I don’t want to keep fucking this chicken for too long, but Gillibrand really was smart to oppose all of Trump’s nominees. I’m sure Fred Hiatt doesn’t approve, but that’s the kind of the point.
We need to create a climate where Democratic toughness is incentivized. Politicians are calculating people by necessity. If they get a lot of positive attention by standing up to Trump, they’ll do that. If they get a lot of positive attention by acting very serious on the Charlie Rose show, they’ll do that instead.
Democrats in Congress should be competing to see who can be the most anti-Trump. So far, Kirsten Gillibrand seems to be winning. For that, I salute her.
Renie
she’s gearing up for 2020
themann1086
@Renie: As of right now, she’s got my vote. So Mission Accomplished.
Patricia Kayden
While I applaud like hell for Senator Gillibrand, I am disheartened that she’s the only one with a backbone and common sense. But good for her. Someone has to be the one.
Anonymous At Work
Not “toughness” but “ruthlessness”. Chicago-style.
And the pushback here is that voting against all the nominees en mass turns the votes into partisan squabbles, no chance of picking off votes. If you can’t pick off votes on someone like DeVos (Sessions would be nice but the genteel traditions of the Senate are still honored with regards to treating each other with kid-gloves), then eff-it in the next round of nominations.
Pangloss
I’m willing to let Elaine Chao run Transportation, Shulkin head the VA, and Nicki Haley go to the UN, but every one of the rest are manifestly unfit.
Gary
Gillibrand/Ted Lieu 2020.
MomSense
@Renie:
Good!
Doug!
@Pangloss:
I kind of agree. Mattis is ok too.
But still…if I wanted to be prez some day I’d vote against every last one of these motherfuckers
Aleta
These nominees should be reminded in the press of perjury charges and other possible prosecutions if they lie, disguise (or plagiarize!) information they give to Congress.
gene108
Called my Senior Senators office, Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and he’s voting on No on DeVos and undecided on Sessions.
We’re not going to be able to stop ALL Trump nominees getting through.
But we can go after the ones, who are clearly a danger to the country, such as Sessions, DeVos, Price, Pruitt, etc.
Also, too Bob’s D.C. office was not picking up. Lines were full and it went to voice mail. Voice mail was full. Called the local office and the lady said they are getting a lot of calls.
Right now calling is the most effective – in terms of cost versus benefit – tool we have.
Tokyokie
Sessions supposedly had a hand in drafting that abominable anti-Muslim EO. He should be rejected for sheer fucking incompetence.
debbie
What we have to do is stop fighting each other, stay focused on the big picture, and stop falling into the traps set by Trump and Bannon. This popped up on my FB feed (apologies for the length):
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
“I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.”
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like.
I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.
Lavocat
My senator and the next president of the United States!
debbie
@debbie:
I would have been skeptical of the above if I hadn’t listened to an interview on NPR with Sebastian Gorka, one of Bannon’s aides. He is beyond pompous, directing every single response to a slam on the media, progressives — anyone questioning Trump.
StringOnAStick
I just called both my senators about Sessions. Bennet (D-CO) is getting so many calls that I eventually was sent to voice mail and I plan to send an email as well. I got a real human at Gardner’s (R-CO) who sounded very, very tired and just plain hatin’ life at this point of his career in politics. I made it a point to be extra uplifting and friendly, and all he could do was sound like he’d just pulled a 48 hour shift. I’ll bet each day feels like a 48 hour shift right now. Keep calling, it is demoralizing the repubs phone slaves and stiffening the spines of the democrats!
Ridnik Chrome
@Renie: If so, she’ll have my vote.
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
Looking at Gorsuch’s bio, it occurs to me that there is no functional difference between originalism and necromancy.
Deborah
@gene108: How can he be undecided on Sessions.
randy khan
I have mixed feelings about strategy on this, but I do feel like it’s important to draw lines in the sand about some people. I think Sessions is one of them, and my feelings about him have been reinforced by recent events.
bystander
@debbie: I posted this link on an earlier thread. It dovetails in a very scary way with the comments in your post.
Mike J
Harley-Davidson afraid of being seen in public with Trump, cancels trip to Milwaukee.
cmorenc
Best odds on 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee are:
1) Sen Kirsten Gillibrand D-NY
2) Kamala Harris D-Ca
…For all her accomplishments and good qualities, both Hillary and Bill respectively had a certain hubris that created vulnerable dead spots in their judgment and behavior that greatly helped their enemies gain hugely magnified leverage over their mistakes and faults – assisted by such an extended track record in public office and life that even the most talented folks will find it very difficult to avoid creating material for their opponents to work with.
IMHO the GOP will have a much harder time finding much personal flaw ore to mine against either of these two women – instead, it will be the usual RW ideological bullshit, prevarication, and outright falsehoods about what they stand for and their respective records in office.
OTOH, just getting to 2020 is going to seem like forever. While Obama’s second term felt like its time flew by quickly, the next four years minus 1.5 weeks is going to seem to crawl by at an near-insufferably slow pace – it will be the progressive political equivalent of going through the Navy Seals’ “Hell Week”, which is only 5 1/2 days long, but probably seems like 5 1/2 months to those going through it. And like Hell Week, the only way we’ll get through this is one “evolution” at a time with firm determination not to quit, no matter what. (An “evolution” is their terminology describes whatever the momentary unit of activity is, whether racing rubber boats through the chilly Pacific surf, timed runs, whatever). And remember: “it pays to win”.
SFAW
@Anonymous At Work:
Are you suggesting that if the Dems “keep their powder dry” on some of the less detestable nominees, they’ll be able to peel off votes on ones like DeVos and Sessions and whoever he named for Labor and EPA and SCOTUS and so on?
If so, then I think they’ll peel off about as many as they did for the ACA. With probably the same lead-up. (As in, “Sen. Snowe just wants this one little provision added/deleted in order to satisfy her” etc. etc.)
dogwood
The bar for heroics is set pretty low here. It’s great that she voted no across the board. But she’s not risking anything by doing it. It might be a wise political move, but it isn’t heroic.
Ridnik Chrome
Appointing Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary’s vacant Senate seat might turn out to be the best thing David Paterson ever did as governor of New York.
oldster
I have tried to call Gillibrand’s office and Schumer’s office every business day since the inauguration.
When I get through (I don’t always), I ask the nice interns to thank them for fighting everything tooth and nail, for obstructing, and for making the Republicans own it. The interns are relieved to hear a supportive voice.
We’re going to lose lots of fights over the next four years, but I want to see my Democratic representatives go down fighting. I’ll protest when I can, too.
And it’s working.
I just saw a report that Trump has cancelled a visit to a factory in Milwaukee because he’s afraid of protestors.
Poor special snowflake Republicans need safe spaces where those mean protestors won’t say mean things to them. Poor Trump gets very upset when mean protestors don’t adore him.
The protests are working. We are knocking them off their game.
The Dudeist
@Pangloss: Mattis too. He’s a decent guy.
stinger
@Lavocat: Your keyboard to the FSM’s oricchiette.
Doug!
@Ridnik Chrome:
Setting bar pretty low, but yes.
debbie
@bystander:
You’re right. It is scary. Deliberate chaos with no plans for what to do afterward.
Nicole
My best friend work with her on an anti-displacement task force in 2009, and really liked her. I also think the Democrats really have to run a woman in 2020, to show that 2016 didn’t beat us.
Mary G
Brave, brave Sir Issa runs away!
Another Scott
@Doug!: Mattis, by all indications, is insane about Iran.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Mary G: it’s a trend!
guachi
I thought Gillibrand had voted for at least one candidate?
Just checked. She voted for Nikki Haley.
Though UN Ambassador may not count as a “cabinet appointment”
Mike J
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ve ridden that “subway”. You can practically walk alongside when it is running.
cmorenc
@Mary G: They knew damn good and well that the odds that either the letter-carrier or anyone who signed whatever petition was in it had voted for Issa (or would ever have considered such) were only slightly better than the odds of any of them winning the next Powerball lottery.
Renie
what is the rationale behind ‘picking their battles’? why can’t more dems just vote no on all of them. there is no limit to the number of no votes you get
rikyrah
Every.last one.
VOTE NO,!!!
Another Scott
@Renie: The argument I’ve seen is that if the Democrats vote as a block and just say no to all of them, then they can’t persuade wavering GOP Senators by saying, “Look, I’m reasonable – I voted for X – and I know you’re reasonable too, but look this Y guy is bad for the country….”
That line of argument assumes that there are “wavering GOP Senators”. All evidence indicates those have been extinct since January 2009.
:-/
I dunno. We’re off the map here. The Democratic Leadership has seen lots of these things before, but they’re having to make the best of a bad situation too. They know how to count votes. They are good at their jobs (despite appearances sometimes). Maybe there’s some behind-the-scenes horse-trading going on.
What would be best is if they were using everything in their power to get a few “sensible” GOP senators to switch parties, along with telling Trump “No” when it makes sense.
Cheers,
Scott.
rikyrah
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
LOL
Trentrunner
Honest, not snarky question: Why are Dem senators voting for ANY of Trump’s cabinet? What’s the up side (political, otherwise) to not try to block every one?
Eric NNY
That’s my Senator. I’m with her!
Donna K
@guachi:
I suspect Sen. Gillibrand now regrets this vote after Haley’s dreadful first speech at the U.N.
Miss Bianca
@StringOnAStick: Were these the local offices?
Feebog
Not going to pick my candidate based on how he/she voted for cabinet appointments. I expect all of them to vote against the worst of the worst. There are going to be a number of fresh new faces to choose from in the run up to 2020, assuming Cheeto Benito doesn’t start WWIII. I like Gillibrand, and think she will be a top tier candidate, but much to early to jump on a band wagon.
hilts
I have 1 word for Dem senators: OBSTRUCT
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Gary: Won’t work, Ted Lieu was born in Taiwan.
Timurid
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes:
I’m not a SCOTUS nerd, so I don’t know much about Gorsuch. I assume he is a nightmare in the making, else Trump would not be considering him. But from a cursory glance at his bio, he seems to be a pretty run of the mill Republican. Yes, he’s an originalist, but you can find a bunch of originalists on every street corner these days. Is there anything I’m missing?
ruckus
@debbie:
A point is that it may be deliberate chaos, to hide the real purpose. These people can be considered stupid because of what they think but they can also be considered evil for the same reason. And evil people will do evil things even knowing they are evil.
Mike J
Tweets condensed:
Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 13 minutes ago
Trump said he was going to “drain the swamp,” but he seems to think the way to do that is by filling it with even bigger swamp creatures.
A clear example of Trump’s broken promise to “drain the swamp” is the nomination of Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, for Secretary of State.
Puzder, Trump’s Labor Sec pick, has made clear he will do what’s best for big biz like his own at the expense of workers & their families.
Families deserve answers about whether Rep. Price benefited from non-public info when he made certain medical stock trades in the House.
NCSteve
Anyone who’s on her mailing list can tell KG is running and this was the smart move for someone who’s running. And I’m good with that. I’m great with that. For that matter, I’m good with Booker and fuck the Unicorn Mounted Purity Warriors crying bitter tears because he took a couple of pro-Wall Street positions five or six years ago.
But this “Cast a Purely Symbolic Vote Against Every Nominee or Else!” shit is just the latest of the left’s endless series of golden calf shiny baubles that must be delivered unto it as token of undying devotion and fealty to the principles of True Progressivism on pain of being labeled a collaborator or a neo-liberal or whatever without regard to whether they make sense or have meaning.
The senators who are voting for some of these nominees aren’t being spineless or craven or whatever other bullshit the Bernitdowners are spewing. They are working a thought-out genuine opposition strategy. They are trying to peel off at least some of the five Senators who are already on the edge of revolt to join them in voting against at least one of these assholes.
And here’s the thing kids: it doesn’t even matter whether they succeed in defeating any of the nominees. Because the strategy is premised on a thing we are constantly saying and yet fail to think about: this is not a normal president having a normal presidency. This is a presidency led by a man with narcissistic personality syndrome who will, as surely as day follows night and youth ministers should not be left alone with youths, have an out of control meltdown directed at any of the five senators wavering on the brink of revolt–John-Lindsay McGraham, Flake, Heller, Collins, break ranks. And, behind those five are half a dozen more who are increasingly worried that the loon is going to destroy the country or at least their reelection prospects.
The Senate leadership–which includes people like Warren and Sanders–are not just looking to make grand symbolic gestures. They are trying to provoke a separation of powers struggle by enticing some Republicans to incur the intemperate wrath of Tremendous Leader and his chancellor and thereby trigger the institutional instinct of some of the senators to school up in the face of predatory executive branch behavior.
The very idea that they’re voting for any of these people because ve comity or hhrumph hrumph tradition or, most ludicrous of all, they’re “spineless” and fear that voters will punish them for being insufficiently bi-partisany, is fucking idiotic. They are the ones who’ve been on the receiving end of eight years of McConnell ratfucking and boundary crashing. They know the score. It’s not goddamn 1995 anymore. But unlike us plebes, they have the ability to do more than just protest. Because it turns out that, as senators, they have tools that we don’t. We can only show opposition and be loud. They have at least retain the ability to drop poison pills and toss apples of discord into the middle of the Republican Caucus. And that’s what they’re doing. And we need to give them the goddamn space to do it, even knowing that not everything they do will work, or maybe just not work right away, instead of just howling for toothless mindless opposition like a bunch of mindless Sarandonite dipshits.
Baud
I thought she voted for Haley.
ruckus
@Another Scott:
In a normal time I’d agree with you, but this is anything but a normal time. Playing nice hasn’t worked, won’t work with the Republican president nor with the Republican Congress, unless they see they have everything to lose.
Skepticat
@Doug!: And if I wanted to be a sensible, intelligent, strong, courageous senator right this minute, I’d do the same. (Though I think I can tolerate Mattis. It’s obvious he was chosen only for his nickname, but I think he might actually be sensible.)
Gin & Tonic
Speaking of heroes, as we sit here and comment on a blog, people are suffering greatly in eastern Ukraine due to a renewed offensive on the part of Russia and its proxies, likely the result of Donnie’s phone call Saturday with Vladimir Vladimirovich.
The bright side is that, according to various unconfirmed reports I’ve seen, the KIA ratio seems to have gone about 13:1 against Vlad and company over the last two days. Donnie and co. may be perfectly willing to sell out the Ukrainians, but they’re not going to go down without one hell of a fight.
I’ve been posting about this since the insomnia thread, so probably tiresome to some readers, but I don’t care. Nearly 10k Ukrainians have lost their lives since Vlad decided he wanted a couple of pieces of their country.
zhena gogolia
@Gin & Tonic:
It’s unutterably depressing.
Patricia Kayden
@oldster:
AMEN! We understand that Democrats can’t do much because they’re in a minority status in Congress but we do expect them to do what they can to resist Trump. Voting against his nominees is the least they can do.
seaboogie
@?BillinGlendaleCA: I’m up for Gillibrand/Franken 2020.
Turgidson
@cmorenc:
I’d be interested to see both of them run. I live in CA and Harris has been on the right side of most things, and as far as I know is scandal-free. But if he wants it, I think the nomination is Sherrod Brown’s for the taking. With the big caveat that he has to win a midterm election between now and then. He wins elections in Ohio as an unapologetic champion of organized labor and the working class. He has a down to earth telegenic thing working for him (if he was a Republican, BoBo would slobber all over his Midwestern rugged good looks or some such gasbaggery). He knows his shit but would be hard to pin the elitist label to. He’d be a calm, reassuring contrast to Hair Furor’s volcanic eruptions of batshittery. He ought to be appealing to the Bernie faction with the advantage of, you know….not being Bernie, and being a Democratic party lifer instead of an interloper.
I’m sure there are weaknesses I’m not remembering or aware of, but he seems like an ideal post-Trumpocalypse candidate, if he’s interested. But we’ll see.
Renie
@NCSteve: Sorry I disagree. As said by another poster, these are not normal times. ALL the nominees can do tremendous damage to our country. We have seen 8 years of the GOP obstruction; why do you think they will work with the Democrats now? They have all the power. All these nominees have views that are against the Democrat platform, so if you are a Democrat why would you vote for that? No one will be the perfect candidate but these nominees are anti-the agency they will be heading up. It is absolutely insane. With the GOP controlling everything, we need to hold them accountable for at least the next generation for all the damage Trump will do to this country. People need to stand up for what they believe in.
Turgidson
@Ridnik Chrome:
And the Professional Left hated the pick at the time. Although, they weren’t wrong to be skeptical – she came from a reddish district and seemed like a Blue Dog type until she ascended to the Senate and became a solid liberal. I suppose that means she could come in for some flip-flop criticism, but who the fuck cares about that anymore. I mean, look how many sides of every issue Hair Furor has been on while in public life. No one cared.
evodevo
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yay Metro !!
Turgidson
@Another Scott:
But, fortunately, he also seems to believe in carrying out America’s responsibilities under treaties already entered into. So I don’t think it’s a given he’d want to blow up the Iran deal now that it’s in the process of being carried out.
Mattis is a mixed bag, but I was hugely relieved Hair Furor chose him, if only to have a senior voice telling him not to bring back torture, and not to go to war casually. Not sure anyone else he might have chosen would have checked those boxes.
NCSteve
@Renie: So, on one hand, they can all vote against them and accomplish nothing, and on the other hand, they can cast equally meaningless votes for some of them and possibly accomplish something. We at least owe them the benefit of the doubt.
Renie
@NCSteve: I believe that their actions of the past 8 years has already shown they will not work with Democrats especially since they have all the power. There is no benefit for them to do so; if they did, their constituents won’t be happy.
debbie
@Gin & Tonic:
That certainly hasn’t made the news around here. Nothing will be done about it in this country, but I wish NATO would speak up.
liberal
@The Dudeist: nope. Only relatively. Anyone who says ISIS and Iran aren’t enemies is not a decent guy. Though admittedly in a completely different category than the alternatives.
liberal
@Gin & Tonic: too bad. Maybe next time the US will think twice about extending a hostile alliance up to the border of another great power.
liberal
@debbie: why? The US has no strategic interest at stake.
If we’re motivated by humanitarian considerations, maybe we could first stop helping the Saudis bomb Yemen.
Anonymous At Work
@SFAW: I did say do this the first round only. If Republicans make it about Party-first, then so be it. But letting them do so means you can say they threw the first punch.
BruceFromOhio
Dropped coin in her hat back when she first ran. Bro-in-law in NYC wrote a note about how KG and Liz Warren would make a great ticket in 2020.
Cheatin’ Cheeto in Chief done fired up the furnaces, and from the crucible comes the steel, motherfuckers.
Lumpy
She’s my senator, and she’s doing a great job. Much better than Schumer, IMO. She did vote for Nikki Haley, as noted above.
For 2020, I’m hoping the ticket is Franken/Gillibrand. As Sam Seder said on the Majority Report podcast, the idea that a comedian could become president was previously unthinkable, but after Trump’s win, all that is out the window. Franken is super-smart and reliably progressive. Could you imagine a debate between Al Franken and Donald Trump? If the mainstream media only cares about ratings (and after 2016, I believe that’s true), an Al Franken presidential campaign would deliver the ratings the media wants.
NCSteve
@Renie: Donald Trump wasn’t president during those eight year. It’s kind of the thing that makes a difference.