October 1, 2018




Yale friend says Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker
Charles 'Chad' Ludington (left), who said he was Brett Kavanaugh's friend at Yale (pictured main at his graduation) and sometimes drank with him, has described him as 'a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker'. Ludington, who now teaches at North Carolina State University, said on Sunday that he is 'deeply troubled' by what he claims is a blatant mischaracterization by Kavanaugh of his drinking at Yale. He went on the record after hearing Kavanaugh's testimony (inset) during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. In addition to being a 'frequent' and 'heavy drinker', Ludington said Kavanaugh was often belligerent and aggressive when drunk. He added that on many occasions he heard Kavanaugh slur his words and saw him stagger from alcohol consumption. Ludington said he plans to speak to the FBI because he believes Kavanaugh downplayed the 'degree and frequency' of his drinking during the Senate hearing.
'On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.' FBI agents have asked him to meet at the bureau's Raleigh office on Monday, the New York Times reports.  While he admitted in his congressional testimony that there were probably occasions during his time at Georgetown Prep that he had consumed 'too many beers,' a combative Kavanaugh denied he had ever gotten out of control, blacked out or acted inappropriately toward women.
As Democrats tried to sound alarms that the White House may be constraining the F.B.I.’s work, one key member of the party indicated that if the Democrats won control of the House in November and Judge Kavanaugh made it through the Senate, he would have no choice but to more fully investigate the claims against him.
“If he is on the Supreme Court and the Senate hasn’t investigated, the House will have to,” the lawmaker, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said on “This Week.” “We would have to investigate any credible allegations, certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

September 29, 2018


At Times, Kavanaugh’s Defense Misleads, Evades or Veers Off Point



NY TIMES

On Thursday, the adolescent jottings of Brett M. Kavanaugh in his high school yearbook were being scrutinized under the searing lights of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, where he sat accused of committing a drunken sexual assault when he was 17.
The faded references to heavy drinking and sexual pursuits had taken on evidentiary significance, and he was pressed by senators to acknowledge their meaning. Judge Kavanaugh instead offered benign alternative explanations — an apparent reference to throwing up from drinking could have referred to spicy foods upsetting his stomach, he said.
So it went for hours, as Judge Kavanaugh mounted an emotional defense against allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. It was the second time he had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the first being earlier in September when he was asked mostly about his legal career.
The allegations of sexual misconduct by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh from his time in high school, above, and college share a theme: heavy drinking.
It was a performance that evolved with the increasingly fraught tenor of the proceedings. At his first hearing, Judge Kavanaugh, a Yale Law School graduate, fielded questions on policy and political work in the bland, studiously noncontroversial tradition of nominees to the high court. Still, even then some answers raised flags, as when he claimed not to know or suspect that internal Democratic documents about judicial nominations, shared with him when he worked in the Bush administration, had been stolen from Democrats’ computers.
But Thursday’s hearing sharpened the focus on a nominee in a way not seen since the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991. As in that earlier case, seemingly small details suddenly loomed large in importance.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, reminded Judge Kavanaugh that juries were routinely instructed that they can “disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing.”
“So the core of why we’re here today really is credibility,” he said.
Read the entire list of "disputed" and false statements made by Brett Kavanaugh at NY TIMES
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse discussing a copy of Judge Kavanaugh’s calendar from high school.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times



Five myths about capitalism

WASHINGTON POST

Sen. Jeff Flake


Flake Demands &Trump Agrees to Open ‘Limited’ One Week F.B.I. Investigation Into Accusations Against Kavanaugh.


Without the votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate and the White House had little choice but to agree on the investigation.


The developments capped an extraordinary day, which began with a sense of momentum for Kavanaugh but left him in renewed jeopardy when Sen. Jeff Flake, who at first endorsed him, called for a renewed inquiry into misconduct allegations.The retiring Arizona senator was again in the position of spoiler and grandstander — defying the president and conservatives, sowing distrust among many Democrats and still unclear where he intends to land.

___________________________________________________________________________
Archila and Maria Gallagher blocked the doors of an elevator on Capitol Hill, making impassioned pleas for the Republican senator to reconsider his support for Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“What you are doing is allowing someone who ac­tu­al­ly violated a woman to sit in the Supreme Court,” one woman, who said she had been sexually assaulted, shouted during a live CNN broadcast as Flake was making his way to a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. The Center for Popular Democracy, a left-leaning advocacy organization, later identified her as the group’s co-executive director, Ana Maria Archila.
“This is horrible,” she told Flake. “You have children in your family. Think about them.”
Another woman then chimed in, telling the senator that she had also been sex­u­al­ly assaulted and that no one believed her story.
“You’re telling all women that they don’t matter — that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them, you’re going to ignore them,” she said as the TV cameras rolled.
“You’re just going to help that man to power anyway,” she added, weeping. “That’s what you’re telling all of these women. That’s what you’re telling me right now.
“Look at me when I’m talking to you! You’re telling me that my assault doesn’t matter, that what happened to me doesn’t matter and that you’re going to let people who do these things into power! That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him! Don’t look away from me! Look at me and tell me that it doesn’t matter what happened to me — that you’ll let people like that go into the highest court in the land!”
Flake listened quietly, then told the women: “Thank you.”
“Saying ‘thank you’ is not an answer,” Archila responded. “This is about the future of our country, sir.”
A tweet from immigrant rights group Make the Road Action identified the second woman who confronted Flake as Maria Gallagher and showed a photo of her standing with Archila. A woman claiming to be Gallagher later published a tweet with the same image.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 9.30am Flake announced he would vote for Kavanaugh - then a minute later walked into a Senate elevator and was confronted by two protesters who told him they were sex abuse victims. They passionately pleaded with him to vote 'no'.
At 1.30pm Senate Judiciary Committee vote was delayed as Flake spent time with Democrats - and then a dramatic deal unfolded.
Flake voted Kavanaugh through the Senate Judiciary Committee in return for asking for the probe.
'The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today,' according to the committee.
“We ought to do what we can to make sure we do all due diligence with a nomination this important,” Mr. Flake told his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee after extracting a promise from Republican leaders to delay the final vote on the nomination until after the F.B.I. investigation. “This country is being ripped apart here.”

Senators on the Judiciary Committee gathered Friday to discuss Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times

HOW JEFF FLAKE ROCKED THE SENATE 

Here is how Jeff Flake's day of drama unfolded: 
9.30a.m.: Jeff Flake's office releases a statement announcing he will 'vote to confirm' Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

Key moment: A woman who said she is a survivor of a sexual assault (R) confronts Republican Senator from Arizona Jeff Flake (L) in an elevator after Flake announced that he vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington
9.31 a.m.: Cameras capture Flake cornered in an elevator as two female protesters urges him to vote 'no' and tell him they are sex abuse victims. Ana Maria Anchilla tells him: 'You have children in your family. Think about them.' The lengthy confrontation goes on with the other woman, recent college graduate Maria Gallagher telling him: 'I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me. You're telling all women that they don't matter.'
9.50 a.m.: As senators gather, Flake appears downcast.
10 a.m.: Four Democratic senators walk out in protest when a motion to subpoena Mark Judge is voted down.
12.16 p.m.: Flake - who turned down the chance to speak - walks out of the committee room with Chris Coons, the Delaware Democrat with whom he is close friend.
1.30 p.m.: The time of the scheduled vote, but it is clear something is happening behind the scenes, with Flake and most of the Democrats not present. 
1.49 p.m.:  The committee is seated in full.
1.51 p.m.: Committee chairman Charles Grassley says he will let Flake speak. Flake says he will vote yes, if there is to be an FBI investigation.
1.53 p.m.:  The committee votes 11-10 to send Kavanaugh to the floor for a full investigation.
2.10 p.m.: At the White House Trump says he will do whatever the Senate decide to do.
________________________________________________________________________
And Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's high school friend who Ford alleges took part in the attack, said that he would co-operate with any law enforcement agency that investigates 'confidentially.'
He had claimed this week that he had depression and anxiety so did not want to testify in public, and was then Friday morning revealed to be available for public speaking engagements, in one of the more farcical turns of the Kavanaugh saga.
The FBI will not conduct a criminal investigation because the charges against Kavanaugh do not relate to any federal crimes. Because of this, the bureau will not make a determination on Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. The FBI will submit a report to the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee when the examination is complete. Although the FBI will have just a week to investigate the allegations, this time frame is not out of step with prior similar investigations.

September 28, 2018

 In her testimony, Ford said she came forward because she thought it was her duty to offer her knowledge about a nominee to the Supreme Court

‘This is not a good process’: A raw, emotional hearing exposes partisan divide.


Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford faced off Thursday in an extraordinary, emotional day of testimony that ricocheted from a woman’s tremulous account of sexual assault to a man’s angry, outraged denial, all of which played out for hours before a riveted nation and a riven Senate.


The two very different versions of the truth, unfolding in the heated atmosphere of gender divides, #MeToo and the Trump presidency, could not be reconciled. The testimony skittered from cringe-worthy sexual details to accusations and denials of drunken debauchery to one juvenile exchange over flatulence.
It was a raw, draining day, even by the standards of a raw, draining era.The hearing, which was supposed to bring clarity to the nomination process, was a scorched-earth confrontation of men against women, right against left — a cascade of recriminations, anger, tears and sobs. The day ended with discord bordering on dark visions of a hopeless future.
 When asked her degree of certainty it was Kavanaugh, Ford leaned down into the microphone and said: '100 percent.' In one of the more emotional moments of the morning, Democratic Sen Patrick Leahy asked Ford what stuck out to her in her memory.
'Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,' Ford said, her voice breaking up. 'The laughter, the upraised laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.'
'You never forgot that laughter?,' Leahy asked as Ford nodded and one of her lawyers patted her back for reassurance.
'I was under one of them while they laughed. Two friends having fun together,' Ford said. 
'When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer that evening. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the bathroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom. I couldn't see who pushed me.'
'I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming,' she recalled.
'This was what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.'
'For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys,' she said.
'I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened.' 
At several moments throughout her time before the panel of 21 senators, Ford grew emotional, fighting back tears and struggling to keep her composure. 
Ford was also almost in tears at another point in the questioning when Blumenthal praised her courage.

After Christine Blasey Ford gave her account of an assault, an angry, tearful Brett M. Kavanaugh called the accusations “a calculated and orchestrated political hit.” 

 Panel Democrats blasted the charge, saying they believed Kavanaugh's accuser or at least wanted the FBI to investigate to discern more information and interview Mark Judge - a witness to the alleged attack.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer also wondered why Republicans weren't demanding the White House order the FBI to reopen their background investigation if they were 'so certain' of Kavanaugh's story.

Republicans say they will move ahead on trying to confirm nominee to Supreme Court

Senate Republicans announced that the Judiciary Committee would meet Friday morning for a vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Kavanaugh is expected to clear the committee to head to the Senate floor. That would set up a key procedural vote as early as Saturday with a final deciding vote to follow next week. Key undecideds, Republican senators Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and West Virginia Democrat Paul Manchin huddled in the Capitol on Thursday evening, as the main contingents of Republicans and Democrats joined their respective camps. In the main Senate vote, Republicans can allow just two defections if they want to confirm the nominee 

On Thursday night it was revealed that George W Bush had personally reached out to all four senators, hoping to help sway them to Kavanaugh's side.  
Bush reportedly decided to personally reach out to the key four because of their strained relationships with Trump, according to the Washington Post
The former president has a long history with Kavanaugh, who worked for Bush during the crucial Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals in 2003.   
Republican senators say the Judiciary Committee plans to vote Friday morning on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court nominee aligned himself with President Trump in claiming that the sex assault allegations against him were orchestrated to derail his confirmation.

The embattled nominee began with a 45-minute, 5,200-word opening statement, throwing away a far briefer statement he had already submitted as he instead launched into conspiracy theories that the hearing was the Democrats' 'revenge for the Clintons'.  'This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election,' Kavanaugh claimed.
'Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.'
'This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy,' he said.
Questions about Kavanaugh's alcohol habits became especially contentious when he was asked by Sen Amy Klobuchar if he had ever drank to the point of blacking out after she referenced her own father's struggle with alcoholism.
'I don't know. Have you?' he shot back in an incredible moment that was criticized by many on social media. 
After a brief recess, Kavanaugh apologized to Klobuchar and said: 'I'm sorry I did that. This is a tough process.'  
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham angrily defended Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday, charging Democrats with using a Supreme Court nomination to try to win the midterm elections and saying Kavanaugh was no Bill Cosby.Graham, who has been one of Kavanaugh's biggest defenders in the Senate, pounded on his desk, tossed papers and yelled at his Democratic colleagues across the dais, ending his tirade with a dramatic plea to his GOP colleagues to vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation.The outburst was an instant viral moment for conservatives - with two of Donald Trump's most senior aides tweeting their approval.


September 27, 2018



Why women’s rage is healthy, rational and necessary for America.
GOOD AND MAD: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger
By Rebecca Traister. Simon & Schuster. 284 pp. $27
RAGE BECOMES HER: The Power of Women’s Anger
By Soraya Chemaly. Atria Books. 392 pp. $27


CARLOS LOZADA, WASHINGTON POST

I didn’t know that, by the time they are preschoolers, children learn that boys can express their anger but that girls must suppress theirs. I didn’t know how much physical pain women endure in their lives, simply because they are women, and how frequently that pain is discounted, deemed “emotional.” I didn’t fully grasp how throughout our political history, principled rage has been lionized when emanating from men, but pathologized when coming from women, acceptable when it upholds women’s roles as nurturers, not when it serves their personal ambitions or collective aspirations.
Image result for RAGE BECOMES HER: The Power of Women̢۪s Anger By Soraya Chemaly.

And I didn’t quite realize that the #MeToo movement is not solely about revealing the pervasiveness of rape, assault and harassment, though it is accomplishing that. It’s also, as Rebecca Traister writes in her new book, a broader insurrection against gender inequality driven by “the righteous fury of the unrepresented” and, as Soraya Chemaly writes, an attack on “the injustice of having one’s social experience denied and hidden from communal understanding.”
Chemaly, an activist with the Women’s Media Center, emphasizes the psychology and culture of female anger, mixing personal experience with reporting and academic research to show how that anger is deemed a transgression of gender norms, and how the pressure to dial it back — and not be labeled shrill or scolding or imperious or just plain crazy — only pisses women off further.
But more than anything, these two writers have come to praise female anger, as an emotion and a tool. Anger is a catalytic force for activism and organizing, they argue, a demand for accountability, a statement of rights and assertion of worth. It is also a vital form of communication, Traister explains, a way for women to find one another and realize that their frustrations are shared. 
With “Rage Becomes Her,” Chemaly offers a relentless catalogue of the sources of female anger and the efforts to repress it. “As girls, we are not taught to acknowledge or manage our anger so much as fear, ignore, hide, and transform it,” she writes, and that lesson promotes accommodation and deference. Structural burdens such as the “caring mandate” — women’s enduring responsibilities for household chores, child care and elder care, regardless of whether they also work for pay — are “stressing us out and making us angry, sick and tired.” The daily risks women navigate are just a cost of living while female. “Sexual harassment and violence are so normalized among girls and women,” Chemaly writes, “that they don’t often consciously register them as abusive behaviors.”
Image result for GOOD AND MAD: The Revolutionary Power of Women̢۪s Anger By Rebecca Traister.
Until, of course, they do. Traister recalls a public run-in she had in 2000 with Harvey Weinstein when, as a young reporter, she sought to interview him at a party and the producer jabbed his finger into her shoulder, called her a “c---” and, after her male colleague asked him to apologize, wrangled him into a headlock. Weinstein suffered no consequences, and press accounts of the episode minimized his offenses. Soon thereafter, Traister began hearing rumors about his behavior with women. “Among the reasons that I never really entertained the idea of reporting the story myself was that I had been shown so clearly that I could not have won against that kind of power,” she writes. Only years later, with the New York Times and New Yorker coverage of Weinstein’s pattern of predation and violence, “a Harvey-sized hole was blown in the American news cycle, and there was suddenly space and air for women to talk — to yell and scream and rage.”
That rage, both authors argue, is not only healthy but rational and productive. “We envision our emotions battling our reason because, after all, that’s what we are usually taught,” Chemaly writes. “The entire setup makes it easier for what you say to be portrayed as unreasonable.” One of Traister’s heroes is the late Florynce Kennedy, the lawyer, civil rights advocate and second-wave feminist who laced her activism with anger (“The next son of a bitch that touches a woman is gonna get kicked in the balls,” she warned male journalists at the 1972 Democratic National Convention) as well as biting humor (“Are you my alternative?” she would retort when men asked if she was a lesbian). Traister sees echoes of that attitude in today’s uprising, in her view a welcome evolution from the glossy, nonconfrontational, celebrity-driven, cool-girl feminism of the early 21st century, one in which Traister acknowledges her own stylistic complicity. “I’d absorbed the message that open anger was needlessly overdramatic and unattractive — that it would be too much, really — and I had worked to accommodate these assumptions, tempering my fury in my writing,” she writes. “So I was funny! And playful, cheeky, ironic, knowing!”
Traister remains outraged by the “brutal masculinity” that prevailed in the 2016 election....And though her book was completed too early to discuss Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Traister is incensed at the late senator Ted Kennedy for staying quiet during the 1991 confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas — when an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee heard Anita Hill’s testimony — in part because of Kennedy’s own history with women.
Traister is especially harsh toward any women of the #MeToo era who dare stand up for powerful men accused of misconduct. “Women who are willing to defend white patriarchy and its abuses — usually women with proximity to powerful men and the chance to gain from it, and who are therefore themselves often white — have historically found reward from those powerful men, in the form of sexual or romantic attention, marital alliances, as well as jobs and stature, in exchange for their defense,” she writes.
Elsewhere in her book, however, Traister is more understanding of women with differing views, arguing that any movement that campaigns for half the population is necessarily “an unwieldy enterprise,...people from varied backgrounds who have lots of good reasons to distrust, resent, and disagree with one another.” It’s a more realistic and compelling vision, and doesn’t rely on large-scale questioning of motives.
Indeed, Traister eloquently highlights the challenge of blaming not just forces and systems, but individuals. “We must confront the fact that the bad guys are, in many cases, also our good guys: the men in our beds, our hearts, our families.” Traister writes. “They are our brothers and fathers and uncles and friends and lovers and husbands and roommates and sons.” She is tired of male acquaintances and colleagues coming to her for “feminist absolution” and describes others, including her husband, who had just never realized things were this bad. 

September 26, 2018


For Third Straight Year, Trump Administration Lowers Refugee Cap.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo closes the door to refugees a bit more. Photo: Zach Gibson/Bloomberg via Getty Images
NY INTELLIGENCER

While in the old days just a few years ago conservative Republican rebels against Chamber of Commerce/Bush-era orthodoxy worried about undocumented immigrants, the Trump administration has been very faithful to a vision of reduced immigration of every sort. Team Trump has been willing to put up with a lot of bad publicity to keep dusky foreigners out, as evidenced by its determination to apply a “zero-tolerance” policy towards asylum-seekers who cross the border illegally, even if that means separating families. But the administration is also more quietly ratcheting down the number of refugees from “bad” places with bad problems who are allowed to enter the U.S., despite the tens of millions of displaced people who need help.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced today that for the third straight year the cap on refugee admissions would be lowered, as Politico reports:
The Trump administration will admit no more than 30,000 refugees to the U.S. in the coming year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, down from the current cap of 45,000 …

When Trump took office, the refugee cap stood at 110,000. He lowered that to 50,000, and subsequently to 45,000.
 
Last year’s cap was the lowest ever, since the U.S. began setting one in 1980. That year, in case you were wondering, it was set at 231,000, nearly eight times as many as the number for this next year. So the door to refugees is far more closed today, and is closing more every year.
Apparently this is what Trump’s “base” wants right now, and in the run-up to the midterm elections, what the base wants, the base gets.


Will Enough 2020 Voters Care That Trump’s a Horrible Human Being?



Those repeated tweets about Democrats inflating the Puerto Rico death toll are perfect evidence, but not enough Americans see—or care—that he’s a total thug. That has to change.
What’s going to beat Trump—and undo the damage he’s done—is a candidate who reminds people, without even seeming to try too hard, that the presidency was supposed to be a thing of honor and can be again.

MICHAEL TOMASKY, DAILY BEAST

I don’t get how Trump supporters can overlook what a horrible human being he is.  He’s a total thug, and his people don’t seem to care.
There are two broadly possible explanations here, and I suppose each is true for some percentage of his supporters. One, they genuinely don’t recognize what an awful person he is. Two, they do recognize it on some level, but they just don’t think it matters much. The way he sticks it to liberals, or the way he speaks for and defends a lost culture for which they yearn, is more important.
----------------
If the Democrats retake the House, they’re going to issue subpoena after subpoena and launch investigation after investigation. I’ve heard talk of Democratic House members who will be subcommittee chairs if the chamber flips who already have briefing books full of matters they want to look into and administration officials they want to grill. This will drive Trump totally bananas, and he’ll get even pettier and more hateful than he is now.
So suppose Mueller issues a damning report—an 8 or 8.5 on a scale of 10, say—but Republicans won’t vote to remove him from office and he’s down to around 30 percent approval as the campaign nears. He and the right-wing propaganda network that will seek to reelect him will have one play: Make the Democratic candidate seem as awful as he is so that enough people decide to stick with the awful person they know. I guarantee you this is what they will do. It’s going to be their only option, especially if the economy has gone a little south on them. And it won’t be easy to beat.
The Democrats need a candidate who rebuts this just by standing there. I don’t mean a good Christian or a good family man or woman, although I suppose those things can’t hurt. I mean someone who exudes that antique but beloved (by me!) quality of small-r republican virtue. Go Google it. I’m not gonna bore you with it. But it was of first-order importance to the men who founded this country, and I think it’s becoming more important to more and more people as they watch this goon try to destroy the presidency, the Justice Department, and whatever else gets in his way.
The Democrats are going to spend all their time debating left vs. mainstream, single payer vs. Obamacare, class warfare vs. not class warfare, and so on. I guess they have to. But that’s not what’s going to beat Trump. What’s going to beat Trump—and undo the damage he’s done—is a candidate who reminds people, without even seeming to try too hard, that the presidency was supposed to be a thing of honor and can be again.