Going Darker

Jeff Bezos has published a defense of his last-minute decision to override the Washington Post's editorial board and decline to issue a presidential endorsement.

It is not persuasive.

Bezos' core theme is that the media has a trust problem. This problem is not about actual impropriety or bias -- Bezos firmly rejects the notion that the Post is and has been anything but professional in its coverage. Rather, the problem is the appearance of bias. Editorial endorsements, even if they do not actually evince bias on behalf of the paper's news coverage, make people believe that there is. And that's why presidential endorsements need to be axed.

There's much that can be said here, including the fact that this in no way explains why presidential endorsements, alone, have this problematic effect. But I want to focus on a different problem about the concentration on an "appearance" of bias, because this is an area where in many cases the cure will be worse than disease. Where the "appearance" is based on falsehoods or absurdities, as it is here, attempts to "correct" the appearance (a) will never work and (b) will simply make other stakeholders (rightly!) second-guess whether bias is present.

The "voter fraud" panic is a great example of this, because it is also an arena where courts have justified severe limits on voting rights to combat the "appearance" of fraud even in circumstances where there is concededly no evidence of actual fraud. The logic is that the state still has a valid interest in its elections being perceived as legitimate. The problem is that if people are inclined to believe "fraud" is a problem notwithstanding evidence that it essentially doesn't exist, there's no reason to believe that any interventions will disabuse them of their delusions. Why would it -- the whole premise is that the people in question believe things in contradiction to the objective evidence! Meanwhile, the "appearance" justification conveniently overlooks other stakeholders whose faith in free and fair elections starts to decay precisely because they're witnessing a slew of voter suppression measures justified on (admitted!) fantasies. Why doesn't their assessment of "appearances" matter? At least it's based on something that's really happening.

The same is true in the Post's situation. The notion that an opinion page publishing an opinion is reflective of impermissible bias is beyond parody. Nobody actually believes this (including Bezos, as evidenced by the fact that the paper will continue to endorse in every other election). So there's no reason to think that abandoning endorsements will have any effect on those who make irrational and frivolous accusations of bias. Even if you buy Bezos' "logic", the entire problem is by stipulation illogical. And even as this move tries-and-fails to appease the unappeasable, it generates a far more serious "appearance of bias" in its own right. It will appear to many that Bezos is trying to coddle up to Donald Trump. It will appear that the Post's editorial independence is being compromised by the arbitrary whims of its billionaire owner. It will appear that the Post no longer is capable of fearlessly speaking truth even where powerful interests find it awkward or inconvenient.

These appearances are why I and 200,000(!) other subscribers have hit the cancellation button. But of course, what Bezos' choices "appear" to represent to us doesn't matter, just as what spurious "anti-fraud" measures "appear" to represent to minority and marginalized voters doesn't matter. When it comes to avoid the "appearance" of impropriety, invented concoctions by the dominant caste will always trump objective failings endured by the less powerful.

Going Dark

The Washington Post has announced it will not be issuing an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race, overruling a decision by the editorial board planning to endorse Vice President Harris. This follows a similar decision by the LA Times, both justified under the auspices of maintaining "neutrality", both actually made at the behest of billionaire owners who have significant financial stakes in staying in the good graces of the once- and potential-future president.

For the Post, it is a stunning abdication of duty and role by an outlet that operated under the mantra "democracy dies in darkness."

(The LA Times case has a slight wrinkle, in that the billionaire owner's daughter suggested in her own tweets that the non-endorsement was actually a commentary on the "genocide" in Gaza. While I suspect the owner's more pecuniary motives were driving the show, I'll just say that it should surprise no one that these "different" politics lead to the exact same place, and are profound exercises in cowardice in the exact same ways).

I remember the week Trump was elected, I was in a pedagogy class where new collegiate instructors were discussing how we should respond to the shocking news in our classroom. On this point, our professor was quite decisive: we had a job to do, and we should respond by doing our jobs. Since we were in a political scientist department, this didn't mean we necessarily ignored the events in the outside world -- politics were part of our ambit, after all. But we were not to pout, or cancel class, or anything of the sort. We had jobs to do, and we should do them.

The Post's choice today is the climax of a broader failure in our mainline news media to simply do its job in the face of shocking news. When Trump initially rose to power, the media's job was to report on him accurately. It instead viewed him as a fun little joke that could spike some ratings and inject some entertainment into the staid and boring world of politics. They saw their job as goosing readership, not informing the public. As the 2016 election approached, they chose to develop a truly unhealthy obsession with the absolute non-scandal of EMAILZ, to the exclusion of virtually every other issue. They saw their job as getting out in front of the candidate who "of course" was going to win, or of carrying out their own personal vendettas against Hillary Clinton.

This time around, we're going through the same thing. It is the media's job to accurately report on the frightening descent of Trump into a mix of babbling incoherence and unapologetic fascism. Instead, we get sanewashing -- express efforts to misreport what Trump actually says and does because rendering the copy accurately would make him look, well, look exactly as he is.

And that brings us to the non-endorsement developments. The media -- or the business "leaders" who own the relevant papers -- no longer sees Trump as a joke. They are scared of him. They know full well that his next term in office will be replete with recrimination against all he deems his enemies, and they do not want to fall on the wrong side of the naughty/nice list. I agree with those who say that the Post's decision is anticipatory compliance, but more than that I agree that it is a terrifying sign of the Putinization of American politics -- a billionaire class that knows the security of its position is entirely at the whim of dictator, and makes sure to cozy up to him lest their portfolios (or other things) start plummeting from great height.

All of this is no more complicated than a simple refusal by the media to do its job, in the most basic form imaginable. Some institutions are, as a matter of role, forbidden from wading into political controversies, but newspaper editorial pages are not one of them. The contention that a newspaper violates some precept of neutrality by having its editorial board issue an endorsement is beneath contempt; editorials are opinions by definition, they necessarily take a point of a view. When the media, in its professional judgment as observers of the political scene, decide that candidate A is a better pick for the position than candidate B, communicating that choice is doing one's job. Where the evidence shows that candidate B would be a disaster for democracy, rule of law, and the very continuation of the American project, all the more so.

Not every newspaper is failing in its job. But some are. The Washington Post was my hometown paper, it is the one I grew up with. It is bitterly disappointing to see it stoop to such a pathetic low.

Pictured: The entirety of the presidential endorsement by the Willamette Week

A Rare, Coveted Debate Link Endorsement: Andy Levin

I don't like member-on-member Democratic primaries. That's because, for the most part, I like Democratic incumbents. I rarely bear them ill-will, and so I don't wish for them to lose elections. A member-on-member primary forces me to choose, and I resent that.

So it is in the Haley Stevens/Andy Levin match over in Michigan. I like both representatives just fine. I have no desire to see either out of Congress. And yet I've come to the conclusion that it's important to back Rep. Levin, because the message that would be sent by his defeat would be exceptionally toxic in Democratic Party circles. Rep. Levin is one of Congress' leading proponents of a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine -- an actual proponent, not a rhetorical one; someone who is actually willing to put money next to mouth and invest the resources necessary to induce both sides to take the steps necessary to make a just peace happen. It would be sad to lose his voice, but it would be catastrophic to lose his voice in a manner that suggests this very advocacy is what doomed his career.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, my logic is similar to that which prompted support for Shontel Brown over Nina Turner in their Ohio race. I noted there that Turner's formal position papers on Israel were not actually anything too objectionable. However, the coalition surrounding Turner seemed eager, even gleeful, at the prospect of sticking it to the Jews Zionists in a way that really couldn't be rewarded. Similarly, when they spoke to Michigan Jews, Stevens and Levin didn't seem that far apart on key issues -- there was a difference in how they talked about Israel, but it wasn't some gaping chasm. But the atmosphere around Stevens' campaign is very much "we need to punish Levin for his heresies about Israel", and that rhetoric hit a fever pitch early. On this, I agree entirely with Abe Silberstein's assessment:

The reason Andy Levin has drawn such vocal opposition from pro-Israel groups is not because he supports the two-state solution. It's because he doesn't accept the dogma on why a two-state solution has not materialized (Israeli flexibility/Palestinian rejectionism binary).

That's absolutely correct. One hears often from many Jewish and/or pro-Israel groups that they don't object to "criticism of Israel", what they object to is one-sided criticism of Israel; criticism that treats the entire conflict as wholly a matter of Israeli wrongdoing and malfeasance. The reality is, though, that many of those groups love "one-sided" criticism -- so long as it's Palestinians that are the only side being criticized. The last thing they want is an account of the Israel/Palestine status quo that takes seriously the reality that Israel bears a considerable portion of the responsibility for getting us here. 

Levin's support for a two-state solution isn't rhetorical, it's actual; and being actual it entails Israel changing portions of its conduct just as Palestinians must. That's good, healthy, necessary, what many if not most Jewish organizations say they want to hear -- and is apparently absolutely, positively intolerable in practice. The amount of energy and resources being devoted to taking out Levin, not just from groups like AIPAC but from organizations that really should know better, like the JDCA, is suggestive that these groups cannot and will not tolerate actual action supporting a two-state solution, and that'd be a devastating lesson to internalize.

It's no knock against Stevens herself. Again, I bear her no ill-will. I wish both Democrats could stay in Congress next year. But the atmosphere that surrounds this race makes it very important that Andy Levin win it. And so for that reason, the rare and highly coveted Debate Link endorsement has to go to Rep. Levin.

UPDATE: Andy Levin liked this post. I'm so tickled.

Tell Me Who To Vote For, Portland Edition

It's primary season here in Oregon, and I'm new in town. Consequently, I don't know a ton about local politics here. I'm trying to learn -- I know that homelessness is, by far, the most important issue driving local politics, though I don't have a firm grasp on what the relevant policy divisions are -- but it probably won't happen in time for me to cast a ballot.

So I'll give the races I'm interested in and my preliminary lean, but I am open to more information and persuasion. If you're a Portlander and/or Oregonian, feel free to give me your take and/or efforts at persuasion.

Governor: Tina Kotek.

Of the two major candidates running, Kotek is the more progressive, but she's got a lot of institutional experience as former state house speaker. That's my sweet spot. Plus, the Oregonian endorsed her with the single hesitation that she may have been too ruthless in dealing with state Republicans, which, I have to be honest, I'm not viewing as a downside right now.

State Rep. (38th District): No lean

Daniel Nguyen vs. Neelam Gupta. It seems like Gupta is positioned as the relative progressive to Nguyen's moderate, but I don't have a strong sense of what that means in practice. To be honest, both of their campaign websites were pretty thin. Nguyen's seemed even thinner than Gupta's, but Nguyen seemed to have at least a little more experience. Maybe the tiniest lean towards Gupta, but a stiff breeze could push me the other way.

Bureau of Labor Commissioner: Christina Stephenson

Basing this solely on the Oregonian's endorsement, but they made a good case (and the other candidates they "considered" didn't really wow me).

Multnomah County Commission Chair: Sharon Meieran

A very soft lean here compared to Jessica Vega Pederson. Meieran represents my part of Portland on the city commission, and I like my part of Portland, so she gets some positive feelings off that. She also seemed to have non-platitude plans for dealing with issues like homelessness. Sharia Mayfield is pretty much out for me because she lacks significant political experience. Lori Stegmann doesn't grab me but you're welcome to make your case.

Multnomah County Sheriff: No lean

The Oregonian endorsed Nicole Morrisey O'Donnell, but there doesn't seem to be a lot between her and Derrick Peterson. Very open to persuasion here.

Portland Commissioner (Position 2): Dan Ryan 

Won a special election and now is the incumbent. Seems like a thoughtful guy doing a good job. AJ McCreary seems like the sort of activist-y tinged insurgent candidate that I worry won't actually be effective once in office.

Portland Commissioner (Position 3): Jo Ann Hardesty or Vadim Mozyrsky

Hardesty is the incumbent, and made her name securing some big wins for police accountability. That's worthwhile. But she also seems to have that simplistic activist-y mentality that drives me bonkers, and is limiting her ability to broaden her accomplishments. Simply intoning "it's developers' fault" isn't actually the basis for a policy reform. The Oregonian endorsed Rene Gonzalez, but criminalizing homelessness doesn't actually appeal to me, so he's out. Mozyrsky seems like a boring bureaucratic functionary type, which very much appeals to me, but I have no idea where he actually stands on anything. The Willamette Week's endorsement write-up captures my ambivalence well.

Portland Auditor: Simone Rede

It would take a lot for me to pick an Our Revolution/Green Party type (Rede's opponent, Brian Setzler) when there's a credible alternative in the Democratic field.

Metro Council President: Lynn Peterson

A light lean, but here my bias for experienced incumbents benefits the progressive over the centrist challenger (Alisa Pyszka). Peterson seems to have made some mistakes, but "I'm not her" isn't enough for me to back Pyszka, who seems far too tied to business interests for my tastes.

Metro Councilor, District 6: Duncan Hwang

Absolute slightest of lean here, based on incumbency. Both seem good. The Oregonian endorsed his opponent Terri Preeg Riggsby, but was impressed with both and their reasons for favoring Riggsby over Hwang didn't strike me as compelling.

Bernie Sanders, Joe Rogan and the Politics of Conviction

If you're relying on me to inform you about the Bernie Sanders/Joe Rogan controversy, you need to read more widely.

The short version is this: Joe Rogan is a podcaster with a brand of anti-PC anti-establishment angry comedy, who is popular with ... exactly the sort of crowd that likes anti-PC anti-establishment anger. He endorsed Bernie Sanders, and Sanders loudly trumpeted the endorsement.

On one level, Rogan's endorsement is a big coup for Sanders insofar as it gives him credibility with the proverbial disaffected White voter. Sanders ability to appeal to this crowd is central to his "electability" case.

On another level, Rogan's "brand of anti-PC anti-establishment angry comedy" often in practice has been vicious racist, transphobic, Islamophobic, and anti-immigrant. So Sanders is taking a lot of flak from people who think the supposed standard-bearer of the left shouldn't be aligning himself with that sort of reactionary hatred.

Sanders' defenders think this is all yet another bad-faith cheap shot from the "establishment" desperate to take Bernie down a peg. After all, how many other candidates have accepted endorsements from morally compromised figures (Henry Kissinger is a popular target) and not gotten half the backlash? Many of the critics rejoin by saying they are not anti-Sanders per se -- some are even backers -- but feel especially betrayed that Bernie Sanders is elevating and amplifying the voice of the likes of Joe Rogan.

So that's the controversy in a nutshell. And I have two points. First, when people argued that Bernie Sanders could build a different sort of political coalition because he could uniquely appeal to disaffected White voters, this is what they meant. They may not have realized it was what they meant; there's been quite a bit of romantic naivete that when these voters back Sanders they were doing so because they've become converts to a true-blue socialist vision that goes all the way down, and in comradeship they would join the left cultural issues right alongside economic ones. But in reality, this was always going to be the way that it worked -- if Sanders was able to build a novel coalition that brought back these angry White male voters that had been attracted to Trump back into the fold, they were going to come with all the baggage that made them Trump-curious in the first place. As I remarked last year, it's fine to say "that's politics" and accept that political coalitions always will entail alliances with some unsavory sorts. But one can't just wear blinders that this is what one is doing.

Which brings me to point number two. One of the reason Bernie Sanders, in particular, is taking flak over this sort of arguably unremarkable political compromise is because so much of his campaign's organizing narrative is based on the idea that he doesn't compromise. In contrast to an establishment that is hopelessly tainted by disreputable associations and opportunistic corrupt bargaining, Sanders stands as someone who will always do the right thing, even if it's the hard path. He has his convictions, and he sticks to them. That's what makes him stand out, and -- for his more passionate supporters -- that's what makes other Democrats unpalatable. They play the game. Sanders will overturn the game table.

What Sanders is finding out, though, is something Max Weber observed years ago: nobody who is actually seeking to exercise political power can get away with the pure politics of conviction. One will always have to compromise, there will always be instances where one has to sacrifice ideals on the altar of expediency. Sanders is getting hit harder for the Rogan endorsement because in some ways the very controversy falsifies one of his core campaign narratives. When you've held yourself as the beacon of uncompromising conviction, obviously you're going to take a few shots when you so publicly engage in a political compromise -- accepting Rogan's backing (and the disaffected White voters he may bring with him) and the expense of excusing his anti-egalitarian rantings against various other marginalized groups.

It's kind of like conservative legal originalists. They get on such a high horse about how they're the only legal interpreters who are apolitical and unideological and just calling "balls and strikes". And so when they inevitably have to engage in judgment calls and contested interpretation -- and those calls and interpretations oh-so-shockingly skew towards their political priors -- there's going to be some extra mustard on the ensuing denunciations. It's not that adherents of other legal theories are immune to those sorts of behaviors. But they haven't dedicated their entire public profile to declaring they are so immune (and therefore superior).

Me, I'm a pragmatist -- I've long since come to terms with the fact that politics entails political compromises, so I don't get too exercised when I see it in the wild. Whether or not I think Joe Rogan's endorsement is a net positive or negative, it is not in the family of political misconduct that particularly bothers me (for similar reasons, actually, to why I don't get too worked up that "Linda Sarsour is a campaign surrogate!"). All it tells me is that Bernie Sanders is a perfectly ordinary politician -- and to be honest, it never occurred to me to view him as anything else.

NYTimes Endorses Warren and Klobuchar

The New York Times has officially endorsed not one, but two candidates in the 2020 Democratic primary: Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Amy Klobuchar (MN). In essence, the Times' picked one candidate from the "moderate" lane and one candidate from the "progressive" lane, while suggesting that either one can and should be acceptable to any decent person seeking to defeat Trump.

The internet reaction, at least in my quarters of it, has been mostly disdainful. The NYT should have had the gumption to make an actual choice. Choosing two people was a cop out. Dismiss dismiss dismiss.

Most of this reaction has stemmed from more left-ward elements. And to be fair, on net the double-endorsement probably helps Klobuchar, who has struggled to gain traction, more than Warren. So it maybe isn't surprising that the left isn't wild about this choice, insofar as it probably does more to help an "establishment" candidate they dislike over a more progressive candidate they (well, some of "they") like or are at least fine with.

But I think there's another element in play here. Recent events notwithstanding, there remains some efforts on the left-side of the party to build a unified front along the axis of either Warren or Sanders, as against the "establishment" wing represented by Biden or Klobuchar. Key to their efforts is a strong distinction between these two wings, such that it is important to maintain progressive unity so we don't hand the nomination to a moderate because the left can't stop fighting amongst itself. This view is very much adverse to the sentiment, communicated by the Times, that all the Democrats (Klobuchar, Biden, Warren, Sanders ...) are fundamentally on the same side, so that we should all be content no matter which of them is picked. This aspect of the editorial is probably what got the most sustained mocking, at least in my feed.

It also is, as you probably know, a view I basically endorse, which is why the Times' double-endorsement didn't bother me all that much. I'm inclined to think that Warren is the best of the "progressive" wing, and Klobuchar probably the best of the "moderate" wing. There's a case to be made for nominating a progressive wing candidate, and a case for a moderate wing candidate, but if the nomination goes in the direction I disprefer I wouldn't view at as a betrayal. Either way, we'd still be getting a candidate who is more-or-less on my side.

AOC, Tlaib, Omar Endorse Sanders

Reports are that three of the four "squad" members -- Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) -- are set to endorse Bernie Sanders for President. The fourth "squad" member, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), is both more moderate (or at least more "establishment"-friendly) than the other three and is from Massachusetts, so it's unsurprising she's not joining them.

Anyway, what to make of this news?

Well first, it's obviously a great get for Sen. Sanders, whose campaign really could use a shot in the arm after losing a lot of ground to Elizabeth Warren over the past few weeks. AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are very well liked among the insurgent progressive left, and their backing can certainly help him make the case that he is materially distinct from Warren as the "true" left-wing candidate in the race.

That said -- how much will it help him? And what does this bode for the careers of AOC et al?

I suspect there was already a fair bit of overlap between Squad stans and Bernie fans. On one level, that means this endorsement makes sense -- the Squad is backing the candidate who is most well-liked by their base. Indeed, in some ways it might be not just a sensible but a politically necessary move -- I remember a few months back some of AOC's erstwhile backers had their knives already out at the prospect she might endorse Warren. On another level, though, it limits how much this endorsement moves the needle, insofar as their most enthusiastic backers were also already Bernie diehards.

Could the endorsement even turn out to be a negative for Bernie? I don't think so. Certainly, there certainly is a segment of Democrats who actively dislike the Squad. But I think that cadre generally consists of people who also loathe Bernie, so they weren't ever in reach to begin with. The real question is whether, of Democratic primary voters who have an amenable but not fannish outlook towards the squad, does this endorsement do much to push them into Bernie's arms? My gut says no. But we'll see.

This also raises the question about what this means for the influence of the Squad going forward. Rightly or not, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib have cultivated (or had thrust upon them) a particular image -- "giantkillers", "the future of the party", "voice of a generation", and so on. Much of this was exaggerated, and frankly a lot to place upon a group of first-year Congresswomen. But nonetheless, the image is in place. What happens, then, if they back Sanders and ... it has virtually no impact? They'll be viewed as paper tigers. Now again, really that'd mostly be a case of wildly unrealistic expectations coming back down to earth. The sense that AOC, Omar, or Tlaib were transcendent political figures who were going to immediately revolutionize progressive politics was always a hype job (and one that didn't just emanate from their own campaigns).

But to have it so clearly falsified -- endorsing Bernie and barely moving the needle -- still might be a painful process both for the Squad, and for their most passionate backers. It would represent a pretty decisive demonstration that the Democratic party and progressive movement still is moving to its own beat, and that far from representing the wave of the future, the Squad will have to put in a lot of work if they want their brand of progressive politics to stretch beyond the deepest blue U.S. House districts.

(The flip side of this, of course, is that if the 3/4 Squad endorsement ends up reviving Bernie's campaign -- much less propels him to victory -- then I think that's a pretty hefty datapoint in favor of the claim that there is a seachange and the Squad is leading it.)

Oh, and one more thing. Because this story involves Ilhan Omar and a Jew, we're seeing the usual frenzy of terrible takes on the subject of Omar and the Jews. On the one hand, no, simply endorsing a Jew does not itself falsify any antisemitism issues Omar might have. That's sophomoric; it's just another iteration of the "I have Jewish friends" defense. On the other hand, neither is it the case that Omar endorsing Sanders is a case of tokenism or a cynical act of pandering. Everything about Omar and Sanders' politics suggest they'd be natural political allies, and nothing in Omar's record suggests she'd refrain or even have second-thoughts about endorsing a natural ally simply because he's Jewish. Indeed, I bet that if Omar had endorsed, say, Elizabeth Warren instead, her most incorrigible critics would use that against her too ("Why didn't she endorse Sanders, who shares her far-left vision? It must be because he's a Jew!").

Ironically, both of these are opposing sides of the same coin: that antisemitism can only come in the form of frothing, undifferentiated hatred. If that's what it means, then a Sanders endorsement falsifies the case; save that the "it's a cynical tokenization play" is an attempt to salvage it. Both sides are wrong. The case that Ilhan Omar is that sort of antisemite is impossibly weak; the case that this sort of antisemitism is the only kind is theoretically bankrupt; the case that the kind of antisemitism that can plausibly be attributed to Omar is unique to her (as opposed to apparently being absolutely epidemic in Minnesota state politics and running riot through the Minnesota GOP in particular) is shot through with anti-Black and Islamophobic over-policing.

The simple, boring story is that Omar almost certainly endorsed Sanders because Sanders best maps onto Omar's vision of progressive politics. Nothing more complex than that.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XLIX: Taylor Swift Endorsing Phil Bredesen

There's this weird element of contemporary pop culture where, at any given moment, there's a celebrity that seems inexplicably hated (it's almost always a woman, and that part sadly is quite explicable).

Anne Hathaway was it for awhile, and I could never figure out why. What's wrong with Anne Hathaway? She seems lovely! Lena Dunham certainly fit the bill for a bit. And then there was Taylor Swift -- who had the extra misfortune of not just being hated seemingly randomly by the masses but also being involuntarily made into a White Supremacist mascot. Ouch.

But now Tay Tay has made a very prominent endorsement in the 2018 midterms -- Phil Bredesen, Tennessee's former Democratic governor, who has very quietly pulled into the lead in his bid to flip the open seat from red to blue.

You can imagine the Nazis are pissed. You can also imagine who they blame.

I can't get the screenshots here (follow the link), but here are two excerpts of comments floating around far-right message boards:

“This looks so ghost written. Ever notice how every celebrity seems to be reciting the same exact script and even use the same exact wording. Not that I’m excusing Taytay, fuck her. I just noticed how she sounds exactly like Chris Evans and all those other faggots who suddenly try to get political. Their tweets always read as if some faggy Jew wrote it for them.”

[...]

“This is Soros trying to bluepill [sic] us by kidnapping /our princess/ they must have blackmailed her or something. We need to save her.”

On that second one, I feel compelled to point out that under Brit Hume rules there's nothing antisemitic there since the poster only said "Soros" and not "Jews". Good thing, too, because if we actually were willing to recognize Soros for the obvious dog-whistle that it is, who knows how many mainstream Republicans would get caught up!

Anyway, fist-bump for team Jew for successfully "bluepilling" Swift (whatever that means) and to Taylor, hey, "shake it off" (whatever that means).

Body Swappers, Part II

Former Obama supporter ex-Rep. Artur Davis' (D-AL, though he's since switched parties) turn to Mitt Romney is well known. I noted at the time he seemed to be crossing the opposite path of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R, now I). And wouldn't you know it if Crist has just come out and endorsed Obama for re-election.

The switch is pretty much complete at this point, I'd say.

Backyard Brawl

The Anchorage Daily News endorses Obama -- a development that is utterly meaningless but for the deliciousness of it all.

Powell Endorses Obama

Former Secretary of State and Republican Party luminary General Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for Presidency. Percentage of Republicans who thought he'd be a great Presidential candidate himself in the 1990s, who now will view him as a traitorous wench, at 80% and rising.

It was an interesting endorsement video to watch. It is clear that Powell thinks the modern Republican Party has stretched way beyond where he's willing to go in terms of its race rightward. The concerns he laid out about the current GOP extend from the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as VP, to the prospect of two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, to the steady increase of Islamophobic fear-mongering that has characterized the Party since 9/11. Now, it is fair to say that Powell -- himself always a rather moderate Republican -- may have simply been pushed off the edge as the party lines shift direction. And the Republican base will not take his defection as a repudiation, because Powell is precisely the type of fellow that they want out of the Party anyway. The inquisitorial process may soon give the GOP the purity of a political graveyard, but God help them if they aren't redoubling their efforts to excommunicate the insufficiently zealous.

But some of Powell's complaints should, in an ideal world, resonate with Republicans and Democrats alike. His anecdote about the Muslim-American soldier who died in Iraq for our country was quite moving, as was his rhetorical question about the seven year old Muslim kid who wonders if he can be President in America. The answer should be yes, but every signal we've received over the past few years indicates no. And that should trouble us, as it clearly does General Powell.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that it is clear this was a difficult endorsement for General Powell to make. Many Democrats had vague positive feelings towards McCain for awhile, but found them quite easy to discard once we witnessed the campaign 2008 version rear its ugly head. But to many independents and moderate Republicans, John McCain was something of a hero. He was their leading man -- a politician who they thought had integrity and unimpeachable character. General Powell stresses that his endorsement in no way represents a repudiation of Senator McCain. But it is clear he is deeply depressed by the direction Senator McCain has taken his campaign -- lots of clarity on Bill Ayers, very little on the economy. And I have to think that for many moderates, who saw in John McCain the very model of the right kind of politician, this election cycle must have been a painful experience indeed.

Gilchrest Endorses Obama

Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), who recently lost a primary election after coming out against the Iraq war, and more recently seen endorsing the Democrat running to replace him, has now jumped ship entirely and is supporting Barack Obama for President.

Justifying his endorsement of Obama, Gilchrest said that "we can't use four more years of the same kind of policy that's somewhat haphazard, which leads to recklessness."

Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), "have the breadth of experience. I think they're prudent. They're knowledgable."

Matt Yglesias wonders why this isn't getting the attention that the objectively far less meaningful Lady Rothschild endorsement of McCain is. For my part, the primary reason I'd suspect -- beyond media mendacity, which is always contender -- is that Gilchrest is from Maryland, and Maryland's vote was not exactly in doubt this or any other year.

That being said, the number of prominent moderate Republicans -- particularly those no longer beholden to the Party leadership -- who have bolted to Obama's camp is striking. Chafee, Leach, and now Gilchrest are only some of the more prominent members. Add that to the ones simply withholding support from McCain (Powell, Hagel, Paul), and there is a legitimate story there to be written.

Kettle Endorses McCain

Got to love this:

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.
[...]
In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

"This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him," she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. "I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."

Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC's Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.

But Obama's the elitist. Mmmhmm. Well then. I'll look on the bright side -- having idiots like Lynn Forester de Rothschild cut their ties to the Democratic Party is not exactly the worst electoral outcome I can imagine.

Boren Won't Endorse Obama

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), one of the more conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, has announced he will not be endorsing Barack Obama for President, claiming that he needs to represent the views of his conservative Oklahoma district. In doing so, he repeated the silliness that Obama is "the most liberal senator" -- then immediately waffled on his own position by saying he'd vote for Obama at the convention because "this is an important time for our country."

Look, I can understand certain Congressfolk withholding their endorsement due to political pressures (though for advice on how to do without feeding GOP talking points, see how Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) did it in the same article). But I frankly think Rep. Boren is miscalculating his own district. Obama has over-performed in plains states. It'd be one thing if this was in Appalachia, which has shown itself to be uniquely hostile to the Illinois Senator. But there is little indication that middle America will be particularly ill-disposed to Obama this year. If anything, Obama is supposed to help us down-ticket in that region.

Powell for Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had some awfully nice things to say about Barack Obama, and labeled himself an "undecided voter." Steve Benen wonders if an endorsement might eventually come out of it.

I almost hope it doesn't. Not because I really hold a grudge against Powell for his role in the Iraq fiasco -- of all the characters in that particular farce, he does not rank among the more risible, and I believe he still has a valuable role to contribute in our public discourse.

No, it's because I can't imagine anything that will destroy Powell as a public figure more than this endorsement.

Sure, Democrats will probably trumpet it for awhile. But Republicans (never much to countenance this sort of "betrayal") will flay him alive, in two ways. First, they'll scapegoat him for the Iraq war. I doubt that one will stick. But second, they'll undoubtedly portray him as a "race man", someone who let's his skin color dictate his political opinions -- basically no better than a Klansman. And I wouldn't be surprised if the media let that narrative run a little, if in slightly less stark terms. It's already been surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly) difficult for folks to get their heads around the fact that Black people might want to vote for a Black candidate because they genuinely think he's the best person for the job, not out of mere race loyalty. When the subject is a high-profile defection like Powell, it'll be even harder to impress that point on the mainstream media. And this one, I fear, might hold together.

Casey for Obama

Obama picks up a huge endorsement in Pennsylvania from Governor Senator Bob Casey. This is important not just because Casey is obviously a big name in the state, but because he's a very credible figure among the White, working-class voters with whom Obama has struggled. Obama will hold his big city base in Philadelphia -- it all comes down to how much he can penetrate into Clinton territory mid-state and out towards Pittsburgh. Casey's endorsement is definitely a boon towards those efforts.

Kmiec Endorses Obama

Doug Kmiec, a former attorney for the Reagan and Bush (I) administrations, has announced he is endorsing Obama.

Kmiec isn't a big name, and I already gave away what salience there is by noting Kmiec's significant links to the modern Republican Party. But it raised my eyebrow because Kmiec is not an ex-conservative who's seen the light. Even as recent as last July I sparred with him (I'm vastly overstating my relevance, of course -- he wrote a column, and I responded to it. The odds he ever read my response are rather slim), and it was not the first time.

As best as I can tell, Kmiec's endorsement is based solely upon disgust with the war in Iraq. He reiterates his opposition to gay marriage and abortion, his support of federalism and limited judiciary -- the works. And while he expresses hope (audacious hope?) that Obama's actions will match his rhetoric on such issues as race and human rights, his only positive reason for his decision came in this passage:

Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.

This, more than anything else, shows how the GOP coalition is fracturing at the seams. At the same time as moderate Republicans are finally recoiling from their affiliation with far-right social conservatives, social conservatives (at least in the rank and file) are beginning to rebel from supporting the Iraq war. Which leaves a Republican Party consisting of Paul Wolfowitz...and very little else.

The Pieces Fall into Place

After delivering the State of the Union response, Kansas Governor and Democratic rising star Kathleen Sebelius will endorse Barack Obama for President.

It's part of an overall good swing of endorsements for Obama, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), the highest ranking Latino House member. The latter is particularly significant because Obama has shown some weakness among the Latino vote.

But Sebelius is not just a particularly talented Democratic governor, or even another notch in a flurry of recent Obama endorsements. She's a red-state governor, and more importantly, a red-state governor with a knack for flipping Republicans to the Democratic Party. She fits exceptionally well with Obama's post-partisan campaign style, and would make a stellar Vice Presidential pick. With this endorsement, that chatter will only get louder.