Paul Ryan dare not speaketh the name of Donald Trump.
In an interview withFox and FriendsonTuesday morning, the speaker of the House couldn’t bring himself to say outright that he voted for Trump. Ryan simply said, “I stand where I’ve stood all fall and all summer. In fact, I already voted here in Janesville, for our nominee last week in early voting.”
When probed again later in the interview, Ryan repeated only that he is “supporting our entire Republican ticket.”
It seems Ryan’s last hope to save himself is to never say Trump’s name again. By pivoting to the down-ballot race, Ryan is trying to play the role of dedicated Republican, while ignoring the shame and embarrassment of having to vote for the monster his party created.
Former presidential candidate John Kasich took a different approach to this issue: He announced Monday that he wrote in John McCain on an absentee ballot.
Why did the New York Times publish this anti-abortion screed?
In a misleading and tendentious Times op-ed, the Human Coalition’s Lauren Enriquez condemns pro-choice women in “the new feminist resistance movement” for failing to make space for abortion opponents. This is not a new argument—indeed it is very old and very tired—which makes the Times’s decision to publish it all the more difficult to understand. Just consider Enriquez’s use of polling to make her argument:
According to the latest Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll, an annual survey of views on abortion, just over half of all women want to see further restrictions on abortion. To millions of women, including young people like myself, this is not just a policy stance; it informs many areas of our lives as women. To us, “resistance” has to include opposition to the lie that freedom can be bought with the blood of our preborn children.
There is a lot going on here! According to the poll Enriquez cites, 52 percent of American women generally support what we would consider to be the Republican position on abortion—that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. That’s not really “most” women; it’s roughly half of them. Furthermore, there’s more data on the issue. According to Pew Research Center, 57 percent of American women actually believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases” and only 39 percent believe that it should be illegal in all or most cases. This tracks with earlier Gallup reporting. Nevertheless, the Times allowed Enriquez’s hyperbole to run. Talk about fake news.
Enriquez also isn’t really asking feminists to accommodate her. The language she deploys is carefully chosen to frame abortion as murder—an act that spills the blood of preborn children. “We reject the pressure to believe that killing our children and living full lives are mutually inclusive,” she writes, which describes no pro-choicer’s position. The implication here is that pro-choice women are at least soft on murder, if they haven’t committed it themselves. This is not the language a person uses when seeking allies. This is the language of conversion.
But don’t worry. She’s got a Plan B. (It’s not the pill.)
At Human Coalition, where I work, we extend tangible, compassionate help to pregnant women who believe that abortion is the best or only option available to them.
The Human Coalition runs crisis pregnancy centers. And unless you scroll to the bio at the bottom of the piece, you wouldn’t know that she’s also the PR manager for the organization. The Times essentially ran a press release promoting the organization’s work. That’s a strange editorial decision.
Trump loves the Oscars. It was clear for most of the 2000s that he desperately wanted to host the ceremony, which is pathetic even by his standards. But the most pathetic thing about Trump is that he was also an Oscars recapper. This video from 2012 is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen, partly because Trump appears to be reading his insane hot take off of cue cards.
Still, ranting about how he wishes Sasha Baron Cohen got beat up and sent to the hospital, saying that the Oscars’ security guards should go to security guard school, and making the unbelievable claim that “many people are asking me about the Academy Awards”—this is some 🔥🔥🔥 shit. If you’re going to recap the Oscars, come out with guns blazing.
But Trump largely stayed quiet about last night’s Academy Awards, presumably because Reince Priebus shoved his phone down his pants or perhaps because he was promised a blackened, catsup-covered steak (or maybe a hairless cat?) if he could be a good boy and not tweet for 16 hours. (This is not as damning or as telling as Trump’s silence on other issues but it seems clear that Trump’s inner circle has grown very, very tired of his tendency to create unnecessary distractions.)
That changed on Monday afternoon, however, when Trump told former livejournal/current Tiger Beat of the white supremacist set Breitbart that he was not impressed with the Oscars. “I think they were focused so hard on politics that they didn’t get the act together at the end,” Trump told the website, referring to the screw-up that will define it forever. “It was a little sad. It took away from the glamour of the Oscars. It didn’t feel like a very glamorous evening. I’ve been to the Oscars. There was something very special missing, and then to end that way was sad.”
This is very funny! For one thing, Donald Trump is complaining about missing glamour—from an award show that four years ago kicked off with a song called “We Saw Your Boobs.” But it’s hard to get over just how sad this is. Donald Trump loved the Oscars more than anything, but now that he’s president, the Oscars are all about talking about how bad he is. This is Trump’s version of his favorite movieCitizen Kane—he got what he wanted most in the world, but in the process lost the thing he loved the most.
Nancy Pelosi thinks Trump’s presidency might be a message from God.
Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, the House Minority Leader invoked the Almighty while reflecting on the Republican Party’s rightward lurch under President Donald Trump. “God is always with us, so we have to be hopeful and prayerful,” said Pelosi, who is Catholic. “But maybe God is telling us that we have not done our job completely to rid our country of some of the negative attitudes, whether it’s xenophobia, anti-immigrant, anti-woman, racist, in whatever way. That is part of the task we have before us.”
Ahead of Trump’s first joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Pelosi is stressing that the new administration has “done nothing” positive for the American people in its first 40 days. Here, too, she sees spiritual significance. “Forty days—it’s almost biblical,” she said on Monday, in reference to the time since Trump’s inauguration. “You know, 40 hours, we as Catholics observe, 40 days in the desert, Christ was there, 40 years in the desert that Moses was there—40 is fraught with meaning.”
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—who spoke alongside her at the Press Club—are casting Trump’s first 40 days as a betrayal of the working class constituency he pledged to champion in his populist campaign. They said he’s engaged in a bait-and-switch: staffing his administration with Wall Street bankers and billionaires and advancing what Schumer called a “hard, hard right” agenda, including slashing social programs. But Schumer predicted Republicans will fail in one of their biggest goals: “making America sick again” by repealing the Affordable Care Act. “The odds are very high we will keep the ACA,” he said. “It will not be repealed.”
Donald Trump’s silence is even more telling than his outbursts.
Less than a week ago, the president made his first, belated statement addressing the anti-Semitism that has bubbled into vandalism and bomb threats in the early days of his presidency. As The New Republic reported at the time, the statement—following a tour of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture—achieved the bare acceptable minimum and was received tepidly by Jewish groups and the press. One of the strongest critics of the statement, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, wrote, “When President Trump responds to anti-Semitism proactively and in real time, and without pleas and pressure, that’s when we’ll be able to say this president has turned a corner. This is not that moment.”
And so far, after pledging to “fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms,” Trump has said nothing to acknowledge or condemn either incident. If the Trump administration had any particular interest in combatting the perception that the president’s statement (issued after weeks of public pressure) was anything other than obligatory, his silence in the wake of these incidents has killed its chance.
Of course, the day before the statement, Trump alluded to a nonexistent terrorist incident in Sweden, and two days later returned to his dog-whistle condemnation of gun violence in Chicago. Trump’s choices on what incidents merit his comment reaffirm what we suspected: He condemns hate and violence when it bolsters his narratives about who is and is not vulnerable in America, when it can be manipulated into support for his positions, and when he is absolutely backed into a corner.
Sign up for your daily dose of politics, culture, and big ideas.
Bill Nye and Bernie Sanders make the anti-government case for climate action.
Most proposed solutions to human-caused climate change—emissions regulation; carbon taxes; incentives for clean energy—are dependent on government intervention. Bill Nye the Science Guy knows that. But in a wide-ranging conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday, Nye made the case that you don’t have to love government to love climate action.
Asked by Sanders how America needs to transform its energy system to effectively slow global warming, Nye described a country in which “virtually every big building” and every home “has solar panels on the roof oriented a little bit south.” When that happens, Nye said, most people will be generating the majority of their own electricity, paying only for stored solar energy delivered to their homes when the sun isn’t shining as bright as it needs to be.
“You can hate Senator Sanders, you can hate me, you can hate everything, you can just be a miserable hater person,” Nye said. “But when you get an electric bill in California—which doesn’t have especially cheap electricity—for 10 bucks every 60 days, that’s just fun. That’s just fun.”
This description of a “solar panel on every roof” is a bit more complicated that it sounds. For it to work, communities across the country would need extremely large energy storage capacity for when the sun is not shining. Nye acknowledged this.“If you’re a young person in engineering school If you want to get crazy rich, make a battery that’s even a little better than what we have now,” he said. He also acknowledged that America would need to transform its electrical grid to be able to accept and distribute energy produced from a massive amount of solar panels. That type of infrastructure overhaul would be insanely expensive.
The idea’s practicality aside, Nye was trying to win conservative hearts. “Who is the strongest environmentalist? The guy who just built his log cabin,” he said. “From an optimistic point of view, I think if we can get these people to look at the world a little differently, they will be on the side of domestically produced renewable electricity in very short order.”
Donald Trump is the only person in America who doesn’t know that our health care system is incredibly complicated.
Anyone who has ever dealt with a health insurance company—even over a minor dispute—knows that America’s health care system makes Brazil look like a utopian film about the wonders of efficiency. But Donald Trump, born on third base thinking he hit a triple, has never had to deal with our convoluted health care system and was therefore blessedly ignorant of reality. Speaking today about the challenges facing the GOP’s non-plan to repeal/replace/repair Obamacare, Trump said, “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.” There are few universally acknowledged things about our health care system, which is one of the many reasons why fixing it is so hard. But the fact that it is complicated is literally the only thing everyone agrees on.
The GOP’s new Obamacare strategy is to repeal and see what the hell happens.
When it comes to the country’s health care system, Republicans are trying to build the plane in midair. Since Trump’s inauguration, they have thrown out a new buzzword every two weeks to obscure the fact that, despite all of their bluster in the Obama years, they have no plan to replace or repair Obamacare. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported on the newest GOP plan:
Republican leaders are betting that the only way for Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act is to set a bill in motion and gamble that fellow GOP lawmakers won’t dare to block it.
Republican leaders pursuing the “now or never” approach see it as their best chance to break through irreconcilable demands by Republican centrists and conservatives over issues ranging from tax credits to the future of Medicaid.
OK! The problems with this plan are pretty obvious. First, for this to work, the GOP can lose only two votes in the Senate and twenty-two in the House—not a sure bet given how jumpy Republicans are about health care. This means that Mitch McConnell (who, to be fair, is very good at this kind of thing) and Paul Ryan would have to shoot the moon, while also rushing a bill through. If you recall, this was one of the main Republican criticisms of Obamacare back in 2009 and 2010. If they go “now or never,” Republicans are going to do the same thing, but even faster.
This is made worse by the fact that the most likely Obamacare replacements will be more expensive and take away health insurance from a lot of people. Republicans will almost certainly replace Obamacare with a health care system that amplifies the things that people don’t like about it, while scrapping some of the things they do.
But they haven’t even gotten to that stage yet. The biggest problem with this plan is that it’s not a plan at all. It takes a bat to the health care system, with no strategy for picking up the pieces.
As the EPA’s new administrator Scott Pruitt tells it, these cuts are intended to bolster the agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment. “I really believe that at the end of eight years, we’re going to have better air quality, we’re going to have better water quality,” Pruitt said in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. That’s because Pruitt believes the environment will fare better if individual states control their own environmental rules. Pruitt also said the EPA in its current form has focused too much on climate change, and not clean air and water.
Fighting climate change does actually improve clean air, though. The Clean Power Plan—a primary target of Trump’s EPA cuts—aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. That, in the short term, improves human health by reducing carbon dioxide clouds which contain particulate matter and other nasty stuff linked to asthma, heart attacks, and lung damage. And in the long term, it helps by preventing a warmer climate, which is expected to cause extreme heat and poor air quality, both of which increase the risk of illnesses and death.
Don’t expect the money saved from the EPA cuts to go toward other pollution-fighting programs, either. According to the Times, most of the money will be poured into the military, which happens to be one of the world’s biggest polluters.
While insisting it was “for practice purposes only,” Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin led progressive activists in a characteristically nerdy chant at a town hall on Sunday night in Silver Spring: “Stop Trump! Stop Pence! Impeach them for emoluments!”
It doesn’t have quite the same ring as “lock her up!” But the crowd gamely kept it going even after Raskin left the stage:
After the town hall, Raskin told me he isn’t calling for impeaching President Donald Trump right now—at least not in the legal sense. But he also made clear he isn’t ruling anything out.
“We are actively impeaching Donald Trump and his administration every day in terms of exposing the lies,” he said. “In terms of the legal impeachment process, that’s obviously something on a lot of people’s minds, but one thing we know about it—looking at it historically—is it’s a totally political question. I don’t think people should fetishize it. I don’t think people should obsess about it. But I think it’s a tool in the toolkit we need to be aware of. It’s absolutely on the table.”
Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who represented Raskin’s congressional district before he switched chambers in Congress last year, was more restrained on the subject. “I’m not calling for impeachment,” he told me.
When I pressed Van Hollen on whether he’s leaving the option on the table, he changed the subject. “We’re going to hold Trump accountable in every way,” he said. “We’re actively pushing for maximum investigation of potential collaboration with the Russians in the election. We’re going to pursue the conflict of interest laws and violation of the Emoluments Clause vigorously, which means we’ll continue to push for the release of tax returns.”
As Politico recently reported, “Democratic officials in Republican-dominated Washington view the entire subject as a trap, a premature discussion that could backfire in spectacular fashion by making the party appear too overzealous in its opposition to Trump. Worse, they fear, it could harden Republican support for the president by handing his party significant fundraising and political ammunition when the chances of success for an early impeachment push are remote, at best.”
As long as Democrats keep trying to rhyme with “emoluments,” their chances of success are closer to nil.