The photos of the "crowds" at the tank parade remind me of when Bill Hicks would come on stage in an almost-empty club, scan the room slowly, and announce "I've had more people in bed than this" ...
When the president sends a cabinet member on TV to announce "We are using the military to liberate an American city from its elected leaders," where do you go from there. What is left to say. The idea of that being anything short of a near-universal "Wait, what the fuck is going on" moment proves how far we've backslid.
This is from 2022 but it was absolutely right. The practiced buffoonery of Trump 1, all the "just kiddings" and "seriously but not literallys" absolutely succeeded in desensitizing people who are hardly paying any attention to the harder stuff they always intended to do next. ...
The basic fallacy in chasing votes by being "tough on immigration" is that the modal American's position on the issue is "Deport the Bad ones and keep the Good ones," and they alone know who is which, and that simply does not translate into workable policy. So this kind of gestapo stuff horrifies some of the same people who cheered when Trump promised to do it. There are true sociopaths who love this, but "No, I meant only the BAD immigrants! Not my coworker/friend/neighbor!" is as likely a reaction as enthusiasm. You cannot do immigration policy that satisfies these people because what they want is nonsensical.
So by the time center-left parties fully commit to chasing the far right by "getting tough" on immigration, the backlash has already begun to build and they walk right into it. "I thought you people wanted this!" No, they want something impossible and convinced themselves they'd could have it - the "eat whatever you want AND lose weight!" of immigration policies.
It is hard to grasp but large masses of Americans are both racist/xenophobic AND not racist/xenophobic enough to applaud what Trump is doing. It's goldilocks shit, they want a level of racism/xenophobia calibrated exactly to their personal preferences, and you just can't make that policy. Don't try. ...
AP: Trump extends olive branch, invites Musk to White House cellar to taste some brand new amontillado ...
Matthew says:
I'm inclined to suspect that one of the reasons that Bush could ignore accusations of "connivance" (in addition to testicular magnitude) is that he probably doesn't know what it means, either.
But yeah, it cheeses me off, too.
Ed says:
"Connivance" is a word that was used quite regularly in Rocky & Bullwinkle, which is approximately the level of entertainment I picture our Chief Executive being able to handle.
Peggy says:
I see our CiC as more of a "Tom & Jerry" kind of guy.
cerb says:
You made C&L, Ed. Drink a Tom Collins in celebration?
Ed says:
I received a very nice question via email regarding the exception for impeachment.
Yes, the pardoning power is limited (by the *Constitution*, not any other branch of government) in that the president may not pardon those impeached by Congress. However this doesn't constitute an instrument by which Congress, the courts, or states can exercise control over the president's use of the pardon.
It is much to great of a leap to argue, as some have suggested, that Libby cannot be pardoned (or commuted) because he could potentially testify in an impeachment against Bush or Cheney. There are several reasons. First, the Constitution clearly refers only to people convicted of impeachment in limiting the president's power. Second, accepting a pardon or commutation from the executive CONSTITUTES AN ADMISSION OF GUILT on the part of the pardonee. Third, there is absolutely nothing about this commutation/pardon that prevents Libby from being subpoenaed by the Senate (or any ordinary grand jury) and compelled to testify. In a hypothetical impeachment proceeding, I suspect that Libby would be subpoenaed and offered the opportunity to testify or go to jail for contempt of Congress. Since he'd not be testifying against himself, I don't think claiming the 5th would fly.
Ed says:
Much "too" great. Duh.