Politics

The walls are closing in on the Republicans

twitter-content=”<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">There are additional indications in this report that tie Harris (R) & Dowless closer together. While none of this necessarily has legal implications, I think it's hard to argue this doesn't have serious political implications for Harris' future in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NC09?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NC09</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NCPOL?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NCPOL</a></p>— Jonathan Kappler (@jonathankappler) <a href="https://twitter.com/jonathankappler/status/1073562147253354496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote> ”>

x

twitter-tweet”>

There are additional indications in this report that tie Harris (R) & Dowless closer together. While none of this necessarily has legal implications, I think it’s hard to argue this doesn’t have serious political implications for Harris’ future in #NC09. #NCPOL

— Jonathan Kappler (@jonathankappler) December 14, 2018

Jonathan Bernstein/Bloomberg:

How Pelosi Won (Again)

She’s good at the job and understood the political context. Her opponents, not so much.

Second, while congressional leadership battles are usually personal and hinge on relationships within the caucus, this time seemed a little different. I suspect (and I’d love to see evidence from experts) that the relationships Pelosi called upon within the national party network were far more extensive than what was available to, say, Tip O’Neill or Sam Rayburn when they were in similar positions. Also, it sure seemed like there was real grass-roots support for Pelosi, possibly organized by the same people who have energized the resistance and who drummed up turnout in the midterms.
Another interesting angle is Pelosi’s public perception. Her first speakership, from 2007 to 2011, was not much celebrated by the news media. But a combination of the big midterm victory and the internal challenge to her leadership produced a kind of Ginsburgization of her, both in the traditional press and on social media. Here O’Neill again offers a useful comparison: Although the news media had generally dismissed him as a fossil by the 1970s, in his final years as speaker he ended up being recast as a kind but wily grandfather.

twitter-content=”<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Waking up to see that George Conway is making a case for the potential prosecution of the president of the United States and Michael Cohen is on TV saying the president isn't telling the truth and didn't deserve his loyalty.</p>— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) <a href="https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1073561567231438849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote> ”>

x

twitter-tweet”>

Waking up to see that George Conway is making a case for the potential prosecution of the president of the United States and Michael Cohen is on TV saying the president isn’t telling the truth and didn’t deserve his loyalty.

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) December 14, 2018

Ed Kilgore/New York:

Democrats Won Big With a Key Demographic of Trump’s Base During Midterms

Back before the elections, the Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter drew attention to this issue, noting research showing a bigger gap in Trump approval ratings between evangelicals and non-evangelicals than between groups divided by gender or class (defined as education levels). She suggested that fact should point Democrats towards some largely undiscussed opportunities:

White evangelical women without a college degree give Trump a 68 percent job approval rating, while those with a degree give him a much lower, though still positive 51 percent approval rating. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval among white, non-evangelical women without a college degree is 35 percent, just five points higher than the 30 percent approval rating he gets from white, non-evangelical college-educated women …

First, stop assuming that all white, non-college voters are core Trump supporters. Trump’s base is evangelical white voters, regardless of education level. Second, white non-evangelical, non-college women are the ultimate swing voters.

Now with the benefit of exit polls, we can check to see if Walter’s hypothesis checked out. Ron Brownstein demonstrates that it did:

twitter-content=”<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MORE: Casler says Trump invited teen beauty pageant contestants up to his suite: “He would line up the girls on the side of the stage & he would inspect them.. He’d be like, ‘You, you, & you, if you want to win I’m in the penthouse suite, come and see me’” <a href="https://t.co/JBPp4BipRQ">https://t.co/JBPp4BipRQ</a></p>— Evan Rosenfeld (@Evan_Rosenfeld) <a href="https://twitter.com/Evan_Rosenfeld/status/1073274618532704256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2018</a></blockquote> ”>

x

twitter-tweet”>

MORE: Casler says Trump invited teen beauty pageant contestants up to his suite: “He would line up the girls on the side of the stage & he would inspect them.. He’d be like, ‘You, you, & you, if you want to win I’m in the penthouse suite, come and see me’” https://t.co/JBPp4BipRQ

— Evan Rosenfeld (@Evan_Rosenfeld) December 13, 2018

LA Times (my bold):

Trump increasingly isolated as aides leave, friends flip and investigations advance

Several others close to the president, granted anonymity to speak openly about conversations with him, said Trump already senses diminishing respect and worries about losing support from powerful financial donors and Republican lawmakers as his legal and political troubles worsen.

“They’re still not saying it publicly, but most Republicans on the Hill understand … that it’s not going to end well, that it’s going to be bad,” said a longtime Republican operative close to party leadership.

Greg Sargent/LA Times:

Trump is digging the GOP in deeper. And there’s no bottom in sight.

The Post reports that Trump’s threat to shut down the government to secure the wall funding he craves has created a “nightmare scenario” for congressional Republicans, who feel boxed in by Trump’s demand. In his meeting with Democratic leaders, Trump claimed that a package containing $5 billion in wall funding can pass the GOP-controlled House — an assertion that was supposed to pressure Senate Democrats to agree to help get it through the Senate. Democrats have offered a continuing resolution that would spend $1.3 billion on border security but with restrictions against spending it on Trump’s wall.

But as The Post report notes, House Republicans are balking at voting on the $5 billion Trump wants, because it faces certain rejection in the Senate. What’s more, some Republicans don’t even know if it would pass the House. Why? Politico offers this remarkable explanation: “There’s also a concern that the GOP’s moderates, many of whom feel that their losses hinged on Trump, will feel zero need to take a final stand on the wall.”…

We don’t know where all of this will end up, but it is obvious that Trump’s legal travails are deepening. And it’s hard to foresee a scenario in which it doesn’t get harder and harder for Republicans to defend him.

Barring unforeseen events, both of these ongoing narratives appear likely to continue placing Republicans in an increasingly difficult position. If the legal case against Trump advances, standing by him could prove increasingly damaging for Republicans, and Trump may increasingly fall back on his base as his eroding bedrock island of support. That, in turn, may prompt Trump to dig in harder behind his base-pleasing, ethno-nationalist agenda, pulling the party further toward a deeply unpopular set of positions — as we’re now seeing with the histrionics around the wall.

Why would all of this get better before it gets worse?

Hmmmm. Who said it wouldn’t pass the House? To the president’s face? On live television? Oh yeah. Madame Speaker.

Neal Katyal:

THREAD RE INDICTING PRESIDENT. Trump’s defenses to campaign finance [are] crumbling rapidly, particularly after AMI admission. I predict the only thing he has left is idea sitting President cant be indicted. This thread fleshes out aspects of that, expands on NYT.

twitter-content=”<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2. First, they do not necessarily apply to crimes that go to obtaining Presidency itself. It is one thing if we're talking about unrelated crimes, like perjury in current office (which has chilling fx etc). But we may want to avoid incentivizing a world where the prize of winning</p>— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) <a href="https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1072960234946220033?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2018</a></blockquote> ”>

x

twitter-tweet”>

2. First, they do not necessarily apply to crimes that go to obtaining Presidency itself. It is one thing if we’re talking about unrelated crimes, like perjury in current office (which has chilling fx etc). But we may want to avoid incentivizing a world where the prize of winning

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) December 12, 2018

[21 tweets]
twitter-content=”<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I think this is a really helpful way to think about the next few years in health policy, something I heard a lot from Hill staffers.<br><br>This next Congress isn’t about passing policy. It’s about figuring out which policy they want to pass when they’re in a position to do so. <a href="https://t.co/Kq2QspfOI0">https://t.co/Kq2QspfOI0</a></p>— Sarah Kliff (@sarahkliff) <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1073566991389216768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote> ”>

x

twitter-tweet”>

I think this is a really helpful way to think about the next few years in health policy, something I heard a lot from Hill staffers.

This next Congress isn’t about passing policy. It’s about figuring out which policy they want to pass when they’re in a position to do so. https://t.co/Kq2QspfOI0

— Sarah Kliff (@sarahkliff) December 14, 2018

Christopher Stroop/Playboy:

Pat Robertson’s Truth, or Why Kleptocracy and Theocracy Make Good Bedfellows

This is a decades-old sordid story, but [researcher Anna] Massoglia’s new finding bringing it back into the spotlight serves as a good reminder that theocracy is often kleptocracy’s handmaiden—or is it the other way around? The National Prayer Breakfast that Butina used to gain influence for Putin’s kleptocratic Russia is a project of the elite fundamentalist Christian group known as the Family or the Fellowship, and has been attended annually by U.S. presidents since President Dwight Eisenhower. The Cold War paved the way for the rise of today’s Christian Right, and their cultivation of close relationships with brutal dictators is nothing new.
Putin, for his part, has achieved remarkable success in cultivating the American Christian Right by recasting post-Soviet Russia as a conservative, religious country, transforming it into the global standard bearer for so-called “traditional values.” But like Mobutu, both Trump and Putin are known for corruption. The right-wing Christian ideologues who support them don’t mind so long as they are able to aggressively pursue their own agenda, and sometimes they are equally corrupt. While head of the Christian Coalition, an organization founded by Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed was happy to work closely with Jack Abramoff. Today, Robertson’s CBN has an unusual degree of access to Trump, who thrilled CBN’s target audience by following through on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Fortunately, the ugliness of this is now on display in a way that is damaging white evangelicals’ reputation with the American public, and that will hopefully ultimately lead to the sidelining of the Christian Right from American politics. 

twitter-content=”<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kansas State Sen. Barbara Bollier has announced that after 43 years as a registered Republican and 10 years as a GOP lawmaker she is switching parties, saying Republicans’ stances on LGBTQ issues, particularly transgender rights, pushed her over the edge. <a href="https://t.co/hFdObqh9bU">https://t.co/hFdObqh9bU</a></p>— NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1073570826342019073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote> ”>

x

twitter-tweet”>

Kansas State Sen. Barbara Bollier has announced that after 43 years as a registered Republican and 10 years as a GOP lawmaker she is switching parties, saying Republicans’ stances on LGBTQ issues, particularly transgender rights, pushed her over the edge. https://t.co/hFdObqh9bU

NBC News (@NBCNews) December 14, 2018

Sarah Grant, Chuck Rosenberg/Lawfare:

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele remains a subject of fascination—or, depending on your perspective, scorn. Indeed, it was much discussed during former FBI Director Jim Comey’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 7. Published almost two years ago by BuzzFeed News in January 2017, the document received significant public attention, first for its lurid details regarding Donald Trump’s pre-presidential alleged sexual escapades in Russia and later for its role in forming part of the basis for the government’s application for a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page.

Our interest in revisiting the compilation that has come to be called the “Steele Dossier” concerns neither of those topics, at least not directly. Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting…

These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

But much of the reporting simply remains uncorroborated, at least by the yardstick we are using.




Source link

Back to top button
close
Thanks !

Thanks for sharing this, you are awesome !

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!