Sunday, May 28, 2017

Nostalgie de la boue: Donald Trump, Harry S. Truman, and the curious case of the eight-ulcer music critic

“Nostalgie de la boue” is one of those oddball idioms whose precise definition can distract an otherwise unoccupied mind longer than an aimless wallow through Facebook.

It translates from the French as “nostalgia for the mud,” and usually refers, according to Webster, to an “attraction to what is crude, depraved or degrading.” Or according to  the author Thomas Wolfe as…well, it’s a long story.

Regardless of the lexicographer you choose to swing with, the phrase is clearly applicable to Donald Trump. 


-Donald grabbing the genitalia of strange, or perhaps not-so-strange women. 

-Donald Trump engaging in various forms of pissing contests, whether those take the shape of arguing about the length of his fingers as they relate to another organ, or, as alleged, relating to some depraved behavior with hookers in a Moscow hotel room. 

-Or Donald Trump wallowing in deep swamps of self-pity, as when he declares himself to be the victim of a witch hunt, and further declares himself to be the most “unfairly” hounded president in history.

If you are fed up with the almost daily splatter of mud, flop sweat, and tears from this presidency, you might want to refer back to an incident that, by comparison, seems a bit quaint. However, it was marked by language that was shocking at the time, but richer in vocabulary and imagery than our current President seems competent of ever evoking.

I’m referring to an angry letter to a music critic, written in 1950 by then-President Harry S. Truman.

Truman, with the perspective of more than three generations, was a pretty good president from a family of more or less mediocre amateur musicians, including himself. 

Truman was an unremarkable pianist. His daughter, Margaret, was an unremarkable singer. Given some orchestral backup, the likely assistance of a recording studio engineer, and a good night, she could whip out a soprano rendition that would neither have you standing in the aisles of La Scala crying bravo, nor cringing as if you’d just heard a long piece of chalk screeching across a blackboard. She was no Maria Callas, but neither was she a Florence Foster Jenkins. Here is an example of Margaret Truman giving it her all:

In December of 1950, Margaret Truman had neither a good night nor a recording engineer to repair the damage. A live concert performance had been arranged for her in Constitution Hall, and the Washington Post sent along a music critic, Paul Hume, who evidently didn’t much like what he heard. He wrote:
Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality  (she) cannot sing very well  is flat a good deal of the time, more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years  has not improved in the years we have heard her  (and) still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.
That, President Truman concluded. was…well, in the language of Donald Trump it would be “really unfair, the most unfair concert review in history.” But we are talking about a president who possessed a far richer talent for expository writing. He was able to craft an elaborately colorful insult from his resentment — an insult employing less whining and a far greater degree of linguistic precision than Donald Trump will ever be capable of producing. 

So Truman penned a letter to Hume that said
Mr. Hume: 
I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.” 
It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. 
Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! 
Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry. 
Truman was referring in the last paragraph to Westbrook Pegler, a syndicated newspaper columnist who was the Bill O’Reilly of his day, but that’s another story. The upshot of this story was that Hume published the letter.  Following that, the nation for some time was scandalized — scandalized! — by this presidential indiscretion. 

I am old enough — although I was a child at the time — to remember my own parents, both of them Truman Democrats, discussing the letter in a state of near-shock. How could such terrible language come from the President of the United States?

These days we could acutely wish for such language. The daily barrage of whining befitting a wounded guttersnipe (look up the word, Donald, if you can concentrate on a dictionary long enough) will be one of the enduing trademarks of Donald Trump. He longs for the mud and the gutter. Unfortunately, he is dragging the United States down into it with him. 

Saturday, May 27, 2017

It rhymes

Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, Manhattan. The FBI Field Office is on the 23rd floor. Photo via Zimbio.

On James Comey and the Russian-produced Wasserman Schultz letter—
The Russian intelligence material related to a purported email exchange between then-Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a Clinton campaign operative who suggested then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch would help quash the FBI’s investigation.
According to CNN, Comey used the purported emails in part to justify his decision to publicly announce that no charges would be brought against Clinton, in a remarkable address [on July 5] that also accused her of being “extremely careless” in how she handled classified information on her private server. Comey did not consult with Lynch beforehand, and the speech broke FBI protocol to never comment on closed cases where no charges are brought.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the purported emails originated from a dubiously sourced Russian intelligence document, the veracity of which was never confirmed by the FBI. Officials aware of Comey’s actions told CNN that he knew that the document was bogus, but still factored it into his handling of the case. (Talking Points Memo)
There's a weird little relationship—history not repeating itself but rhyming as they say—between that story and the one from the end of October where Comey sent a remarkable letter to House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz to inform him "out of an abundance of caution" that the investigation wasn't in fact closed, and that the FBI was looking at some possibly fresh material, which turned out to be Anthony Weiner's laptop and emails to Hillary Clinton that Huma Abedin had downloaded there (apparently to make print copies for the boss because, sadly, Clinton, like Donald J. Trump, prefers paper)  (that beloved story is actually false; the emails were on Weiner's computer as an automatic backup arrangement with Abedin's phone; h/t Jesse in comments).

In both cases, Comey is said to be making these unusual public disclosures out of fear for his agency's and his own reputation.

(Longish read below the jump.)

Friday, May 26, 2017


I have weekend plans that will take me away from blogging, but there'll be posts here from the relief crew, so stop by. See you Tuesday.


Jonathan Swan of Axios tells us that Steve Bannon has a new mission:
Nine sources in the West Wing and within Trump's close orbit said the Russia situation is Bannon's shot at redemption. He's being described as a "wartime consigliere" relishing a fight against the "deep state," media, Democrats and investigators....

Why some Bannon allies say he's made for this crisis:

* "Steve is super savvy dealing with the media and dealing with crises," says Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump's.

* Bannon ... played a key role during the tensest moments of the Trump campaign (see: "Access Hollywood" tape).

* He's skilled at misdirection and deflection. Along with his street fighter ally from the campaign, David Bossie — who is now under serious consideration to join the White House communications team — Bannon deployed scorched-earth tactics against Hillary Clinton like staging the famous press conference with the women who'd accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.
So Bannon -- who is allegedly "super savvy" -- is responsible for "misdirections" like trying to change the subject to Bill Clinton's decades-old sexual behavior after Trump's Access Hollywood tape broke. Here's my question: How effective was that misdirection effort? Apart from any Fox-addicted wingnuts you know, did you hear anyone talking about it? If so, was anyone talking about it for days and days? Whereas we all talked about the Trump "grab 'em by the pussy" tape for days and days -- longer, in fact. We're still talking about it.

My point is that Bannon might not actually change what most Americans are talking about. What he's skilled at doing is changing what right-wingers are talking about. And maybe that's worth it to Trump, because he seems to believe he can save his presidency as long as 80+ percent of Republicans still support him without question.

So if you have even a glancing exposure to right-wing media, expect to hear a lot of names that make you ask, "Isn't this person completely out of power now?" Susan Rice. Valerie Jarrett. Donna Brazile. (Why, here's a story about Donna Brazile at Joe the Plumber's website right now.) Expect even more on Seth Rich. Expect terror scares and "knockout game" scares and Black-Lives-Matter-is-going-to-kill-all-white-people scares. The Russia investigations might strike more and more pay dirt, but your right-wing relatives won't even know.


Greg Gianforte won yesterday's Montana special election. Given the large number of early votes, it's not clear how much the candidate's eleventh-hour assault of a reporter affected the race, and if it did, whether it helped him or hurt him. But Democrats certainly narrowed the gap in Montana. Here was 2016 Montana election map in the presidential race:

Now here's the map of yesterday's race (which was statewide, because Montana is a sparsely populated state and therefore has only one House member):

There's a lot more blue on the special election map. In 2012, Mitt Romney won by 13. In 2016, Trump won by 20. Gianforte won by 6. If Democrats can improve on 2016 that much in less red districts, they have a real shot at taking the House in 2018.


I'm reminded on Twitter that Gianforte has an illustrious Republican predecessor:

Yes, that happened:
Pearson became a target of McCarthy and his threats after writing repeatedly and critically about the senator’s bullying tactics, his tax troubles, and his thinly documented allegations about subversives in government....

In December 1950, a 27-year-old socialite named Louise Tinsley (“Tinnie”) Steinman invited Pearson and McCarthy to join her guests at dinner at the Sulgrave. She seated the men at the same table and they traded barbs and insults throughout the evening....

At the Sulgrave, McCarthy repeatedly warned Pearson that he planned to attack the columnist in a speech in the Senate. Pearson in turn chided McCarthy on his tax troubles in Wisconsin.

As the evening ended, McCarthy confronted Pearson in the Sulgrave’s coat check room. Accounts differ about what happened.

Pearson said McCarthy pinned his arms to one side and kneed him twice in the groin. McCarthy said he slapped Pearson, hard, with his open hand. A third account, offered by a radio broadcaster friendly to McCarthy, said the senator slugged Pearson, a blow so powerful that it lifted Pearson three feet into the air.

Richard Nixon, who had recently been sworn in as a U.S. Senator and who was guest at Tinnie Steinman’s party, intervened and broke up the encounter. Nixon, in his memoir RN, said Pearson “grabbed his coat and ran from the room. McCarthy said, ‘You shouldn’t have stopped me, Dick.'” ...

In his 1999 book, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, a revisionist treatment of McCarthy, Arthur Herman wrote of the encounter:

“If some were horrified and disgusted with what McCarthy had done, many were not,” given the many enemies that Pearson had made.
A few days later, the senator attacked Pearson on the Senate floor.
From the libel-proof confines of the Senate floor, McCarthy delivered a vicious speech denouncing his nemesis as the “diabolically” clever “voice of international communism,” a “prostitute of journalism,” and a “Moscow-directed character assassin.”
Pearson sued McCarthy for, among other things, libel and assault. McCarthy won that round: He called for a boycott of the company that sponsored Pearson's radio show -- which then dropped its sponsorship.

McCarthy won reelection in 1952. The next year, he became chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Assaulting a journalist didn't do much harm to Joe McCarthy. It won't hurt Greg Gianforte.

Thursday, May 25, 2017


The Republican Party is the party of Greg Gianforte, who body-slammed a reporter for asking a question. It's the party whose voters have embraced Sheriff David Clarke, who summoned five cops and a police dog to detain a man who literally did nothing but glower at him on an airplane. And it's the party of Donald Trump, who thinks it's classy to shove the Montenegrin prime minister out of the way so he can be in the front row in a group photo.

Josh Barro has a take on this:
Republicans are a party that now celebrates the bully who steals lunch money because, hey, at least he's not the nerd who gets his lunch money stolen.

A party for the sort of men who call themselves "alpha males" without irony or accuracy. A party for the sort of women who think it's cool and strong when men get into bar fights.

A party that celebrates not just cruelty, but juvenile cruelty.
Why the admiration for this behavior. Why, particularly, the admiration for Trump?
Well, one reason is that many men in America right now have little to offer women. They do not live up to either to the old, chauvinistic standards for adult men or the new, egalitarian ones. They want what Trump has — the women, the money, the brass-plated apartment — without having to do better or be better to get it.

They think they'd be better off under a return to high-school norms, where men could "be men" but really be boys, and gain status through cruel dominance plays without bearing any real-life responsibilities.
But we know that while Trump may have found found a fan base in the white working class, he did better among wealthier Americans than among poorer ones. Many of his supporters aren't the folks who fell through the cracks -- they're the relatively comfortable neighbors of the downtrodden. And some are just plain old-fashioned suburban Republicans.

I remember high school. It wasn't just that the jocks wanted status and all the good stuff that comes with it -- they were incensed when uncool people were happy at all, or got any attention, even niche attention. Football was important enough that the team was seen as the embodiment of the school, but that wasn't enough glory -- if the drama weirdos put on a play once or twice a year, the jocks would tear the posters down, hating the fact that people who didn't work as hard as they did to avoid uncoolness could possibly have a little enjoyment, even if only our parents showed up to watch the plays.

The GOP is like that now. If you're a suburban white flag-waver, even if you have a nice life, it angers you that people who aren't like you -- non-whites, non-straights, liberals, feminist women, non-Fox journalists, people who enjoy non-meat-and-potatoes culture -- are also thriving. Even if you've had all the pie you want, it's infuriating that such vermin get any pie. And if they start asserting themselves, well, that's just flat-out intolerable.

That's one of our two major political parties right now: a party whose members are furious at having to share any of the good stuff with anyone they find distasteful.


At Axios, Mike Allen reports:
West Wing officials are prepping for a years-long war with investigators and the bureaucracy, with plans to beef up legal, surrogate, communications and rapid-response teams as part of a "new normal" for President Trump — besieged.

"The White House is embracing the fight, which is going to last as long as Donald Trump is president," said a Trump ally familiar with the preparations. "We're getting street fighters ready to go." ...

* What's next: Proposed war-room org charts have been prepared, and final decisions on the structure will be made after Trump returns this weekend.

* Jonathan Swan hears that comms/rapid response structures are being considered for both inside the White House and on the outside.
This is where the Trumpers think they need to staff up. Meanwhile, in the parts of government where work is actually supposed to get done...

For example:

Well, the Trump presidency is all about Trump, isn't it? Trump cares only about self-aggrandizement, not about any policy goals. So these staffing priorities make perfect sense.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017


I'd love to believe that this will be a game-changer in Democrat Rob Quist's favor, but I have serious doubts:
The Republican candidate for Montana’s congressional seat slammed a Guardian reporter to the floor on the eve of the state’s special election, breaking his glasses and shouting, “Get the hell out of here.”

Ben Jacobs, a Guardian political reporter, was asking Greg Gianforte, a tech millionaire running for the seat vacated by Ryan Zinke, about the Republican healthcare plan when the candidate allegedly “body-slammed” the reporter.

“He took me to the ground,” Jacobs said by phone from the back of an ambulance. “I think he wailed on me once or twice ... He got on me and I think he hit me ... This is the strangest thing that has ever happened to me in reporting on politics.”

Fox News reporter Alicia Alcuna, field producer Faith Mangan and photographer Keith Railey witnessed the incident, according to an account published by After Jacobs asked Gianforte his question, Alcuna wrote, “Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.

“Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ ...
This should be disqualifying, but ask yourself: If Donald Trump did something like this during his campaign, would it have hurt him? If anything, I think it would it would have impressed the sorts of voters who were Trump supporters or even just open to Trump. The message of the GOP is that forces hostile to the party -- who, by definition, include all non-conservative journalists -- are figures of pure evil who deserve any harm that comes to them. Trump regularly urged the crowds at his rallies to express hatred for the press. And Gianforte is a Trump supporter, running in a district (the entire state of Montana) where Trump won by a sizable margin.

I worry that this will increase Gianforte's vote total. In red America in 2017, I seriously don't believe it will hurt him, regrettably.


UPDATE: We've seen a similar situation in recent years, and Republican voters were totally cool with it. It happened in January 2014, Michael Grimm, a congressman from Staten Island, New York City's most Republican borough, was questioned by a local TV reporter. This happened:

Embattled New York Republican Rep. Michael Grimm threatened to "break" a NY1 reporter and throw him off a balcony after President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night....

"Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f-----g balcony,” Grimm said...

“No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy” ...
Ten months later, Grimm -- already plagued by multiple scandals -- won reelection by double digits. He resigned from Congress a month later, but only after pleading guilty to felony tax evasion charges. The following May, a Republican won the special election to replace Grimm, and he continues to hold the seat.

So, no, thuggish behavior toward reporters doesn't seem to hurt Republicans at the ballot box.


You probably know about this:
Pope Francis joined an international chorus urging Donald Trump to meet U.S. commitments on climate change in talks at the Vatican Wednesday.

Francis gave the U.S. president a copy of his 2015 encyclical calling for urgent, drastic cuts in fossil-fuel emissions after a half-hour meeting in his private study.

Francis’s choice of gift suggests he is adding his voice to those pressing Trump not to renege on the Paris accord, which is the cornerstone of global efforts to limit climate change.....

“Thank you, thank you,” Trump told Francis as they shook hands after the meeting. “I won’t forget what you said.”
Charlie Pierce called this "some expert trolling" on the pope's part. Dave Weigel called it "trolling of biblical proportions."

I'm not so sure. Apart from the obvious point that Trump is unlikely to read the encyclical because he's no fan of reading, the meeting with the pope reminds me of the week during the transition when Trump met with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss climate issues -- after which Trump chose climate change denier Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. I'm also thinking of the staged humiliation of Mitt Romney, which preceded Trump's pick of Rex Tillerson for the secretary of state position.

Trump rarely has the courage to challenge critics face-to-face. He seems to prefer the stab in the back. And while I know he's been put on a cable news starvation diet during this trip, sooner or later he's likely to find out that the pope's has been making his discomfort with Trump obvious:

The pope put in a good word for the planet when talking to Trump -- but I think that might be precisely why Trump will ultimately decide to back out of the Paris accord.


If President Trump's overseas trip is less of a sustained pratfall than you expected, a Politico story by Annie Karni offers an explanation:
For four straight days, President Donald Trump did not live-tweet the cable shows. He didn’t mention his unlikely electoral win. And in visits to two countries where he was greeted with great fanfare, he never once complained about being treated unfairly.

Trump’s relatively successful swing through the Middle East was due to the fact that, for the most part, he didn’t get in his own way. It was also the result of months of careful planning. A decision was made early on to visit a part of the world where Trump is venerated and feared, and to pack his schedule so that he mostly stayed on message and, according to one aide, “didn’t have time to tweet.”
As Jason Easley writes:
... what the intentional scheduling of Trump’s time points to is that the President Of The United States can’t be treated like an adult. He has to be managed like a small child. If the President is left alone with time on his hands, he is going to grab his phone and start blasting out insane tweets.
So who are the supernannies who got Trump to behave? Karni has the names:
... a key factor was the role played by Dina Powell, H.R. McMaster and Jared Kushner, who brought a combination of government experience and understanding that Trump wanted to get some negotiated wins on the board.
It makes sense that the national security adviser would be deeply involved -- that would happen in a normal administration. And Kushner's involvement is unsurprising because, well, he's involved in everything (and also because, as Karni notes, he has ties to the Saudis). But let's focus on Dina Powell:
Trump also depended on Powell, the deputy national security adviser for strategy, to help spearhead the visit. An Egyptian-born fluent-Arabic speaker who served in the George W. Bush administration, Powell came with important contacts in the Arab world....

Powell, according to an administration official, was also instrumental in helping to craft the language Trump used in his Sunday speech on Islam, with a particular interest in his use of language about women’s rights.
Yeah, I thought the speech -- which I've seen ascribed to angry young man Stephen Miller -- seemed less snarly than Miller's usual work, such as Trump's convention speech and inaugural address. Now the reasonable tone makes sense.
Powell and McMaster coordinated with the Defense Department to firm up the $110 billion U.S.-Saudi weapons deal in time for Trump to announce it over the weekend....

Powell and McMaster together led the NSC’s interagency process for planning the trip....
Okay, okay -- I got it. A lot of this was Powell's doing. And it's gone -- by Trump standards -- surprisingly smoothly.

So you know what happens next, right?

When Trump gets back to Washington, it's possible that Powell will be given greater responsibility for virtually everything. Recall that Powell, a former Goldman Sachs executive, was originally hired as a White House economic adviser (and as an aide to Ivanka Trump and Kushner). Only later did she also become a foreign policy aide.

If Trump feels that this trip went well, he might conclude that the people who made that success possible should have all the responsibility going forward. (Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus were sent home early from the trip. We're being told that the early departures were always planned, and that Bannon and Priebus are needed back home to deal with Trump's D.C. struggles. But who knows?)

But ultimately, Trump's favorites are always required to do something impossible. Rush a terrible health care bill through Congress by an arbitrary deadline. Defend Mike Flynn when he's about to be fired. That sort of thing. And when they fail -- because Trump himself has created a situation in which only failure is possible -- the president gets angry and the favorite is sent to the doghouse.

If Powell's star is really rising, this could well be her fate. But hey, she signed on for this.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017


Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post's media columnist, is right to upset about these developments:
Infowars, that cesspool of destructive conspiracy theories, on Monday received a temporary credential to attend White House press briefings....

In the past, please recall, what constituted “news” at Infowars included the following: that 9/11 was planned and executed by the U.S. government; that President Obama was not an American citizen; and that the massacre of small children at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax carried out by actors.

Infowars’ inclusion (even if only temporarily) in the White House press corps is disgusting.

But no more disgusting than the lies that Fox News continues to spread about Seth Rich, a 27-year-old man who was shot dead last summer in Washington.

To hear Fox’s Sean Hannity tell it, this was an inside job by the Democratic National Committee, where Rich worked: retribution by the Hillary Clinton camp for his sharing insider emails with WikiLeaks.

The theory has been thoroughly debunked by Oliver Darcy at CNN among others, and Rich’s family has demanded that Fox retract and apologize. To the reported embarrassment of its own staff, Fox hasn’t done the right thing.

Quite the opposite, in fact: Former House speaker and Trump insider Newt Gingrich used Fox’s national platform Sunday to spread the lies further....

Decent people should shun both Hannity and Gingrich.
Decent people should do more than that. In the case of InfoWars, the rest of the White House press corps should simply walk out of any press briefing attended by the organization's correspondent -- who, I gather, is this guy:

You remember Jerome Corsi, right? His books include Where's the Birth Certificate? and the John Kerry Swift Boat hit job Unfit for Command -- and he's also told readers of World Net Daily that Barack Obama had a secret gay life in Chicago and wears a wedding ring that bears the inscription "There is no God except Allah" in Arabic. Seriously, White House correspondents: If he's in the briefing room, you should leave -- and if the boycott has to last weeks or months, so be it.

Which probably should have been the reaction to Fox News sometime in the past twenty years, but that ship has sailed. For now, it's time for a Sleeping Giants-style boycott targeting Hannity's advertisers. And if some Bernie-or-Busters don't want to participate, well, this one is open to anyone in the center or right who's disgusted by Hannity's conspiracy-mongering. (Some of you conservatives are disgusted ... aren't you?)

As for Gingrich: His wife is the president's nominee to be ambassador to the Vatican. If (as I assume) no Republican senator is willing to vote against her confirmation, then some Democratic senator should put a hold on her nomination.

I got pushback when I said this on Twitter over the weekend:

I understand the argument. But Newt and Callista are not merely spouses -- they're professional collaborators. From the website of Gingrich Productions:
Together, Newt and Callista host and produce historical and public policy documentaries, write books and newsletters, give speeches, record audio books, produce photographic essays, and make television and radio appearances. Gingrich Productions also offers strategic planning, consulting, and training for organizations seeking to solve public policy concerns. We have unique strengths and experience in health, learning, national security, and politics. We also help develop messaging with an emphasis on earned and social media.
In the dissemination of political messages, they're partners. If they disagree on any issue, they've never said so. So unless Callista specifically denounces her husband's baseless and cynical conspiracy-mongering, she doesn't deserve a full Senate vote, much less an ambassadorship.


I'm horrified by the Manchester attack, for which ISIS is now claiming responsibility.

For a while, I thought I understood the logic of this strategy: Use spectacularly successful acts of violence to inspire young, alienated Muslims so they'll sign up to join the fight to sustain the caliphate, and hope that the attacks motivate non-Muslim nations to crack down on Muslim residents, in order to eliminate a "grayzone" of peaceful coexistence and inspire even more recruits.

But ISIS has been losing territory in Iraq and Syria, and we've been hearing that an increase in terrorist attacks is a strategy shift in response to failures on the battlefield. In other words, terrorism isn't helping to staff a successful army -- it's a distraction from that army's failings. And this is happening even as there appear to be limits to the Western backlash against Muslims: white nationalists have fallen short in elections in France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, while even Donald Trump has tempered his language on Islam.

So I don't see the logic anymore. At this point, it seems as if terrorist attacks attacks in the West aren't part of a grand strategy to advance ISIS's brand of Islam -- they're an end in themselves. The point of the terrorism seems to be ... just to kill people. The aftermath is always the same: Communities come together; there's anger at Muslims, but there are also kind words:

So what's being accomplished? Either ISIS and its acolytes still believe that the strategy is working, despite evidence to the contrary, or ... they're just angry young men who revel in the idea of doing harm to other people, especially when they're being told that what's being done is virtuous. It seems to me that the terrorism is now the point. The perpetrators (and cheering fans, some of whom will be future perpetrators) may talk of the attacks as steps on the path to a grand utopia, but I think they're just getting off on the violence.

Monday, May 22, 2017


Every so often I read a transcript of a Rush Limbaugh radio monologue, because Limbaugh is still, to much of heartland of America, a source of truth and a purveyor of wisdom. Today I read one titled "Democrats Walk Back Impeachment Talk Because They’re Scared to Death of What They’ve Created." What I've learned from it is that the Dittoheads, if they accept what Limbaugh's saying at face value, believe in a conspiracy so vast, and so bizarre, that it rivals birtherism, 9/11 trutherism, or the notion that the victims of Sandy Hook were "crisis actors."

Here's the gist of what Limbaugh said:
Last week — late last week, Thursday and Friday — there appears in various media stories about how one, two, and then three prominent Democrats expressed the need for the Democrat Party to start walking back all this talk of impeachment.

... There are people who have, over the course of the last three weeks, on the Democrat side, tiptoed into the water and said, “We haven’t any evidence.” Dianne Feinstein to Wolf Blitzer twice, for example. There was another Democrat on Grassley’s committee that said, “Yeah, no, we don’t have any evidence. We haven’t seen any evidence yet.” Former CIA director for Obama, Michael Morell, about two weeks ago was on MSNBC.

He said there isn’t any evidence of any collusion.

So they’ve been tiptoeing around this. You put that together with the talk by the Democrats that they need to walk back impeachment, and what do you have? You have, I think, a potentially explosive and destructive thing awaiting the Democrats. What have they done? ...

They’ve lied repeatedly over who was going to win the election, and then when the election didn’t go the way they said it was gonna go, they’re now lying about the election being stolen by Trump and the Russians. They have compounded the lie and they have ostensibly supplied evidence when there isn’t any. And they have created a tremendous number of genuinely enraged, seriously unbalanced mentally people that make up the Democrat voter base who are convinced — they’re expecting Trump to be impeached....

They’re expecting Trump to go down this week. They were expecting Trump to go down last week. They’re expecting Trump to go down next week. They’re expecting somebody’s gonna come along here and drop the bomb of evidence because they’ve been told it’s there.
And here's the conspiracy:
But the Democrats know there’s no evidence. They know they’ve been lying to their people. The media knows it. So it’s walk-back time. That’s why all this gotta be careful, gotta walk back this talk of impeachment because there isn’t, there is not a crime that has been committed.

So there is real fear of what these people are gonna do when that fateful day comes that everybody has to say no evidence and no impeachment and no collusion. They just can’t come out and say that, or they’re gonna have nation — you think they were rioting now, we don’t have any idea what’s gonna happen when these people once again realize they’ve been lied to and misled. The election was the first, and now this?

Democrats and the media are genuinely concerned, because they’ve created this insanity.
This is what your right-wing uncle believes: not that some people in the Democratic Party and elsewhere on the left are overselling the inevitability of Trump's downfall; not that Democrats might be assuming a smoking gun will be found when one might not exist, might exist but never be unearthed, or might not seem like one to a sufficient number of voters or Republicans in Congress ... no, your right-wing uncle thinks Democrats know there's nothing to be found and have just invented the entire scandal out of whole cloth, a deception party leaders and the media have all colluded on knowingly, just to bring this president down out of sheer orneriness. The FBI and congressional committees are in on the plot, too. Mike Flynn is refusing a subpoena, even though there's no crime he might be compelled to reveal. An entire generation of Washington insiders, in other words, have staked their careers on a deception based in literally nothing, one that, if exposed, could at minimum destroy every conspirator's reputation for honesty forever and in all likelihood have far worse consequences for the conspirators.

They've set this massive conspiracy in motion ... and now they're getting cold feet and want to do a complete 180. They built this enormous edifice of disinformation, because the Deep State finds the Trump presidency intolerable -- yet now they're saying, "Let's call the whole thing off!"

I'm not sure why they want to call it off -- you'd think people who could construct a web of deceit this vast would be pretty damn powerful -- but I suppose it's because, despite their vast power, they've created a deception so flimsy it can be exposed by, I guess, a few randos on Twitter and Reddit who have Sean Hannity's ear.

Really, this is what your uncle thinks.


Roger Ailes got quite a sendoff from his only child over the weekend:
Friends and family of former Fox News chairman and founding CEO Roger Ailes gathered together and mourned his death Saturday during an intimate service at the St. Edward Roman Catholic Church in Palm Beach, Florida....

“I loved my father,” Ailes’ 17-year-old son, Zachary, told LifeZette. “He considered how much certain people hated him as a measure of success.”

Zachary pledged to fight to clear his father’s name after a series of sexual harassment allegations led to his ultimate ouster from Fox News.

“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them,” Zachary Ailes said during a speech at the ceremony, “and hell is coming with me.”
Wow, that's a tough, take-no-prisoners line. Where did it come from? Did a famous soldier say it? Maybe a fearless member of law enforcement?

Nahh. It comes from evil Left Coast communist metrosexual Hollywood. As the right-wing site BizPac Review acknowledges, it's a line from the 1993 film Tombstone -- a threat made by Wyatt Earp (played by Ken Kurt Russell) to a member of an outlaw gang called the Cowboys:

On the one hand, we now see that the Ailes family regards the women who have accused Ailes of sexual harassment as the moral equivalent of a murdering Wild West gang. On the other hand ... Hollywood? I thought conservatives hated Hollywood. Never mind that their favorite president was a Hollywood actor and their second-favorite president, the current one, was a TV star. Never mind that Roger Ailes's longtime boss runs a Hollywood movie studio. Never mind that Ailes worked in TV and theater before becoming a right-wing hit man. Hollywood is supposed to be anathema to right-wingers -- and yet that's where Zachary Ailes, a rich, private-school-educated scion, gets his idea of courage.

Though I wonder if using the line was really Zachary's idea. We know that Roger Ailes, a lifelong hemophiliac, had long thought about his own death. As his biographer Gabriel Sherman reported, "A couple of weeks before his thirtieth birthday, [Ailes] told a reporter, 'Most people think I'll be dead before I'm 35.'"

We know that having a young son made Ailes focus even more on his own mortality:
Due in part to the large age gap between father and son – 60 years – Ailes had compiled a memory book so that his son could remember his life when he was gone, according to Vanity Fair.

Since Zac was four, Vanity Fair reported in an excerpt from Zac Chafets’ book, Roger Ailes: Off Camera, “Ailes has been putting things away for him in memory boxes; there are now nine, stuffed with mementos, personal notes, photos, and messages from Ailes to his son. They are meant to be opened when Ailes is gone.”

He showed the author one box, a plastic container “stuffed with what appeared to be a random assortment of memorabilia. There was a pocket-size copy of the U.S. Constitution in which Ailes had written, ‘The founders believed it and so should you'” and photos of Zac and Beth Ailes on vacations, according to the magazine.

In one note, Roger Ailes had written his son, “Avoid war if at all possible but never give up your freedom—or your honor. Always stand for what is right. If absolutely forced to fight, then fight with courage and win. Don’t try to win ... win! Love, Dad,” reported Chafets.
Did the elder Ailes ask his son to use that line in his eulogy? That's my guess. I can easily imagine Papa Roger in his last year telling young Zachary that he wanted him to threaten Dad's enemies at his funeral, in those carefully selected words.

Roger Ailes was never really a tough guy. He lived a life of fear. His had bombproof windows installed in his Fox News office, where he also kept two handguns. He maintained a bunker underneath his house with half a year's worth of supplies, in anticipation of a terrorist attack, and, as a neighbor recounted, he "was said to have ordered the removal of all trees around his house so that he … had a 360-degree view of any leftist assault teams preparing to rush the house." He hired private investigators to "discredit anyone perceived as a threat to the channel or Ailes himself," as The Hill noted. He order Fox public relations employees to create dummy accounts so that undetectable Ailes trolls could rebut Fox critics online, even at obscure blogs.

And he was a creature of the elite coastal media, regardless of his self-image. So of course the tough-guy words that saw him off were Hollywood-fake.