I Was Wrong: Alabama Senate Special Election Edition

Tonight I made a not-so-bold prediction that all of the machinations in Alabama would amount to nothing as another Republican would win a Statewide race there. It was an easier narrative than talking about shifts and swings. It would have pushed us to have conversations about whether or not shaming Republicans in to taking a stand against sexual predators was worth it. Instead now we need to understand that a Democratic message actually carried the day in the bible belt. This race was largely a referendum on Roy Moore's fitness to serve in public office, but most of the Republican messaging in the final days tried to focus on Doug Jones' policy positions hoping they would be anathema to voters. 

I will not try to encapsulate this in to any one sound bite. Elections are complicated things, reading all of the signs and trying to understand how 1.3 million people will make up their minds between two choices. I read those signals incorrectly, call it cynicism or lack of on the ground knowledge or lack of imagination, I read it wrong. I believed that Democrats did not have the ground game, voters would regress against the race being nationalized. I thought there was no way all of the factors could fall in to place. I probably underestimated the power of the moment we are in. 

The sharp reactions to the revelations of sexual misconduct (a euphemism we cannot seem to escape) make it clear we are in a sea change in this country. It is not just that powerful men are losing their jobs, it is that a permission structure is being created for sexual misconduct, sexual assault, and rape to be discussed in a public way. It empowers people to stand up and speak out. It is creating a world where consequences are real enough to change behavior. No longer do powerful people feel they are immune from those consequences. 

The Weinstein moment is not the only factor, there is clearly a shift in the electorate because of the approval rating of President Trump. While he was not necessarily the main focus of the campaign, it is hard to escape his influence anyone in this country. This could not be a referendum on Trump, but it shows the temperature of the country.

There will be far more expansive opportunities to dissect this vote. Tonight it would appear I need to visit Alabama, and do more research on polling. 

Pre-Knee Jerk Reactions to the Alabama Senate Special Election

All day I have been reviewing the polls and the pundits on the Alabama Senate Special Election. I have looked at them with a primarily analytical lens, which kept back sliding towards strategy and wishful thinking.

The hard truths here are that Alabama is a place where the Republican Party can put up Putin or Ba'ath party type numbers on the Democrats. That’s not an indictment of Alabama on principle, the numbers in a place like San Francisco aren't exactly nail biters. For Reference the last time Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) received less than 80% of the vote in a general election it was 1990 and 77.2% would not have been thought to be squeaking by either. 

Doug Jones had a harder road to the election than the average Democrat. He was trying to reach a population that was not necessarily receptive to his message. There are many Democratic constituencies in the state, though. If those places turn out in fine form, and the Republicans stay home or vote for Nick Saban, then the race will be close. It is impossible to tell ahead of time how close this race will be. While some may dismiss polling altogether, the adept minds in the polling industry have been noting that, the polling is strongly showing there isn't a way to know. 

Polling, really all data analysis, is riddled with something called "noise." Variables that can create a problem in understanding what the numbers are actually trying to tell you. That would be referred to as the "signal." If the signal cannot be found in the numbers then the experts would agree with the casual observer that they are junk.

For a poll to be accurate, and make sense, the numbers need to be scaled properly. This prevents less populated areas or groups which are known to vote a certain way from over loading the averages. Ideally a poll consists of a demographic that matches the electoral demographic on a 1:1 ratio. This is almost never possible. To compensate, the responses of each person will be weighted to accurately reflect demographics, location, race, party ID, likely voter screen, ect. The polls have broken along methodology lines and along turnout model lines. 

Those who have had live interviews have had Jones ahead, triggering a shy voter effect conversation. Those that have polled cell phones have been kinder to the Democrat as well, signaling a possibly hidden youth vote. One poll was released with three different turn out models to signify just how little people currently understand the electorate in Alabama. 

And how could they? Alabama special elections are very rare, so there are not an abundance of guides on which to form a competent model.

Elections there are, also, usually not close. One of the closest was in 2012 when Roy Moore ran for Chief Justice and won by 4 points. His opponent, Robert S. Vance, got so close based on big turn out, and somehow out performed Barrack Obama by 10 points.

So tonight Democrats will probably watch a candidate that they have hyped lose. It will be a replay of Georgia 6th and Montana at large. People should remember that this wasn't supposed to be close. The main takeaway from this should be that the Republican Party decided to back a child molester, and threatened to change the dynamic of national politics. Each race has been an indicator of positive things for the Democratic Party, but they will not all be as much fun as the Virginia Statewide elections. The pendulum is swinging, even in Alabama. It just has further to travel. Of course I could say these glum words and then be proven wrong in a half hour. That’s been known to happen as well. 

Knee Jerk Reaction: Senate Tax Bill

This is actually a next morning 1 Turkish coffee in the bag reaction. Earlier this morning the Senate passed their version of the Tax bill at 1:50 AM ET. I had held out hope that maybe I would stay up and see another dramatic moment like Senator John McCain (R-AZ) live up to his principles and kill a major piece of legislation that was generated in a back room and would hurt real people. 

RT if you think we shouldn't re-write America's tax code in the middle of the night with...this. pic.twitter.com/iKuwh6ny4L

— Senator Chris Coons (@ChrisCoons) December 2, 2017

Despite the lack of regular order, Senator McCain was a reliable yes vote since Thursday. 

UPDATE: Republicans rejected our motion to adjourn until Monday so senators could read the bill they just introduced.

RT If you think senators should have time to read a bill that affects every single American.

— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) December 2, 2017

Marco Rubio (R-FL) for a long time was a no vote, or if your whip count score card was honest he was a "wants something." What he wanted was an expanded Child Tax Credit. He didn't get it, but he did manage to pass something that allows people to deduct the price of private K-12 education. Not exactly a hero of the worker type move. 

So many deficit hawks had their chance to prove their loyalty to their brand and vote against a bill that will add at least 1 Trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00) to the national deficit. Instead they invited doubt about whether or not they understood how deficits worked, or when it was appropriate to do deficit spending, like during a recession. Most importantly they sowed doubt that what they really disliked was that a black man added to the deficit, all but one were not black, so they were allowed to add as much to the deficit as they wanted. 

The only Republican that held true to their talking point was Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), he was the sole defector from the Republican side of the aisle leaving the vote 51-49. This is of course a simple virtue signaling move and not a genuine vote. Senator Corker holds a seat on a key committee, and during the markup process could have slowed the bill and demanded a hearing. He would have had the support of all of the Democrats and therefore it would have stalled out in the Budget Committee. It was known then that the bill would balloon the deficit, so if he was serious in his opposition he would have voiced it then. Instead he allowed the bill to be reported out where he knew his no vote would not matter. 

It was disappointing to see so many we had hoped to win over vote with the Majority. Those who could have fought back against the repeal of a key Obamacare provision (Murkoski, Collins, McCain), those who have been so outspoken about the need for regular order(McCain, McConnell(look back to his 2010 statements)), and those who were still causing havoc over the deficit up until yesterday (Johnson, Flake). Instead they chose to please their donors.

“My donors are basically saying: ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again’” -Republican Rep. Chris Collins

“Donors are furious” -Republican Sen. Cory Gardner

"The financial contributions will stop" -Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham

No, #GOPTaxScam *won't* help the middle class.

— Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) December 1, 2017

It was an altogether major disappointment, the bill will now go to a conference committee where it will be reworked, again behind closed doors. The final bill will be brought before the House and Senate which will most likely approve of it, also lacking most procedural hurdles it could happen quite quickly. So it is most likely that this will be ready for President Trump's signature in less than two weeks.

Knee Jerk Reaction: Gen. Michael Flynn

We are past the drip drip phase of the Russia investigation. With the charge against a member of the administration we have reached a turning point as significant as the appointment of the special counsel. Today General Michael Flynn has been charged, and is expected to plead guilty, to one count of lying to the FBI. You know Flynn, this guy:

Now that the former National Security Advisor has been offered a deal, we can expect other names in the administration, past and present, to be implicated. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not known for being light on people he sees as criminals, and to offer Flynn a plea deal he would have had to been willing to give up quite a bit of information on others further up the food chain. Being that he was a direct report to the President of the United States, the top of the food chain does not appear to be far away. 

To be both clear and fair, to say this is evidence of Trump committing a crime is far overreaching and irresponsible tea leaf reading. It is an indication that such things may have been happening though. Most federal prosecutors will not give a simple single charge to a cooperating witness when there is the wealth of evidence against Flynn out in the public realm. He was colluding with foreign governments to engage in extraordinary rendition with US residents. He was lying not only to the FBI but misrepresenting himself within the national security apparatus, that included the Vice President. 

While everything remains in the speculative realm it is hard to say who is right and who is in hysterics. But it is clear that the second round of indicitments from the Special Counsel's office is the investigation is proceeding forward. It has reached from the campaign, in to the administration. It has gone from advisors, to more concrete officials.

Even the Manafort indictment, though he held a prominent title, was more a way of leaning on him than showing wrongdoing of the campaign or administration. This is a new phase in the investigation. It is unclear how long it will last, or where it will end up. What is clear is that Robert Mueller feels empowered to act, is doing so, and it is starting to amount to actual jail time for actual people. 

That's it for now, back to this Tax bill. Which is evidently awful, and getting worse. 

Thoughts, Prayers, and Action for Las Vegas

Details are still emerging out of the Las Vegas tragedy. I can't say for certain who did what, or whether it was a lone wolf as first reported or part of some larger terror scheme(Update: apparently not). There is a lot that is unknown and still coming to light, but there are certain knowables in this situation.

Here is what we do know:

-What I do know is that people were shot while living their lives, in a place where they should not have feared gun violence. 

-People were killed with a weapon that was designed to kill people. The video released so far makes it clear that it was something more sophisticated than a hunting rifle. 

-This needless loss of life, fifty people reported so far, will be explained away by some in an effort to make us feel helpless. We are not; this is the only country this happens on a routine basis. 

-There are victims we cannot even fathom. Fifty people who were loved did not see the sun rise today. Their relations will mourn them. Four hundred are reported injured. The interruption to their lives is outstanding, what amount of council ling will victims present and distant need to even begin to make them whole again. 

We should offer our thoughts and prayers now. 

My thoughts are for those who were there, those who loved someone who was there, those who will fear going out in public or seeing a concert here in America, where we should be free from that kind of fear. 

My thoughts go to the needless pain so many people are in right now. The lack of justice they are experiencing because this person was allowed to have this kind of weapon. Up to ten or more my some reports.

My prayers are that things like the lifting of the suppressor ban the NRA is currently weaving through congress will be defeated. People were alerted to the presence of the danger because the weapon could be heard by the victims, if we are going to have these deadly instruments at least reduce their ability to slaughter us unknowingly. 

My prayers are that we are able to wake up as a country that this kind of violence is not just a fact of life. That we would be safer without the ability to kill others in this way, and that those working to put an end to this kind of destruction can succeed. 

I don't know if my pleas will be heard, but the last thing I do know is that there is no better way to honor those who have been killed, wounded, or affected is to take action.

            If anyone tells you it’s too soon, or it just isn’t the right time, or guns aren’t the real problem. Tell them the truth, they are stalling for time, they are never going to want to talk about it, and if they won’t address even part of the problem then they are the problem.

Edit: This post is in reference to an earlier piece found here, explaining the proper way to direct thoughts and prayers in the wake of tragedy, particularly gun violence.

How My Generation Comes of Age Politically

            In 2008 I was a senior in college, by the time the election rolled around I was a first year law student. Late in November, as a board member of the Democratic Law Caucus, in conjunction with the RLC, I helped host an election post mortem. We had a few professors and students sit on a panel and answer questions posed by students and even a couple of professors.

            I recall the good natured participation of one of only 2 Republican professors at the school. He affably tried to explain where his side’s message got lost, and why it just didn’t come together for them. He accepted the notion being proposed by nearly everyone else in the room that they lost to a movement. The many liberals in the room, perhaps all that were at the school, were proud that it was a movement, something that would reign for many years of our adult lives.

            One woman, a fellow 1L, chose to be the fly in the ointment and pointed out this was merely one election. What proof did any of us have – smug panelists and smug questioners alike – that this was a sustained movement? Obama could, in four years, become a one term president and it could all be over, what then?

            Stepping up to this challenge I responded: the people who were trained during this campaign to organize and energize their communities would be an enduring legacy that would keep the movement going. It would be these people who were stirred to action at a young age who would carry the political hopes of the new left. Obama did so well with young and minority voters, particularly those voting for the first time. Bringing people in to the process had expanded the electorate and shifted it. She was not impressed.

            This was a moment in time, not something that could be counted on. Too many people were already acting like the work was all done because of the results. People thought they had solved racism, and were on their way to solving corporate greed. The proclaimed successes were far beyond the ones that could be borne out by evidence.

            Nine years later, looking back on that confrontation it is interesting to see how both of our predictions played out. She was absolutely right, Democrats receded in the number of seats they held in congress and they fell short of many of their goals for the Obama era. This culminated in the reaction that became Trumpism. This woman, now an attorney, saw how paper thin the revolution was from the outset. Not because she wished it to fail, but because it was too easy for those in the moment to be blinded by optimism. She wanted to see more proof of sustainability.

            Now in the first year of the Trump administration, I might be able to carve out a small island to believe that I brought a valid point. The reaction to Trump has allowed this generation to fully come of age politically. Organizations like Indivisible, Sleeping Giants, Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Run For Something, Together We Will, and more are staffed, driven, and supported by alums of Obama for America and its devoted fans. Those who trained to change the world for the original OFA ran smack in to reality, but are finding their second wind. They are returning to public life, because they know they need to, they see that the work is unfinished but not impossible.

            Defeating the Republican health care bill took activism, organizing, and persistence. It may still take more, but citizens are calling their congressional representatives in record numbers. The energy to be involved in politics feels as high as ever. It might not be inspired by Barrack Obama, but his training has certainly led to so many being ready.

            The events in Charlottesville do nothing to dampen my spirit, or my belief that we are growing. The tragedy that is the loss of Heather Heyer, has clearly galvanized those who are willing to fight for equal rights. Defenders of fair societies, of all stripes, were out in the streets and have been active in calling out how the president has failed in denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

            Just one week later 40,000 protesters came out in Boston to counter protest a hate speech rally euphemistically referred to as a free speech demonstration. The danger of apathy has been seen and is being combated. People of good intentions are banding together to ensure they are heard. It is not dependent on one personality or organization, but of hundreds developed organically and reaching out towards one another to form a logistical chain that brings about the change we were promised.

            If it were not for the highs of optimism from the 2008 election, the let downs experienced leading to the election of 2016, and the earth shattering wakeup call of that election this generation might not be as politically active as previous ones. We have been admonished to never skip mid-terms again, not to sort ourselves in to tiny blue districts. None of it really seemed like it would take, not until we were forced to remind ourselves and each other of it every day. Now we are beset by norm challenging news with disturbing regularity. It was the fall from our high that has allowed us to come of age. 

Drawing the line on which statues we take down

What if we do take down the statues of Washington and Jefferson? It is a popular retort for those defending the monuments of the traitors that fought for the confederacy in the civil war to ask where the line will be drawn and will you take down the Statues of our nation’s founders?

Personally I do not want to take down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It is easy for me to see a distinction. On one side the people that built this country and expressed their moral consternation over the issue of slavery. On the other, traitors who fought to protect the institution of human bondage, taking up arms in insurrection against their rightful government.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that he did not believe that the living should be held in a tyranny of the dead. He wanted our country to change, and be free to change. Today we freely express how revolting slavery was. We openly debate whether someone can be a good person if they ever owned slaves, no matter if they were only a product of their time.

The Confederate monuments were put up during the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras. They were meant to intimidate people of color and today remain as a touchstone for those who want to embolden the cause of white supremacy. The monument to the “lost cause” and “Southern Pride” only serve to whitewash white supremacy.

Washington and Jefferson planted trees whose shade they would never enjoy. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and their confederates wanted to chop down those trees to continue their sins against nature. If the process of liberating our society from memorializing criminals is to take down all of the sinners, even our favorites, that’s the price I’ll pay. Take the damn statues down.

Thinking of North Korea in a Different Light

North Korea is in many ways not the evil, unpredictable place that it is portrayed as in most media. Last month The Atlantic did a good job of breaking down the motivations and possibilities of confrontation. The possibility of resolution does seem remote, but so did any sort of agreement with Iran about nuclear programs. It only came from long months of negotiation and showing them that we were not adversaries but could work as partners. We gave them something they could take back to their people and sell. Not just to the religious and deeply conservative leadership council but also to the moderate population. The majority of that population, by the way backed that plan by reelecting the president of Iran to another term, so clearly the give and take allowed at least one country to believe they had a real leader.

There are reasons this would not immediately work with North Korea. They have less skin in the game, so to speak, internationally. Their leader is not up for popular reelection, so his grip on the country comes from strong propaganda to suppress any possible internal dissent. Even so, North Korea is easier to understand as the kid in high school who wore all black and had videos on youtube of him torturing woodland animals. Are they wrong? Absolutely. Are they dangerous? Probably. Will bullying or formal intervention work? It’s not particularly likely. Instead I see them as needing a friend. Someone to bring them in to the conversation, give them an invite to the party, and possibly even allow them to sit at the cool kids table.

Right now North Korea does not have a middle class. Any sanctions we impose against them will not hurt Kim Jong Un, or those in his inner circle that much. They will hurt those who are already suffering at the hands of the regime. If there was a middle class that would have their lives disrupted by sanctions, and if they were empowered to actually hold a referendum on their leadership, sanctions would have a shot at impact. These conditions were nominally present in Iran and its arguable whether or not sanctions really were ever all that effective.

This is the third generation of Kims to lead North Korea and the third to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Their existence, and therefore survival, has been predicated on staving off the threat of Western intervention. The nuclear pursuit has given them purpose and the ability to maintain power over their people. They need some sort of reward. We need to meet them where they are. It costs the US nothing to admit we have felt held hostage by the machinations of the dictatorship’s regime. We could send an envoy to offer this admission and begin a dialog. Open the lines of communication begin to inject aid into the country. These “rewards” could be the opening to have a discussion with the people of North Korea. Get them sitting at the table and feeding back to dear leader that they want more intervention. We need to be able to show the North that they can allow the world in and still retain their autonomy. Those connections will prevent nuclear holocaust more than any tough talk and posturing. Once the Obama administration was willing to sit at the table with Iran the gears began to turn, they will turn even slower in North Korea from lack of use, but the best collective security is being bound to other countries economically.

Many will complain that admitting to being held hostage by this regime will hurt American leadership in the world. In fact, if that is what opens the door to the hermit kingdom it will cement American leadership. If it fails, then we are free to return to talking tough and preparing for nuclear annihilation. I care less about the pride of those wanting tough talk and more about the utility of a plan. Is it possible to tease out an end game that does not involve shooting or carnage? If so that plan is worthy of an attempt or at least greater study, however if our actions are simply building towards violence, we should abandon them.

This tough guy talk will not work. It feels good to some, but in the end the recipient will only feel bullied more. They will react the way that the budding high school sociopath, when they reach their limit they will lash out. Also like that kid, he may not want our help but he should receive it anyway. In both cases we know there is suffering there and it is wrong to let it continue needlessly. The people of North Korea have been on the verge of starving for generations. That type of suffering needs to be met with a strategy that has a chance at helping them. At the end of the Clinton administration an envoy was sent to North Korea and deals were struck to curtail their nuclear program. Unfortunately the deal was finalized in October of 2000. Just 15 months prior to the Axis of Evil speech, cementing the refusal of the deal that Bush signaled as he entered office. Later in the Bush Administration, North Korea would test their first nuclear device and heighten this dynamic for the next two presidents.

If our president is man enough to set aside his machismo and negotiate like a sophisticated international player, then we all have a chance at a reasonable solution. Whenever North Korean aggression comes up, this should be the first idea that consumes the conversation, not the last and most marginalized. 

Democrats poised to eat their own candidates

            David Dayen has an article in the New Republic about the needless attacks on Kamala Harris for her non-prosecution of Steven Mnuchen during the financial crisis. This was also one of the topics discussed on this Monday’s (8/7/17) Pod Save America. Mr. Dayen correctly points out that the Democratic Party could end up eating its own on this front. To use his words, “no public official in this country, from Barrack Obama on down, covered themselves in glory during the foreclosure crisis.” It is obviously true, only one person went to jail, and the fines seemed to go in the wrong direction once the banks were declared too big to fail.

            Dayen also stumbles upon what could be the most revelatory point of his article, but he doesn’t meditate on it too much. The foreclosure crisis and the financial problems it caused were a major scandal, and they were not prosecuted. There was never a genuine attempt to bring those who crashed our economy to justice, and Democrats were in charge nearly everywhere.

            Post mortems on the 2016 election have talked about the populist rage and how the Democrats were not prepared to deal with it. I have read numerous think pieces claiming this movement just came from nowhere and most can’t figure it out beyond noting the media elite were not willing to talk to white working class voters. That’s the best most are willing to offer. The concerning thing is there is a shift I think many Democrats missed in the party, something independents and those aggrieved Trumpites have been saying as an otherwise unsupported accusation. Democrats are no longer the party of the people.

            The Democrats stopped being the party of the people when they failed to prosecute anyone for the financial crisis. We swept in to power at its height and promised change, promised to care for the people. When it came time to actually wield that power though, suddenly everyone was too big to fail or we were concerned about the secondary economic impact of punishing the malfeasance of companies that had acted immorally and illegally. That’s not something that proves that we are for the people. Sure we did not want to destroy a fragile economy, but we were failing to see the impact and implication of protecting the corporations responsible. Foreclosures continued, and Democrats allowed the poison narrative of personal responsibility to justify it as well.

            The jobs initiatives we did have didn’t do enough and wages never recovered enough to fully replenish the middle class. These problems persist to today, so much so that it is even in the milquetoast new platform, but where is the confidence that we can actually benefit both the economy and the average person. Democrats haven’t been winning elections because they haven’t been fighting. Sure, things got a lot better under the Obama administration, but he acted more the economics professor than the crusader. This is why Senator Bernie Sanders’ message was so appealing to so many. It was a return to the rhetoric that was worker centric. Not surprising for a Socialist, but still a shift away from a more corporate strategy favored by the establishment of the party.

            Bernie may not have been a perfect candidate but he at least was willing to name the problem and vow to fight it. Obama did positive things for the economy and he certainly left the country better than he found it. But in so doing he didn’t rise all boats equally. He is a Democrat, it should be a little socialist too. He failed in not being FDR and bringing the programs that really helped people. Which is not the world’s biggest failure, Buchanan is derided as one of our worst president’s, but mostly because he failed to be Abraham Lincoln. Barrack Obama will be remembered as a good president, whether he rises to be thought of as a great president will be for historians.

            We are not here to litigate previous elections or administrations, but find a way to prepare better for the ones ahead. The lesson here is that Democrats must keep average people at the center of their rhetoric. That definition might shift a little one way or the other, but it is clear that we cannot prize a corporation over those it serves, or that we serve. Our focus on intelligent government solutions to problems can help the Democrats reclaim the mantle of party of the people. 

The defeat of ISIS In Mosul

The fall of Mosul feels good but could mean nothing long term. 

Those who grew up on the original trilogy of Star Wars movies will remember Obi Wan Kenobi fighting Darth Vader in the first movie. Kenobi threatens: "You can't win Darth, if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." I had no idea what he was talking about during that scene, and through the trilogy Obi Wan pops up a few more times as a ghost to help Luke out.It would make more sense for the Islamic State to make such a statement.  It is rather unique for a terrorist organization to hold territory the way a state actor might. But at one time the territory of the Islamic State, or ISIS or ISIL, stretched across Syria and Iraq. A fairly well defined area. They even began operating like an actual totalitarian state, collecting taxes, and imposing laws. 

Driving these forces out of Mosul feels good. It means that the countries in which the Islamic State resided have fought back and are re-securing their territory. As a result, forces backed by the United States have reinstated order. However, as the New York Times pointed out yesterday, ISIS is still able to inspire global attacks. 

Even in the retaking of the city there is the same caveat that sleeper cells very much exist, and will cause problems down the road. 

ISIS had physical territory, but their real power was that they existed online. The reach of social media puts all kinds of ideas in people's minds, and the Islamic State has shown an incredible aptitude for recruiting. They target those most vulnerable to coercion by supplying much sought after affirmations and inclusion on those platforms. This tactic is how the group has established its foot hold in many western countries. The strategy is hard to track and almost impossible to stop.

For as long as the Islamic State has an internet connection, they remain a danger. They don't need Mosul, they don't need territory because they could be reaching in to your next door neighbor's house, or your kid's pocket. We can't fight this with guns alone. 

After World War II the United States government gave money to European countries to ensure they would remain Democracies, remain allies, and remain middle class. The countries that received money used it to rebuild after being ravaged by years of war. They ensured that their populations would have educations and futures worth looking forward to. 

Europe had been at war for a matter of years, arguably the last time peace has actually come to the Middle East could be measured in millenia. If the United States invested in the populations of the Middle East then we could begin to build those same bonds we enjoy in Europe today. This is adhering to Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches Theory." Capitalist, middle class countries don't fight each other. People with jobs don't give in to extremism. If we create more middle classes, then we can trade, and trade in this context is the fuel of peace and prosperity.

We won't shoot our way to peace.  Now that Mosul has been recaptured, we should help them rebuild. Let's invest in businesses and industry in the new Iraq. To turn a phrase, if we employ them over there, we won't have to fight them over here. 

This Fourth of July

On this Fourth of July I intend to set off fireworks and drink beer. Like so many of my countrymen, that will be my outward celebration. Within my heart however, I intend to have a moment or more of solemnity.

This is a momentous day in the history of our country. The day during which we dissolved bonds with our mother country and struck out on our own, bonds which have been so hard to dissolve we remain in a “special relationship” with that colonial power today. So many have waxed poetic about it through our history; I will not try to top them. I will however, comment on how the American experiment at peoples governance was a revolution, not just against a colonial power but in ideals set forth by our Declaration thereof that are so aspirational we sometimes struggle to comprehend.

It is with this in mind that I will take pause. Remembering that the American Revolution should never end, should never stop seeking out those goals Thomas Jefferson laid out. We are closer now than we have ever been to living the truth that all men are created equal, and women too, for that matter. 

I implore you to listen to the words of Fredrick Douglass, as read by James Earl Jones, on his feelings regarding the Fourth of July. Take a moment to think for whom the American Dream has not yet been realized. Douglass' speech is from 1852, but it can still resonate today. We are not the same country as we were then, we have notably different laws, but have our hearts fully been changed? Perhaps not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTkHJWxfP0 Douglass expressed his confusion at being asked to speak noting: “These blessing in which you this day rejoice are … shared by you not by me.” Equality was not shared by all our citizens even though our foundational documents promise that all shall be treated equal before the law.

My reflection on his powerful statements leads me to his contemporary, and sometimes friend, Susan B. Anthony. She, along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton proclaimed on the centennial of the Declaration, their own, for women. Writing:

"It was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the rights for which they contended, were the rights of human nature. If these rights are ignored in the case of one half the people, the nation is surely preparing for its own downfall. Governments try themselves. The recognition of a governing and a governed class is incompatible with the first principles of freedom. Woman has not been a heedless spectator of the events of this century, nor a dull listener to the grand arguments for the equal rights of humanity. From the earliest history of our country, woman has shown equal devotion with man to the cause of freedom, and has stood firmly by his side in its defence. Together, they have made this country what it is. Woman's wealth, thought and labor have cemented the stones of every monument man has reared to liberty."

This declaration, a century after Jefferson’s, notes our national failure to embody all of the principles of justice and equality. Before the law, at the very least, we have elevated all to a single class of citizenship. We still exist in a world where rampant inequality reigns. We are not the mobile society which we claim to want, we are not without our original prejudices. We can do better. I will set off fireworks to celebrate how far we have come, I will bum people out with this discussion to remind them of how far we need to go.

The War for Revolution is long past, the ideals set forth to fight it will forever need defending, though. The founding fathers concluded by pledging to one another to support their Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen States with their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor. We should do the same. 

Thoughts, Prayers, and the next Tragedy

            In the wake of tragedy we offer thoughts and prayers. In America we have had so much tragedy though, that it seems like a perfunctory, nothing, of a statement. So much so the show On The Media included the statement in their most recent breaking news consumers handbook.

            It is the only thing to say in the immediate aftermath of a major incident, though. To say anything else and one is accused of politicizing a horrible event.

            I offer in this time, appropriately long enough, following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise while at baseball practice for the congressional baseball game, that for the next horrible thing that happens, I WILL offer my thoughts and prayers, and it will be a radically political statement.

            My thoughts will be for the survivors. And how I will build a better world for those affected by the upsetting event and those it might touch next. Policies may need to change, law makers may need to be lobbied. Deep, values challenging conversations may need to happen. I won’t shy away from them, and I won’t let someone tell me it’s “too soon.” Particularly when, for someone, it may already be too late.

            My prayers will be to change the hearts and minds of those who stand in my way. A better world does not come easy and we must all band together to do that important work. So I’ll pray that my motives remain true, and my methods become effective.

            Perhaps, those thoughts and prayers of mine will end up reiterating a previously held position. Perhaps, the event in question will lead me to question and rethink previously held positions. Either way, I hope to act rationally and begin my work immediately. Any delay could prevent people from genuinely being able to help.

            I will want to offer condolences and empathy to survivors or victims. But my words will be hollow should I not be willing to take action and to be honest immediately following a horrible incident. No one can claim to seriously feel for a victim if they are unwilling to remedy the cause.

            So the next time we see tragedy, can we all offer our thoughts and prayers, and let’s make them count.

Sessions Hearing Live reflections

Note: this was a live blog, without automatic updates. 

Refresh and scroll down for latest updates.

3:00 - Sessions has just begun talking, he is certainly being quite folksy. Immediately he refutes the thrust of this inquiry, so we could be in for a really boring one here. Claims that Senator Franken's line of questioning was "rambling" and "based on breaking news." Both fairly true. 

Also points out that he does not know anything about the current Russia investigation because of his recusal. Sessions does not know anything other than what's been reported in the press, "and I don't even read that!" The folksy-ness is so strong right now...

3:07 - Sessions has recused himself from the investigation but has not recused himself from scurrilous allegations! He certainly has some defending to do with the attacks he has had to endure, and his opening statement suggests he is going to outline his whole narrative. Questioners beware, he will not have another Franken moment.

On to the Chairman, Senator Burr.

3:14 -  One problem with AG Sessions' strategy of  saying he forgot to include the meetings in his disclosure, he may begin to sound dottering by the end of this. He just answered that way for the first time under questions from Senator Burr. I can imagine a super cut of this being played in the press, for his sake lets hope he rehearsed a referential answer along with that one.

Also happening, AG Sessions points out that under DOJ rules, those with political or personal interests must recuse themselves from investigations. He never perceived himself as under investigation. Hey maybe that's what Mr. Comey was talking about? Maybe.

3:25 - No claim of executive privilege, so at least we are not getting a direct stonewall from the president. Not sure how big of a moment that is, but it seems to be worth noting that President Trump does not want to try to challenge on that matter just yet.

3:32 -  AG Sessions did not linger in oval office due to any feeling that the president was about to do something improper. This thread of Jeff Sessions just being really old is heating up, lingered in room because he moves the slowest in the group? Also points out that Mr. Comey should know not to discuss cases with people who aren't supposed to be involved. A touch of whataboutism might begin to show itself as well.

3:35 - In his preamble to a question, Senator Risch, discusses talking to ambassadors in grocery stores when you just bump in to them. That folksy-ness is back! Sen. Risch then demonstrates why leading is not allowed on direct examination in courts. Hey would you like to deny this softball? Yes I would!

3:41 - Attorney General Sessions is getting some great digs in on Mr. Comey, saying the longstanding policy is to not discuss the conversations DOJ employees have with the president. Excellent fodder for several think pieces, you probably won't get one here. The questioning is now by Senator Feinstein, she needs to learn how to cut Mr. Sessions off, he's out to waste her time... And now its gone.

3:50 - Senator Rubio asked a bunch of questions. Moving on. Senator Wyden begins with a lecture about things that should be done out in the public square and how there is no legal basis for refusal to answer. Those think pieces are getting juicier. Sessions says he is going by historic policies of the Department, doesn't want to be accused of "stonewalling."

Now he claims that he recused himself by never taking an interest and never accessing files, then he recused himself formally. Not exactly the same.

3:53 - Oh thank god some yelling. AG Sessions says there is no reason to think there are other reasons than those he stated for recusing and there is nothing problematic about the firing of Mr. Comey because of the recusal. Senator Wyden seems to have drawn out some emotion, AG Sessions is the most sensitive about his reputation. Perhaps an interesting contrast with the testimony of Mr. Comey, who allowed himself to be dragged through on questions regarding why he did not show a stronger spine.

3:57 -  Under questioning from Senator Susan Collins, AG Sessions get another shot at Mr. Comey saying that its time to restore the policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Also gets a question about involvement with the firing of Mr. Comey, AG Sessions offers a fairly boiler plate answer that the FBI oversees many investigations and is within his department. Its a legitimate answer. And then he punts after a question on his choices in light of President Trump going on TV with Lester Holt to say it was all about Russia. So we are back to the more boring side of things.

4:02 - Senator Heinrich is not wasting time and appears to be paying attention what upsets AG Sessions. He immediately states that Sessions is impeading an investigation, then asks for the written policy, seems incredulous about the judgment part of the answer. He may be shooting a campaign ad right here, its hard to say.

4:08 -  Great nugget from the Chair, a clarification that those who have refused to answer in open session have fulfilled their promise to discuss conversations with the president in a closed session. Senator Burr says that all members were able to hear the answers and their questions were answered to satisfaction. That does the work of making the Democrats look like they are grandstanding, but does not ameliorate the practical question of why it will not be discussed in open session.

Senator Roy Blunt on the mic.

4:14 - Blunts time expires with little real revelation. Senator King is out of the box on a line of questioning about AG Sessions preserving a right of the present to assert executive privilege. Premature to prevent the president from being able to assert executive privilege. Kind of dizzying really. King trips Sessions up on having already disclosed content of conversations with the president, nice logic game.

4:24 - Senator James Lankford, seems interested in providing most of the evidence himself. Reads long prepared statement asks AG Sessions to agree, then does it all over again. Really easy to tune out, but he did yield back time so at least we came out ahead in that exchange.

Senator Joe Manchin on the mic.

4:29 - Sen. Manchin seems totally impatient with AG Sessions desire to waste his time. Actually giving him the wrap it up hand signal and asking for just yes or no answers. So Manchin asks for advice! What should we be asking for? hmmm.

4:32 -  Senator Tom Cotton starts up by talking about how they aren't talking about Russia. He wishes they were talking about that? And now he's talking about spy novels. This lets AG Sessions flip and point out how small the amount of contact he has had with any Russian. Its been pointed out prior in this hearing how light and public the communication was. It is all a fair point regarding the heart of the investigation. Though, it misses the whole point that we are now on to an Obstruction of Justice problem, so everyone gets to be right!

4:36 - Sen. Cotton reads a list of "leaks" that have happened and asks if they harm national security. Some of those leaks do indeed threaten national security, some of them are minor. I wrote earlier today about how we need to all be honest about what is serious if proven, obviously no one is interested in heeding my words.

4:40 - Senator Kamala Harris is up now, she is keeping her pace up of wanting to ask as many questions as possible. AG Sessions goes back to the folksy-ness saying being pressed makes him nervous and he wants to qualify some of his answers. It would be adorable if it weren't maddening. AG Sessions even got to talk about the fall of the Soviet Union.

4:46 - We got one of the things we came for, Kamala Harris getting lectured by the Chair to let a witness answer a question they had no interest in answering. It may not be the most productive thing but it does draw in to relief the evasiveness of the witness and the hunger of the questioner.  We also got some more pressure on the written policy of not disclosing communication with the president, which Sessions says he did not consult before coming to the hill to answer questions.

4:56 - This hearing has started living up to my prediction that it would be boring. So not a whole lot of updates, there was not a whole lot of meat on the bones of this matter. Senator John McCain is asking questions now. He appears to be well rested, the Diamondbacks had an off day yesterday, they will be playing the Tigers this evening at 7:10 Washington time.

5:09 -  The excitement really did fizzle out, this whole thing went fairly to script. AG Sessions is President Trump's man, supported him during the campaign and works under him as Attorney General. The president craves loyalty and Sessions wants to keep his job, so he came here to defend his honor as a bonus. The long term of the investigation remains unchanged. Hopefully this investigation does get back to how Russia interfered and who they may have cultivated within the country. The obstruction of justice angle remains very much open, as Mr. Sessions testimony did not actually rebut the possibility. So the investigation will need to continue in that direction as well.

While it seems the desired orientation of the investigation may have something to do with the party orientation of the individual, remember, Republicans have a majority and can call whomever they like. So don't let them protest too much.

That's it for this one!

James Comey and the Time-Space Continuum

            Last Thursday James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That happened, and we can all agree it happened. I wrote about it as it was happening and then I reflected on it.

            I found few took the same line as me in analyzing the behavior of Mr. Comey. I have to say my analysis fits comfortably in to the narrative that the “Evil MSM” is pushing: Comey said no one big bombshell but affirmed lots of negative reporting about Trump and laid out a handful of other breadcrumbs of things to come. While not mind blowing, the gathering storm from those clouds is becoming obvious.

            For this story I thought it might be good to venture outside my ideological neighborhood and see what everyone else might say. It was served to me before I even had the chance, though. First WaPo did a Chyron analysis which was fascinating. Second, several of my conservative friends on Facebook and Twitter jumped to the party line. Some were even people who had appeared to be taking a break from politics were stepping up to note the lack of a direct order language, and to profess they had just tasted a “nothing burger.”

            Rather than suggest they go look up the definition of obstruction of justice I kept my (electronic) mouth shut. I smugly thought they would soon come around, I was wrong. As they fought in the feeds below their comments, my smugness lost its edge. I could accuse them of lawyering up with the rest of the administration, or I could explain what I perceived as the long game Comey was playing. But it didn’t seem like it would matter.

            What I am seeing is that everyone is being totally earnest. All of my liberal friends see obstruction. All of my conservative friends see a disgruntled employee who has a history of going it alone and wanting to be at the center of things. Back on the left, Mr. Comey is portrayed as a tone deaf, Boy Scout, one that says “lordy” instead of “shit.”

            We all watched the same hearing. We all are living in the same universe, I presume. Are we alternating sticking our heads in the ground? Is this some sort of political Rorschach test?

            This is the real thing about gas lighting, there is no way to prove it has been happening or that it was done, barring an admission from the culprits. I have my beliefs, and I have my education, and I know what I saw. Problem is, so does the other half of the population.

            There has been plenty said about objective reality and political tribalism and information siloes. But this is a genuine test, we all saw him say he felt a pattern emerging where the president tried to leverage him to stop an investigation. That, if all true, would be obstruction of justice. Is there daylight? Absolutely. We still need to 1) determine the veracity of his words, and 2) parse the meaning of the word “hope.” If we want a particular result there is still plenty of room for optimism, either way. And for you to believe that is still rational. But to say your side has won is not rational at all.

            For the good of the republic, and frankly my mental state, as I have had to question the objective reality around me, seen with my own eyes, let’s try to call this one as it is, not as we see it.

----

As a complete afterthought, and in fairness, what Loretta Lynch did to synchronize between Department of Justice and Clinton Campaign language is sketchy, perhaps even worthy of further inquiries. But it changes nothing in regards to other misdeeds. Nor, was it the biggest story. Same goes for Mr. Comey being the source of the memos to the New York Times, if you couldn’t work out that there were 4 people in the room during the loyalty pledge, and it wasn’t President Trump, it was not the two Navy Stewards, so it had to be James Comey, then you are not great at reading between the lines and should refer to my piece on Comey’s behavior. 

A Unified theory on the "strange" behavior of James Comey

James Comey has submitted written testimony and answered about 2 1/2 hours of public questions from senators in the intelligence committee hearing. Democrats hunted for the silver bullet that will make all of their dreams of impeaching President Trump come true. Republicans tried to trip up James Comey as best they could, through it all he presented a calm and rational case, though. The one that he wanted to present. He was not swayed to jump to conclusions or step outside of his comfort zone. He was a rock, the committee were crashing waves.

The thing that should strike you is that James Comey has made record of each and every solo interaction with President Trump. It has been lost on almost no one so far. But an honest answer has not been offered as to why. The Republicans would like the answer to be because James Comey has some reason to dislike Donald Trump and is in some way deranged and untrustworthy. The Democrats would like the answer to be that he has "the goods" and is out to show it off. Neither are the truth.

To understand Mr. Comey's behavior, you should understand his work experience and who he is. He is a career prosecutor, former Deputy Attorney General, and former FBI director. His instinct is to build cases over long periods of time protect the integrity of witnesses and then present the strongest case possible. That is how he has been trained and that is his primary setting. Until he realizes his role is different in that process.

Take a piece of his written testimony, excerpted for clarity and retrieved here:

I first met then President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment. 

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.
... 

When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted. In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counterintelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

So it is at this meeting when he is briefing the president on the dossier with the pee tape that Comey decides to offer an, otherwise unprompted, assurance that Mr. Trump is not under investigation. There is clearly a level of intuition here that causes Mr. Comey to do that. His behavior since, recording all interactions in the form of unclassified memos, making those memos available to the public and prosecutors, and preserving his integrity as a witness, all shows that he knew he would one day be called to testify regarding these interactions. He begins to act as a witness while he is still at his job as FBI Director, even at the expense of some of his duties. He intended for all of the memos to be unclassified but he typed the first one out on a classified machine, why? Because he knew he had to record the January 6th meeting immediately to keep it "present sense." He was simply preparing a witness rather than trying to stop any misdeeds.

Many of the Senators were interested, some even mezmorized, by Mr. Comey's inability to call out the President, his boss and the most powerful man in the world, for these inappropriate behaviors. While it would be both difficult because of the disorienting nature of Mr. Trump, and take the courage of standing up to your new boss, it just as easily could have been a third reason, its hard to remain a credible witness if you had begun to take part in, or shape, the inappropriate behavior rather than just witness it. Mr. Comey risked losing his credibility and integrity on the witness stand. He was out to better prepare himself than that. 

I don't believe that today's testimony was even the one he was preparing himself for. He leaked the unclassified memos for the express purpose of triggering a special prosecutor. There may be more said behind closed doors today, but a few things are clear. Mr. Comey intended to be a witness, he had a long term plan to see a case built over time, and he believes that only a special prosecutor can properly execute it. 

What is not clear is what Mr. Comey believes will come of his testimony, how much more interesting stuff he still has to say, if anything at all, or if the special prosecutor will actually turn up anything actionable against anybody. 

Some Live Impressions of the Comey Hearing

Some notes of what I am thinking about as I watch James Comey testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

10:40 - I am noticing that between previous hearings, Yesterday's hearing with DNI Dan Coates, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, and today with James Comey, Intelligence Community members are choosing to look suspicious not answering questions with regard to specific questions. Whether they were about influence over the Russia investigation, or if they were about the Steele Dossier. There is a larger play by the intelligence community. They are building a case and they know they will spook it or confuse it if they are too forthcoming.

Comey is a prosecutor and I am sure that he is thinking of himself as a witness, which is why he preserved the memos. He wanted present sense impression, and present memory refreshed.

10:48 - Senator Risch, points out how good the written testimony is, prepared as good as it gets from legal writing class.

10:54 - We are beginning to drill down to one of the fulcrums of the problem here. President Trump was not under investigation, but the Russian interference was. Why would this create pressure on the President were it not for some sort of complicity or collusion? If he were truly uninvolved why not turn out your pockets and instruct your councilors to do the same? That has always been the dubious problem that makes everyone act Benghazi level nuts.

10:57 - Senator Feinstein also puts before Comey the obviousness of the power of the oval office. A lot of this wouldn't fly in direct, in a court room. But still a public record.

11:03 - Comey has a couple of times mentioned that he did not have the presence of mind to admonish the president for acting strangely, or inappropriately. I think it belies the destabilizing nature of Donald Trump. He does not act like the normal politician or public servant. It is hard to predict if your whole life has been reporting to service minded people. It won't get said explicitly but I think so much of the uneasiness that Comey has had stemmed from this unpredictability.

11:14 - Under questioning from Wyden, we just got one of the biggest pieces of the obstruction puzzle. He said if the president got what he wanted, the Russia investigation would have been ended. Senator Wyden connected the dots, if you had acceded to the president's request the American people would not have gotten the truth. I know people will deny that this is the key, but really that is what those obstruction calls are about. Stay calm, its still going to feel like forever.

11:23 - Comey has been good about creating a theme of trying to protect the organization, which is a far better reason to create the memos and do all of the things he has done. He certainly doesn't look like a guy with an ax to grind.

And while I was typing, he just admitted to being the source of the leaks. Laundered the memos through a professor at Columbia Law. So pretty much everything we have read in the paper about Comey and Trump is from Comey leaking. Again, he has built his case perfectly and is just connecting the dots today.

11:36 - Senator Blut appears to be trying to bury some of this testimony as strange behavior by Comey. I think he's getting shown up, Comey seems to be able to explain over the incredulity of the Senator. And he managed to run himself out of time trying to tease out this strain of thought. Comey shows no interest in answering an unasked question. I keep saying it but that comes with practice, he had to have trained witnesses to not answer unasked questions. I hope this is shown in law schools for years.

11:45 - Closest Comey has come to discussing the actual investigations. The Russia inquiry and the Flynn investigation were "separate but touching" seemed genuinely unsure if he would have been able to let the Russia investigation go unobstructed if Flynn had been stopped. Comey noted that he might want to pressure Flynn to "flip" him. Now the question is who would he flip him to testify against?

11:57 - Great refutation of Trump's claim that Comey had better hope there are no tapes of the conversation. Comey says release them all, almost seems like he would be relieved if they were there to corroborate the memos. He seems like he is enjoying this questioning from Senator Manchin, which should not speak to effort he is putting in.

12:08 - Seeing on Twitter that Judicial Watch is putting out there that Comey leaking information to reporters through third party was betraying his oath. For a supposedly legal organization they don't seem to be able to understand the difference between classified information and unclassified information, or personal recollection recorded. Something that might be worth looking in to would be the giving of Israeli intelegence to the Russians. Or perhaps the deaths of 18 CIA Sources in China just a couple of weeks after the Presidents of China and the US met.

As far as the hearing, Senator Kamala Harris managed to get an impressive string of "unable to answer in open session" answers. And it is beginning to appear that most of the red meat has been consumed by the senior members of the committee so the junior members are going a bit far afield here.

12:19 - Senator Cornyn asks to go back to the Clinton matter with Loretta Lynch. I have not mentioned his other answers in this area because I found them lacking probative value, and minor news. It could have been extrapolated from other information already provided. Biggest piece of news was the direct request on verbiage matching the campaign line. Comey did note no news article matched the language he used. He said "matter" everyone said "investigation," this is more likely the nothing burger the GOP keeps talking about, it certainly couldn't be the other things discussed. Not seeing the Senator getting far with this.

12:29 - Comey just reminded the room what is at stake, if the Russians were meddling in our election that is a big deal. If any American helped that is an even bigger deal. This makes it plain that we need to dig for facts, non-partisan, non-biased facts. I hope all of congress just got that message, as well as Robert Mueller III, which everyone says he already knows that.

Now Senator John McCain can show if he is for America or if he will fall back on the need to protect the President.

12:36 - John McCain is blowing my mind. He goes on a long questioning about the Clinton Email scandal, but can't seem to put a cogent question together. He concludes that there appears to be a double standard. He might be the only one who can track exactly what he means. These are very separate matters, and one seemed finished. If you tracked it let me know.

12:38 - McCain gets gaveled out of a rather tortured speaking time.

12:47 - We are gaveled out of the hearing and the talking heads are flapping. I'll collect myself in a bit for a recap.

With Obama Care, we were never angry at the right people

            There have been years of bellyaching in regards to the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Most of it has come from Republicans decrying the temerity to mandate the purchase of something which is considered essential by most developed countries. Some came from earners in the subsidy gap left by the structure of the bill. As time went on, more voices joined the chorus to note the rise in premiums that were inevitable, and then egregious, to give everyone with preexisting conditions coverage.

            The anger flowed freely and ran hot against President Obama and the Democrats that voted for it. A sharp irony now that 23-24 million stand to lose insurance who clearly were the beneficiaries of that law. It was so bad and worth complaining about for seven years but the prospect of it going away and millions of our fellow Americans losing their coverage appears to be untenable. This uproar should indicate that the ACA was not all bad. And the things that weren’t bad maybe, definitely, are worth saving. Like the subsidies that allowed more than 20 million people to sign up for insurance in the first place. Or the requirement that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions and what people are paying for will actually cover the illnesses they could get.

            Our problem is that we were never angry at the right people. People raged against the president but never questioned why insurance companies were pulling out of marketplaces other than the reasons on the company press release. Instead of believing that they couldn’t make any money in the insurance marketplace, we should have questioned why they could not make money while insurance rates were doubling or tripling, and a record number of insurance customers were paying along with the federal government. Not to mention, company profits never took a sustained hit. Yes there were some growing pains but by 2016 there were profits for all who had stuck it out. If a company cannot make money in this environment it appears to be more a result of incompetence rather than the failure of legislation.

            One of the most important customers that the insurance marketplaces managed to get in this process was the federal government. If these companies really cared about the health of their customers, they, with their enormous lobbyist arms, could have reached out to congress to help prod for more subsidies. On passage even Democrats admitted the bill was not perfect, the companies could have taken the lead in how to reform the markplaces payment structure. Instead they just kept raising prices and they did so because of a clear assurance from an important interest group of the insurance companies. The Republican Party, led by their congressional delegation gave the companies political cover to continue to raise the rates. They complained loudly and often about the bill. So much so that the insurance industry saw that they would not get those subsidies quickly and the path of least resistance would be to play in to the hell-scape that Paul Ryan was promising.

            The other major group that one could credit with not getting enough flack is those  people who were complaining about the individual mandate and the media that enabled them. People who refused to buy insurance were depicted as patriotic cowboys fighting for their right to die of whichever disease they so choose. They were allowed their indignation without the serious check that they did not understand how the purchase of insurance might benefit society at large, or them in the long run, as preventative care is far cheaper than trying to pay for some unforeseen illness. The media allowed them to not have to deal with the fact that their principled stand against Obama Care should have been conflated with a desire to see their neighbors die of cancer.

            The Democrats were not totally blameless, though they were not criticized enough for the right things. They should have been dragged in to the streets for not creating a public option, or the ability to buy in to medicare for all. They were likely lobbied hard; any sign of public insurance will lead to the end of private health insurance in the ten years that follow it. That’s hard to end an industry. Democrats chose not to end dying of preventable disease in their own country instead. They do deserve praise for one thing, though. The bill was never designed to go on forever, and it may fail, but it will do so in a way that proves that people prefer to have healthcare rather than not. And that may mean that Obama Care hastened the coming of the public option, and for that we should thank those who crafted this whole mess. 

Take a breath

The pace of the Trump administration is dizzying. It is always finding a way to do something outrageous while preparing to pivot to the next piece of madness. The Atlantic pointed this out recently when they wrote about four stories that broke in a single day. Prior to this I have wanted to publish several articles on the Trump administration; none have made it through the editing process before losing not only their timeliness but almost their coherence, as the world around us seemed to change.

            I have wanted to write about how Donald Trump is getting co-opted by those around him, and how his alt-right followers should be furious. There were too many examples to keep going, the article never seemed up to date enough. Sure he didn’t reinforce Article 5 but he did just quietly allow in a bunch of refugees.

            I started doing research on health care, tax policy, and infrastructure. None seemed important enough to pull together 500 words on while the Russia story burned brightly. There is so much that could be said on them but each feels as if it will have its moment. The Russian moment is now, and like a glitter bomb it is on everything.

            I wanted to write several wide ranging analyses of the Russia revelations but that might be the least solid ground in politics right now. I scroll through my Facebook feed to see the “promoted” stories are a part of the scandal that I have almost forgotten. Reading back through stories the news site algorithms suggest stories that seem like ancient history. In fact reading news from April, right now being the end of May, feels like simpler time. The most recent breaking news has been about the Transition, a time which even allowed non-political news to enter the public consciousness.

            It has been said many times before but it is worth repeating, Donald Trump is good at disruption, it is how he likes to run his businesses and it is how we are being governed. He wants to keep people off balance, he wants us to be stuck five outrages ago while he is off signing executive orders or golfing. This allows him space to operate, but also gives him plenty of coverage on the news. The NPR politics podcast pointed out last week that he will say whatever he wants to get to the next 10 minutes, but once under oath he is evasive and disciplined.

            So it is time to take a breath away from Russia, the investigations will continue at pace. The world is a place full of problems and provocations, so for the next two weeks those will take center stage for The Polaris Revolution.