Archives for 2024

Jesus Fucking Christ:

Now-former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Vice President-elect JD Vance were making the rounds on Capitol Hill Wednesday, meeting with Senate Republicans who, understandably, seem to be struggling to suppress their gag reflex when considering Gaetz’s attorney general nomination.

Their meeting with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was (it appears) a particular success for the incoming Trump administration. The longtime Donald Trump defender and South Carolina senator came out of that meeting with a new talking point for his colleagues to latch onto, if they so choose: the allegations against Gaetz are unproven, regardless of what is in the House Ethics Committee’s report.

“I fear the process surrounding the Gaetz nomination is turning into an angry mob, and unverified allegations are being treated as if they are true. I have seen this movie before,” Graham, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement following the meeting.

“After years of being investigated by the Department of Justice, no charges were brought against Matt Gaetz. This is something we should all remember,” Graham said. “I would also urge my colleagues to go back to a time-tested process, receive relevant information, and give the nominee a chance to make their case as to why they should be confirmed. This standard — which I have long adhered to — has served the Senate and country well.”

“This process will not be a rubber stamp nor will it be driven by a lynch mob,” he concluded.

Can someone please out this piece of shit motherfucker before he retires?

A Closet Case Gives Some AdvicePost + Comments (106)

In the comments on my last post, there were the beginnings of a discussion on “groups” (a.k.a. “special interest groups”).  If you want the background on this, Jon Favreau and Ezra Klein got into it last week on Pod Save America.   The example that is being batted around is that the ACLU questionnaire for candidates in 2019 had a question about taxpayer funded gender-affirming care for trans prisoners.  Harris answered the question affirmatively and she was pummeled in the campaign over that.  Biden (wisely) skipped that question.

Adam Jentlesen apparently wrote a NYT Op-Ed over the weekend saying that Democrats need to learn to say no to these groups.  On the podcast, Favreau noted that it wasn’t uncommon for the Obama Administration to say no to groups, either.  Josh Marshall also weighed in on this a couple of times yesterday and today.  (Those are gift links which might or might not work.)

Anyway, whether or not the 2019 ACLU answer got Harris in trouble, there’s a big difference between noting that perhaps Democrats listen to groups too much in general, and whether the Harris campaign failed because it listened to them too much in particular.  I think anyone who was paying attention and wants to make an honest case can’t argue that the Harris campaign catered to groups to an extreme.  In fact, I’d say they studiously avoided what they considered extreme positions from the groups.  There was almost zero discussion of the trans issue, Harris hardly mentioned her identity as a black woman, and Walz in particular was almost muzzled at the debate, and was clearly over-prepped by consultants who thought the way forward was to make common ground with Vance.

Josh Marshall uses the example of gay marriage and how that might have cost Democrats the 2004 election, while also noting that most mainstream Dems came out for civil unions instead, which I’ll note didn’t do us a shit bit of good, electorally.  Those who hated the notion of two people getting married also hated the notion of them living together under a state-sanctioned contract.  And, twenty years later, it’s hard to imagine the end of gay marriage, though there are 6 sharia law judges in DC who I’m sure are imagining it as we speak.

So now we’re in a similar spot with trans rights.  I don’t see how running away from treating trans folk with basic human dignity gets us anywhere.  This issue goes beyond the desires of a special interest group:  there’s just no percentage in throwing away the rights of a minority under siege in a completely ineffective effort to appease the unappeasable.

So, where I’m left is wondering exactly what the “centrist” Democrats who are saying that anti-trans stuff sunk our battleship want us to do?  I mean, yeah, they’re frustrated, because it’s a huge distraction.  But what’s the alternative other than supporting trans rights the same way that our party has supported gay rights, black rights, hispanic rights and women’s rights?  Another way of looking at it:  Biden was right to avoid answering that stupid ACLU question, but he would be very, very wrong if he abandoned trans Americans.  The issue isn’t “groups” — it’s basic human rights.

Groups, Etc.Post + Comments (218)

Here’s What They Did and Here’s Why They Did ItPost + Comments (233)