New Developments III

[anonymous1980]

Pray for my country (or let me move to yours). The Philippines just put a Marcos back in power.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I never paid any attention to Meghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I'm not remotely surprised. She's just awful. I watched a little bit of The View during the Trump years. She clearly doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and just reads briefly off the cards they give her.

taki15 wrote
He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

I remember vaguely that McCain wanted to choose Joe Lieberman but there were some fears that his selection would result in a floor fight at the convention or a third party conservative party run. I could be wrong about that. Palin shored up his base but lost independents and moderates. I'm not sure if John McCain would have done better against Obama with Lieberman by his side, but it would've doubled-down on his message more which is probably a good thing. Certainly, we'd all be better off today.

[Big Magilla]

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

Yes, that's the conventional wisdom, but knowing she was the pick of the Kremlin should have given him pause.

[taki15]

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

He picked her because he wanted to win and she (theoretically) gave him a chance unlike the other picks (Pawlenty, Romney) who gave him none.
That was of course before he learned, along with everyone else, that she was a publicity-hungry ignoramus.

[Big Magilla]

I never paid any attention to Meaghan McCain. I found her shrill and annoying. Didn't realize she was as bad as all that.

I wonder why the McCain-Putin connection never saw the light of day before. I knew of course that the Russians tried to infiltrate our government before Trump but never knew they got that close. Schmidt says that it was a Putin operative who was in charge of picking Palin for McCain's VP but doesn't say why McCain went along with it.

The rallying cry of the left now is over Amy Coney Barrett's flippant and repeated exhortation to pregnant women to "do your nine" and donate to the "domestic supply of infants" instead of having abortions. It is now as infamous as Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" remark and anything that Trump ever said. It's incensed more women than Alito's leaked opinion. Kate McKinnon's Coney Barrett on Saturday Night Live last night is already the most celebrated takedown of an esteemed Republican woman since Tina Fey "could see Russia from her house" as Sarah Palin.

[Sabin]

This has been a dreadful week that has been hitting me in waves when thinking of the implications in years to come. Red states getting redder. Blue states getting bluer. Red states protesting blue states and blue states protesting red states. Political violence as blue states provide outreach to women who need abortions in red states, as we waste the precious years we need to come together and prevent the hell of Earth climate change promises us.

This has been a dreadful week. I needed something to take my mind off and give me some form of happiness.

That something was Steve Schmidt.

Over the last few weeks, Meghan McCain's book has sold dismally. She's posted photo ops by her father's grave. And the final nail in the coffin was when she liked a tweet accusing Schmidt of being a pedophile. That was it. Steve Schmidt went off.

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 0643088385

I'm not proud of the fact that the most enjoyment I received this week was watching one DC insider bury the other, but it was. It was fantastic. But he wasn't done.

He continued onward into:

Russian infiltration of the GOP: https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7088128001
Sarah Palin: https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 7353896960

And finally, this one: https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/sta ... 0968726528

In this one, he settles into the following sentiment: "The Exhausted Majority is what I’m part of. It’s got Republicans, democrats, independents, new voters and new citizens. It’s made up of people of all faiths, creeds religions and no religion at all. It is common sense based and we are sick of the bullshit and will not allow a belligerent minority to hijack our Country, our Families, our Kids, our Faiths, our Communities, our unity, our liberty, our bodies and our future."

I want to believe in the exhausted majority. I'm not sure how it can exist post Roe.

[Big Magilla]

We're getting in the weeds here.

The minutia generally applies to how people feel about abortion for themselves and how they would feel about someone they know having an abortion, not whether it should apply to everyone. The key question is should it be legal or shouldn't it be. It's a question that shouldn't have to be asked on settled law so 70% is the correct number. Even that, though, is too small, for something that is not only settled law in this country but in all civilized countries including Italy and Ireland where its passage was hard fought.

The only other questions should be how many of the 70% care enough about the issue to vote for candidates that share their beliefs and how many of the 22% who are not opposed in all cases will do the same. Given that this could be just the tip of the iceberg, it should in theory be all but most of the remaining 8% who are opposed to abortion no matter what the circumstances are. If the upcoming elections were about this one issue, the overturning of Roe v Wade would create the seismic shift the Democrats are looking for, but elections are never about one issue. Could it be enough? It could, but will it? And even if it is, will it change anything in the Senate?

[Sonic Youth]

Americans Favor Abortion Rights, But It's Complicated

This gets at what I was talking about before, and it's something pro-choice absolutist's (like me) have got to start coming to terms with. 70% of the American people are pro-choice - or at least that's the figure I keep seeing - but what does "pro-" mean? Does it mean "agree with"? Or does it mean "unilaterally vote in support of"? Because if it's the latter, it's much less than 70%. Majorities mean little without a unified front.

[Sonic Youth]

The ironic thing about the Supreme Court decision is that the number of abortions in the U.S. have been plummeting for a while.

Which only makes it easier.

[Sonic Youth]

The most devastating thing about this week for me is the number of people in my life that I'm realizing are largely indifferent. We're not even there yet and I feel heartbroken. I'm discovering a large number of people around me who aren't so much Pro-Choice as it's just a mild preference for them -- whether it's indifference or they've been misinformed. I'm just trying to stuff my hopelessness into a bindle for the long, long road ahead.

I held out a tiny bit of hope that this leak could mobilize Democratic voters. You and Magilla just did a fine job bringing me back to reality. Thanks guys.

The truth is, for all the statistics that get trotted out saying that more Americans are pro-choice than pro-life, it's the pro-life movement that's stronger, more vocal, more passionate and more organized. They'll do a better job getting out the vote, which didn't need much help to begin with. This year's enthusiam is at Tea Party levels, and with this president's unpopularity the Dems have a looooong way to go to match it. They're starting from way behind in the first place, especially with the younger demographic. What I find most interesting is, what is corporate America doing about this? Hollywood, Big Tech, etc. were all strongly in support of the fight for marriage equality. Is there anything like this today? Where are the boycotts? Where are the celebrities? Where are the PSAs? There is nothing. \And all this talk about how "members of their own party will rise up in outrage if Republicans outlaw abortion" is delusion, at least in this Trumpian day and age. It would have happened at least in Texas already if it were true.

[Big Magilla]

Big Magilla wrote
The Senate has to throw out the filibuster, codify Roe v Wade, pass voting protection laws, and act on lowering drug costs at the very minimum of the Biden administration's proposals, and they need to do all of it without further obfuscation and delay.

That won't happen. Manchin and Sinema don't support it. I'm not even sure Joe Biden supports it. This "Democratic Control" is the biggest Catch 22 I've ever seen. It's probably the only thing that could have won. We just can't do much with it (with respectful nods to federal judges and anti-gerrymandering).

The most devastating thing about this week for me is the number of people in my life that I'm realizing are largely indifferent. We're not even there yet and I feel heartbroken. I'm discovering a large number of people around me who aren't so much Pro-Choice as it's just a mild preference for them -- whether it's indifference or they've been misinformed. I'm just trying to stuff my hopelessness into a bindle for the long, long road ahead.

I know. I'm so sick of listening to Democrats say, "you have to vote for us if you want things to change."

I heard Kamela Harris say that on the news again this morning. I wanted to yell at the screen, "We did that two years ago. You're in charge and you still can't get anything done."

No, Biden doesn't want to end the filibuster. Either he's nostalgic for the way things were when he was in the Senate, or he thinks the pendulum will swing back to civility on its own. Someone needs to wake him up and he in turn needs to read the riot act to Manchin and Sinema. Neither, though, is likely to happen. It's going to have to be a state-by-state fight that will last as long as the Civil War and probably be fought for forty years after it ends, though one hopes without too much actual blood being spilled.

[Greg]

The ironic thing about the Supreme Court decision is that the number of abortions in the U.S. have been plummeting for a while.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
The Senate has to throw out the filibuster, codify Roe v Wade, pass voting protection laws, and act on lowering drug costs at the very minimum of the Biden administration's proposals, and they need to do all of it without further obfuscation and delay.

That won't happen. Manchin and Sinema don't support it. I'm not even sure Joe Biden supports it. This "Democratic Control" is the biggest Catch 22 I've ever seen. It's probably the only thing that could have won. We just can't do much with it (with respectful nods to federal judges and anti-gerrymandering).

The most devastating thing about this week for me is the number of people in my life that I'm realizing are largely indifferent. We're not even there yet and I feel heartbroken. I'm discovering a large number of people around me who aren't so much Pro-Choice as it's just a mild preference for them -- whether it's indifference or they've been misinformed. I'm just trying to stuff my hopelessness into a bindle for the long, long road ahead.

[Big Magilla]

I received my mail-in ballot for the upcoming June primary yesterday which I opened this morning. It gave me quite a shock.

I knew that the congressional map was redrawn by the New Jersey State Legislature, but I was under the impression that it heavily favored Democrats. Maybe it does overall, but not here.

I was part of Andy Kim's progressive 3rd District. I was shocked to find that all of Ocean and Monmouth counties now constitute the entire 4th District which is the most Republican district in the state. The current representative, who is from Manchester, is the only politician in the state who has come out in favor of the opinion espoused in the leaked Supreme Court draft proclaiming the end of Roe v Wade. He is being challenged by five or six other Republicans, but he's been challenged in the past and won against the odds time and time again. The old farts love him. The only Democrat running is a small-time businessman from the Delicious Orchards area. I will vote for him, but he has no chance of winning against whoever the Republicans nominate.

Ugh!

[Big Magilla]

As the Times article points out, it's minority rule that is to blame.

Someone pointed out the other day that the Dakotas (North and South) have the combined population of Staten Island, one of the five boroughs (counties) that make up New York City, yet the conservative Dakotas have double the power in the Senate of all of generally liberal New York State. Mitch McConnell's Kentucky, and other small conservative states, receive financial support from the so-called wealthier states like New York, New Jersey, and California with their heavier taxes. National politics in the U.S. has been disproportionately geared toward the dozens of smaller states for some time.

This pending ruling by the Supreme Court, with its six conservative judges, all of them appointed by Republicans, four of them appointed by presidents who won the electoral vote but not the popular vote, is not a surprise but it is still a shock. It is the first time that the Court has ever (if this goes through as drafted) taken away a right that has been granted by the Constitution. Contrary to what Alito thinks, amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution. This current Court is beyond conservative. It's reactionary. It wants to put things back to the way they were in 1776 when the Constitution was written. This ruling wants to not just take away a woman's right to choose, but a citizen's right to privacy as protected by the tenth amendment. Everything is at risk. Marriage equality is next on their evil agenda. Then, who knows what they'll go after.

The Senate has to throw out the filibuster, codify Roe v Wade, pass voting protection laws, and act on lowering drug costs at the very minimum of the Biden administration's proposals, and they need to do all of it without further obfuscation and delay.