1. From convo on @Morning_Joe today about @DrIbram's new article which asks that progressive policy not be blamed for D losses/underperformance.
One of my main concerns is intraparty factionalism/fighting. Everything a "moderate" & "progressive"
And yet, do you know what happened? In those 2014 Midterms- they GAINED SEATS!!
They completely abandoned the middle of the
Which brings me to my point. The GOP has been able to fall into total control of extremists (the metamorphosis completed when Trump became the nominee & then cemented the GOP --> MAGA version of the GOP with his "thread the needle" 2016
The other is that Dems have never bothered to tie the GOP to their extremism.
Again, we'll be changing that.
More from Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌
1. SO MUCH more than that. What Barr & the GOP pulled off w the release of the Mueller Report was demonstrated mastery of the American media & the news cycle.
They manipulated both brilliantly.
The reason reporters are conditioned to report a stalled bill as "Congress failing
2. to pass a covid relief bill"- the norm of objectivity- has allowed the RNC/GOP/Trump to develop a system to manipulate the media into doing their dirty work. But never have we seen it orchestrated so deliberately & cleanly as it was to neutralize the Mueller Report. By his
3. "Letter to Congress" where he intentional mispresented the findings of the report on 2 crucial areas- the investigation's conclusions regarding the activities of the Trump campaign and Russia and whether or not the President's actions to damage/disrupt the investigation
4. constitutes obstruction of justice, Barr & the GOP team understood that if the report was released, the media would likely get out on its own this meaning: Trump campaign's contacts with Russia did not rise to criminal charges and that Trump can not be charges w obstruction
5. while being president. BUT, by sending out this letter that interprets the report for the media in advance (well in advance!) of the actual report- Barr can instead tell the media a different narrative, far more favorable to Trump. These, of course, go on to become the
They manipulated both brilliantly.
The reason reporters are conditioned to report a stalled bill as "Congress failing
Barr lied about the contents of the Mueller Report\u2019s findings to the public right out of the gate and repeatedly lied about them under oath.https://t.co/aul3Yjqno2
— Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) December 14, 2020
2. to pass a covid relief bill"- the norm of objectivity- has allowed the RNC/GOP/Trump to develop a system to manipulate the media into doing their dirty work. But never have we seen it orchestrated so deliberately & cleanly as it was to neutralize the Mueller Report. By his
3. "Letter to Congress" where he intentional mispresented the findings of the report on 2 crucial areas- the investigation's conclusions regarding the activities of the Trump campaign and Russia and whether or not the President's actions to damage/disrupt the investigation
4. constitutes obstruction of justice, Barr & the GOP team understood that if the report was released, the media would likely get out on its own this meaning: Trump campaign's contacts with Russia did not rise to criminal charges and that Trump can not be charges w obstruction
5. while being president. BUT, by sending out this letter that interprets the report for the media in advance (well in advance!) of the actual report- Barr can instead tell the media a different narrative, far more favorable to Trump. These, of course, go on to become the
1. Yes, Trump will claim to intend to target GOP senators up for reelection in '22 (like he did to Thune with Kristi Noem) if they don't join in @HawleyMO's sedition on Jan. 6, but the fact is, it's not clear whether Trump will be successful in ANY of those efforts & voting yes
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
A lot of conversations today among Republican senators over move by @HawleyMO to challenge the certification of Biden\u2019s Electoral College victory. Small groups of Rs were huddling on & off the floor trying to game out the politics of what will happen Jan. 6
— John Bresnahan (@bresreports) January 1, 2021
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
More from For later read
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
