarity about Christianity is a trait many voters will find to be a welcome contrast with the president.

 

“It’s not a foreign language to him like it is to Donald Trump, so you’re not going to get ‘Two Corinthians’ from him,” Mr. Wehner said, referring to Mr. Trump’s flub of the Bible book properly referred to as “Second Corinthians.”

 

“He speaks about faith in a way that is largely nonthreatening and not filled with anger,” Mr. Wehner added. “That is a real opening.”

But the unflagging devotion that most white evangelicals have for the president suggests that many will be far more concerned with policy results like conservative Supreme Court justices than with electing someone who speaks their language. The relevant question for Mr. Buttigieg is whether there is a critical mass of those who are wavering.

 

“Mayor Pete could not have hoped to capture conservative Christian voters or moderate Christian voters at any point in modern American history — until now,” said Jonathan Merritt, an evangelical author and speaker who disagrees with the decision by evangelical political leaders to stand by the president.

 

Mr. Merritt, who believes the taint of hypocrisy has turned many young evangelicals like him away from traditional leaders, said he remembers growing up in the South when antipathy toward President Bill Clinton and his personal conduct was running hot.

 

The line he remembers seeing and hearing over and over, he said, was “character matters.”

[y66]

Quote of the day:

 

Politics is (should) be about making people’s lives better. That’s it. It’s that simple. We all do better when we all do better. -- Chasten Buttigieg

[Chas_P]

Quote of the day:

Politics is (should) be about making people’s lives better. That’s it. It’s that simple. We all do better when we all do better.

 

Agreed.

[kenberg]

I am unsure of whether Pete Buttigieg should be president, he is a bit young, 37 I think. But I'm really glad he is in the race. He has a way of getting to the point in a gentle manner. An example from the other day (approximate quote) on religion and his sexuality. "If Mr. Pence has a problem, the problem is not with me but with my Maker". I expect that some religious people might give that some thought, and in fact I know more than a few who have, and largely along that line. The man appears to be a good person, at peace with himself, wanting to work productively. He has a lot of local support and I can see why. All that doesn't mean that he should be president, but it's not nothing. It's good to have an election where people are voting for someone that they really like rather than voting against someone whom they really hate.

[hrothgar]

I have been very impressed with Buttigieg. (I believe that I posted a podcast a few weeks back where I first heard him interviewed).

 

He is in my top tier of candidates, along with Klobuchar and Harris.

[johnu]

He is in my top tier of candidates, along with Klobuchar and Harris.

 

I was interested in Klobuchar until I read about how she abused her staff and had childish temper tantrums. This brings up bad memories of Dennison's similar behavior. Self control and old fashioned courtesy are solid characteristics to have, IMHO. Of course, every single declared and potential Democratic candidate would be a unbelievably better president than Dennison.

[y66]

From Robert Maguire at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington:

 

Can we all just appreciate for a moment that the older sister of the sitting President of the United States just retired so as to avoid an inquiry into a decades-long tax fraud scheme she participated in *with the President* (who is still in office)

 

From From Retiring as a Judge, Trump’s Sister Ends Court Inquiry Into Her Role in Tax Dodges by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig at NYT:

 

Judge Barry had been a co-owner of a shell company — All County Building Supply & Maintenance — created by the family to siphon cash from their father’s empire by marking up purchases already made by his employees, The Times investigation found. Judge Barry, her siblings and a cousin split the markup, free of gift and estate taxes, which at the time were levied at a much higher rate than income taxes.

 

On a financial disclosure form filed in 1999, Judge Barry noted that her share of the All County profits for the previous 17 months totaled just over $1 million.

 

The family also used the padded invoices to justify higher rent increases in rent-regulated buildings, artificially inflating the rents of thousands of tenants. Former prosecutors told The Times that if the authorities had discovered at the time how the Trumps were using All County, their actions would have warranted a criminal investigation for defrauding tenants, tax fraud and filing false documents.

 

Similarly, Judge Barry benefited from the gross undervaluation of her father’s properties when she and her siblings took ownership of them through a trust, sparing them from paying tens of millions of dollars in taxes, The Times found. For years, she attended regular briefings at her brother’s offices in Trump Tower to hear updates on the real estate portfolio and to collect her share of the profits. When the siblings sold off their father’s empire, between 2004 and 2006, her share of the windfall was $182.5 million, The Times found.

 

Judge Barry was nominated to the Federal District Court in New Jersey by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, after several years as a federal prosecutor. She was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 1999.

[y66]

From The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate -- A detailed look at the voters with the numbers to decide the 2020 Democratic nominee by Nate Cohn and Kevin Quealy at The Upshot at NYT:

 

Perhaps the most telling poll of the Democratic primary season hasn’t been about the Democratic primary at all — but about the fallout from a 35-year-old racist photo on a yearbook page. Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia was pummeled on social media after the revelation, and virtually every Democratic presidential candidate demanded his resignation.

 

Yet the majority of ordinary Democrats in Virginia said Mr. Northam should remain in office, according to a Washington Post/Schar School poll a week later. And black Democrats were likelier than white ones to say Mr. Northam should remain.

 

Today’s Democratic Party is increasingly perceived as dominated by its “woke” left wing. But the views of Democrats on social media often bear little resemblance to those of the wider Democratic electorate.

 

The outspoken group of Democratic-leaning voters on social media is outnumbered, roughly 2 to 1, by the more moderate, more diverse and less educated group of Democrats who typically don’t post political content online, according to data from the Hidden Tribes Project. This latter group has the numbers to decide the Democratic presidential nomination in favor of a relatively moderate establishment favorite, as it has often done in the past.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Is the NYTimes now judge, jury, and executioner?

 

If the Times found evidence of wrong-doing, by anyone, in any context, that evidence should be turned over to the appropriate prosecutor, who if he finds it credible should prosecute the offender(s). But what seems to be happening here is that people are accepting the Times' report as a conviction - without a trial.

 

It may be that neither the President's older sister nor the President himself should be allowed to "skate" on these accusations, but again, that is a prosecutor's decision, not the Times' and not ours.

[johnu]

Hm. Is the NYTimes now judge, jury, and executioner?

 

If the Times found evidence of wrong-doing, by anyone, in any context, that evidence should be turned over to the appropriate prosecutor, who if he finds it credible should prosecute the offender(s). But what seems to be happening here is that people are accepting the Times' report as a conviction - without a trial.

 

It may be that neither the President's older sister nor the President himself should be allowed to "skate" on these accusations, but again, that is a prosecutor's decision, not the Times' and not ours.

This story?

 

Trump’s Sister Resigns As Judge, Ending Inquiry Into Alleged Tax Schemes: Report

 

As far as tax fraud goes, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution is 6 years so any activity from the 1990's can't be prosecuted. In theory, there could be a federal civil lawsuit to recover taxes, but this is the Dennison administration and absolutely everybody knows that is never going to happen. IIRC, New York state may try to recover money through civil lawsuits.

 

Barry, 82, left the bench in February after an in-depth investigation last year by the Times revealed how the Trump family allegedly participated in dodgy tax schemes in the 1990s that increased the wealth Barry and her siblings inherited from their father, Fred Trump. Court officials said on Feb. 1 that an inquiry into Barry was “receiving the full attention” of the judicial conduct council. A little over a week later, Barry submitted her resignation. The probe has now been dropped, according to the Times.

That's what's called investigative journalism. NY Times did a credible investigation using thousands of pages of documents and interviews with sources. They wrote an article(s) in their paper that got widespread publicity. Based on details in the article, the judicial conduct council launched an inquiry into Dennison's sister. Rather than deny and fight the details of the story, Dennison's sister chose to resign from office.

 

Those seem to be the undisputed facts. I would expect that an innocent person would have stayed and fought for their good name. If people think that Dennison's sister is a tax fraud because she chose to resign and not fight to clear her name, they are entitled to their opinion.

 

A lawyer for President Trump called the allegations “100 percent false” in a statement to the Times last year.

In typical Animal Farm talk from the Dennison camp, "100% false" actually means 100% true.

 

Yet another example of Dennison gaslighting the truth:

 

Trump Says He Knows ‘Nothing About WikiLeaks’ After Once Saying ‘I Love WikiLeaks’

 

Trump repeatedly praised that organization while campaigning for president in 2016, saying “I love WikiLeaks” for the information it provided against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He mentioned WikiLeaks at least 145 times in the final month leading up to the presidential election, according to NBC

[cherdano]

Hm. Is the NYTimes now judge, jury, and executioner?

 

If the Times found evidence of wrong-doing, by anyone, in any context, that evidence should be turned over to the appropriate prosecutor, who if he finds it credible should prosecute the offender(s). But what seems to be happening here is that people are accepting the Times' report as a conviction - without a trial.

 

It may be that neither the President's older sister nor the President himself should be allowed to "skate" on these accusations, but again, that is a prosecutor's decision, not the Times' and not ours.

My understanding is that the statute of limitations for the tax fraud uncovered by the NYT had expired.

 

But you also misunderstand the role of a trial. While the state is bound by the results of a trial, my own opinion is not. Fantoni-Nunes and O.J. Simpson are guilty in my view, and Adnan Syed is not.

[hrothgar]

Hm. Is the NYTimes now judge, jury, and executioner?

 

Nope, merely accurate in their reporting...

[Chas_P]

I am unsure of whether Pete Buttigieg should be president, he is a bit young, 37 I think. But I'm really glad he is in the race. He has a way of getting to the point in a gentle manner. An example from the other day (approximate quote) on religion and his sexuality. "If Mr. Pence has a problem, the problem is not with me but with my Maker". I expect that some religious people might give that some thought, and in fact I know more than a few who have, and largely along that line. The man appears to be a good person, at peace with himself, wanting to work productively. He has a lot of local support and I can see why. All that doesn't mean that he should be president, but it's not nothing. It's good to have an election where people are voting for someone that they really like rather than voting against someone whom they really hate.

 

The thing I find both interesting and disgusting about the MSM's early storyline on Buttigieg is. "if elected, he would become America's first openly gay President." My reaction is, "So what?" I only care about his policy proposals. If he has ideas that will improve the lives of ALL Americans....red, yellow, black, white....then I'm all for him. I'm not really interested in his party affiliation or how he gets his nuts off.

[cherdano]

The thing I find both interesting and disgusting about the MSM's early storyline on Buttigieg is. "if elected, he would become America's first openly gay President." My reaction is, "So what?" I only care about his policy proposals. If he has ideas that will improve the lives of ALL Americans....red, yellow, black, white....then I'm all for him. I'm not really interested in his party affiliation or how he gets his nuts off.

Sounds like the coverage hit a nerve there?

 

Conservatives in 2009: Do we really need a gay person representing all of America?

 

Conservatives in 2019: WHO THE ***** CARES WHETHER WE MIGHT HAVE A GAY PRESIDENT?!? REALLY?!? NOBODY CARES!! (RIGHT?)

[hrothgar]

The thing I find both interesting and disgusting about the MSM's early storyline on Buttigieg is. "if elected, he would become America's first openly gay President." My reaction is, "So what?" I only care about his policy proposals. If he has ideas that will improve the lives of ALL Americans....red, yellow, black, white....then I'm all for him. I'm not really interested in his party affiliation or how he gets his nuts off.

 

This is news!

 

An actual conservative who's not a bigot....

[Winstonm]

Ohio Governor Signs Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Bill

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s signature makes Ohio the fifth state to ban abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat.

 

This, as clearly as is possible, spells out why the American Taliban (aka Christian Right) has turned its collective eye toward any and all atrocities of Individual-1 and his cabinet cronies - because he makes them feel empowered to create their dreamed about American theocracy.

[Chas_P]

Sounds like the coverage hit a nerve there?

 

Conservatives in 2009: Do we really need a gay person representing all of America?

 

Conservatives in 2019: WHO THE ***** CARES WHETHER WE MIGHT HAVE A GAY PRESIDENT?!? REALLY?!? NOBODY CARES!! (RIGHT?)

 

I didn't care in 2009 either. I've never been interested in what's going on in a bedroom unless I'm in on it. ;)

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

On a recent episode of “The Argument” podcast, I told my colleague Ross Douthat that I thought he was unfairly lumping together different parts of the media when criticizing the coverage of the Russia investigation.

 

Yes, cable television engaged in wild speculation before Robert Mueller issued his report. And, yes, some news outlets, including BuzzFeed News and McClatchy, published stories that today look dubious. But the newsrooms covering the investigation most closely, including The Times and The Washington Post, generally did an excellent job distinguishing among fact, uncertainty and falsehood.

 

I think the coverage of the end of the Mueller investigation was different, however. Across the media spectrum, much of the coverage was problematic.

 

To review: Mueller has written a report that very few people have seen. Its only official public description has come from William Barr, the attorney general whom President Trump appointed primarily because of Barr’s hostility to the investigation. And the difference between Barr’s letter and Mueller’s report has created widespread confusion.

 

“The press, to put it mildly, has not handled the confusion well,” Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes write in Lawfare. The media “dramatically overstated what Barr had actually said about the report,” Jurecic and Wittes write, and also incorrectly suggested Trump had been cleared of wrongdoing. The coverage also underplayed Barr’s bias.

 

In their article, Jurecic and Wittes offer several pieces of advice for anybody who will be covering — or trying to understand — the fuller version of the Mueller report, once it’s made public. Barr has said he will release a redacted version by early next week. Among the article’s advice:

 

Focus on what the report actually says, rather than trying to offer overly sweeping descriptions of what it means.

 

Pay more attention to the details of the report than to the reactions from Congress, the White House and elsewhere.

 

Be careful not to confuse a judgment about whether certain conduct is prosecutable with a judgment about whether it happened.

 

Remember that some behavior that is not prosecutable can still be wrong or damaging to national security.

 

Don’t assume that all redactions are inappropriate attempts by Barr to protect Trump.

 

Be open to the possibility of multiple, complicated story lines

.

All of this strikes me as good advice.

 

Related: James Fallows of The Atlantic says that The Seattle Times did a better job putting the Barr letter in context than much of the national media did.

[y66]

For some strange reason, I keep seeing Francis Urquhart from House of Cards saying "Mainstream media might very well think it's important to emphasize Mayor Pete's sexuality. I couldn't possibly comment. But if I could it would be to say that while I personally could care less, I find this emphasis interesting and disgusting."

[barmar]

I didn't care in 2009 either. I've never been interested in what's going on in a bedroom unless I'm in on it. ;)

Many people consider this more than just a private matter. They think it's part of a person's character, like their religious beliefs. "Coming out" is still a big deal for gay people, because people judge them by it.

 

And a person's character informs their policy decisions. Many of Trump's decisions are clearly related to his narcissism and racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes.

 

Sexual orientation also changes a person's life experiences, which will influence his policies. Gender and race also have similar influences. Someone who has faced discrimination in their life is likely to have more empathy for disadvantaged classes (not just their own).

[kenberg]

If I were to have any interest in a candidates sex life, I would like it to be sane enough so that it does not seriously interfere with his/her job. Buttigieg is gay, that's fine, he is married, that's more than fine especially since apparently it is a successful marriage. Cruising gay bars would not be fine, just as it would not be fine for a hetero president to be trying to pick up someone in a local bar.

 

This came to mind when Bill Clinton was having his problems. People would get a kick out his enthusiasm for Big Macs, but enthusiasms for other women caused problems. Some of that should be between Bill and Hillary, at least I am content to leave it that way, but not all of it. And Donald is an embarrassment to his gender. Largely I hope to be able to mind my own business in these things.

 

[Chas_P]

If I were to have any interest in a candidates sex life, I would like it to be sane enough so that it does not seriously interfere with his/her job.

 

My point exactly. So why does the media feel it necessary to report sexual preferences? Policy is what's important, not the fact that a candidate is "openly gay".

 

 

Donald is an embarrassment to his gender.

 

I guess the same could be said about Bill Clinton but then "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." And FWIW I think Clinton was a successful President despite being a rogue; he and Hillary enriched themselves but they all do that, so what else is new? Hopefully someday we can all say that Trump was a success. (And he was already rich when he got there.)