US Politics: I Don't Like Mondays

[Zorral]

This is something we never knew (we meaning Partner and myself) about Nixon, that his people followed Muskie around, literally fucking with him, to make him drop out of the election campaign.  This was because they believed McGovern was more likely to lose than Muskie was. They'd steal his campaign workers' shoes left by hotel doors to be shined, and stuff far worse, and now sop. But this is the first we heard of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/05/woodward-bernstein-nixon-trump/

.... The heart of Nixon’s criminality was his successful subversion of the electoral process — the most fundamental element of American democracy. He accomplished it through a massive campaign of political espionage, sabotage and disinformation that enabled him to literally determine who his opponent would be in the presidential election of 1972.

With a covert budget of just $250,000, a team of undercover Nixon operatives derailed the presidential campaign of Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, the Democrats’ most electable candidate.

Nixon then ran against Sen. George McGovern, a South Dakota Democrat widely viewed as the much weaker candidate, and won in a historic landslide with 61 percent of the vote and carrying 49 states. ....

Quote

 

.... With the onset of the campaign, Hunt and Liddy were moved to the Nixon reelection committee to quarterback spying and sabotage operations.

Memos discovered during the Watergate investigations identified Muskie as “Target A,” with the goal “to visit upon him some political wounds that will not only reduce his chances for nomination — but damage him as a candidate, should he be nominated.”

In one of the strongest and most effective espionage efforts, Elmer Wyatt, a Nixon campaign operative, was planted in Muskie’s campaign, where he became the senator’s chauffeur. Wyatt was paid $1,000 a month to deliver copies of sensitive documents he transported between Muskie’s Senate office and his presidential campaign headquarters. It was a spectacular yield. The volume was so great that Wyatt, code-named “Ruby I,” rented an apartment midway between the two offices, equipped with a photocopying machine.

Copies of Muskie’s documents were ferried to the Nixon reelection headquarters, where campaign manager John Mitchell, the former attorney general, took advantage of the almost total visibility the documents provided into the Muskie campaign: “itineraries, internal memoranda, drafts of speeches and position papers,” according to the Senate Watergate Committee’s final report in 1974. The Nixon campaign also received papers on campaign strategy debates, fundraising, personnel, media operations and internal disputes.

Meanwhile Gordon Strachan, the top political aide to White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, and Dwight Chapin, Nixon’s appointments secretary, who was like a son to the president, hired Donald Segretti, an old college friend and former Army lawyer, to implement sabotage efforts.

Segretti in turn hired 22 individuals to inflict these “political wounds” and was paid $77,000 in checks and cash. Herbert Kalmbach, Nixon’s personal lawyer, secretly made the payments from leftover campaign funds.

In March 1972 one Segretti operative circulated a counterfeit letter on Muskie stationery with allegations of sexual improprieties involving rival Democratic candidates Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Hubert Humphrey. The letterhead cost only $20 to reproduce, but Chapin told Segretti that the $20 was a sensational investment and had obtained “$10,000 to $20,000 worth of benefit for the President’s reelection campaign,” according to the Senate Watergate Committee report.

Over the months of the Democratic primary race, heckling, pickets and “M-U-S-K-I-E spells Loser” signs trailed Muskie. Segretti and his operatives stole shoes left by the candidate and his staff outside hotel room doors for polishing before campaign events. Keys were surreptitiously snatched from campaign motorcades while the drivers stepped away for a smoke. Shoes and keys were then deposited in dumpsters outside town, making it impossible for the campaign to stay on schedule and function smoothly. Segretti’s operatives reported, “We did grandly piss off his staff and rattled him considerably.”

Muskie and his staffers were spooked. At a rally in New Hampshire, standing on the back of a truck, the candidate expressed how upset he was by published slurs on his wife, Jane. A gossipy editorial published by conservative William Loebin the Manchester Union Leader, headlined “Big Daddy’s Jane,” had suggested that the senator’s wife drank, smoked and liked to tell dirty jokes. The story was also published in Newsweek. Around the same time, Muskie had appeared to condone the use of the word “Canuck,” a derogatory term for Canadians, in a forged letter drafted by a Nixon White House aide.

Under assault, Muskie openly cried at the New Hampshire campaign stop. David Broder, The Washington Post’s senior political reporter, wrote in a front-page story that Muskie broke down three times, “with tears streaming down his face.”

The newspaper had printed an unflattering story about his wife, and Muskie became emotional while denouncing its publisher. (Bettmann Archive)
Drip by drip, all this added to the implosion of the Muskie candidacy. Later, Muskie said, “Our campaign was constantly plagued by leaks and disruptions and fabrications, but we could never pinpoint who was doing it.”  ....

 

And t-Rump is a billion times worse -- including literally trying to force an armed coup to take over the government, of course.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This is something we never knew (we meaning Partner and myself) about Nixon, that his people followed Muskie around, literally fucking with him, to make him drop out of the election campaign.  This was because they believed McGovern was more likely to lose than Muskie was.

Sure, it's been common knowledge that Nixon and his camp feared Muskie much more than McGovern (and rightly so), and accordingly worked to destroy the former during the primary campaign.  Most famously by CREEP orchestrating the Canuck letter, as mentioned in the article.

[maarsen]

Letting Nixon resign without criminal charges being laid was a bad decision that still hangs over the US today. Presidents are not kings and should be held liable for their crimes.   If charges were laid, Ford pardoning him afterwards would still leave him as an example for those that followed him. No image rehabilitation later could ever take away the fact he was a crook.

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting SCOTUS win for the Biden admin on climate change. Not the end of the matter, and I assume this could still end up in the SC at some point.

Quote

Supreme Court rejects state bid to derail Biden’s social cost of carbon
27 May 2022
• High court declines to intervene in legal squabble over the Biden administration’s increased social cost
of carbon, handing win to White House in its bid to ensure federal actions consider societal harm from
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Louisiana-led coalition contends White House lacked authority to set new metrics, warns of increased
costs to all sectors of US economy.
• Legal fight not over as case still pending in appeals court and another coalition of Republican-led states
also challenging policy.
The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a dispute over the Biden administration’s revised social cost of carbon, rejecting a plea by a coalition of Republican-led states to block federal agencies from using the cost-benefit metric.
The court on Thursday (May 26) issued a one-sentence order denying the request by Louisiana, Texas and eight other states.
The states last month filed an emergency petition with Justice Samuel Alito to vacate a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That decision blocked a district judge’s injunction that barred federal agencies from using the administration’s social cost of carbon.
The court’s refusal to intervene is a major win for the Biden administration, which sees the increased social cost of carbon as critical to its ambitious efforts to tackle climate change and ensure federal actions take into account the harm to society from increased greenhouse gas emissions.

IHS Markit | Food and Agricultural Policy Weekly Briefing
Shutterstock.com Confidential. © 2022 IHS Markit®. All rights reserved. 28 02 June 2022

I can't provide the link as I get these article in a work email and I don't have access to the original source.

Still I am guessing the next Republican administration is likely to reverse all or a lot of climate change measures any Democratic administration puts in place. And there will be another Republican administration.

[Mindwalker]

Regarding the Jan 6 hearings... I still wonder how they went from "multiple hearings in spring" to "six in summer, when nobody's watching tv."

ETA: Remember when in these threads, we just knew the Mueller report would change everything? Good times.

A friendly reminder (also mentioning msnbc will air the hearings live):

PS: OMG, this has an interview with a Dem which pretty much demonstrates everything that's wrong with them. "If Fox News don't show these hearings, they need to get the 'news' removed!" LOL.

[SpaceChampion]

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Looks like Matthew McConnaughey is coming out swinging.  He grew up in Uvalde Texas:

 

[Fragile Bird]

Remember I said that the shooting in Uvalde was weirdly the most American thing ever, being his home town? Representing the USA to so many. 
 

Good for him! That hurts so frigging much.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Looks like Matthew McConnaughey is coming out swinging.  He grew up in Uvalde Texas:

 

Here is the entire speech on youtube.

quite a few times I thought he was gonna lose it, he looked so close to tears.  

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Regarding the Jan 6 hearings... I still wonder how they went from "multiple hearings in spring" to "six in summer, when nobody's watching tv."

This seems like an odd complaint.  Since when is "six" not "multiple"?  Not sure how many more would be useful.  I've read the committee is preparing the hearings to be as succinct and clear as possible, and that sounds like the best strategy for the American viewer/voter to me.  As for the timing, well, I think it was wise to not try to go up against May sweeps in primetime, so don't really get that either.

There is a tendency to blame the Dems when the ultimate responsibility lies with the voters.  The Dems can't force the voters to care more about the January 6 hearings any more than they could make the voters care more about abortion.

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

There is a tendency to blame the Dems when the ultimate responsibility lies with the voters.  The Dems can't force the voters to care more about the January 6 hearings any more than they could make the voters care more about abortion.

The Dems can, however, take action when in power to secure their power more heavily and actually do things that they can. This is what the Democratic party appears to lack compared to Republicans - they actually don't do a ton of things when they could. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

The Dems can, however, take action when in power to secure their power more heavily and actually do things that they can. This is what the Democratic party appears to lack compared to Republicans - they actually don't do a ton of things when they could. 

In terms of "getting things done" at the federal level, this boils down to just another argument about the filibuster.  Should they have abolished it about, say, when Obama took office?  Sure.  Did they have the votes to -- even with 60 Dem Senators?  Nope.  Have they ever had the votes to since?  Nope.

As for "securing their power," as has just been demonstrated, the Dems can gerrymander just as much as the GOP.  Not sure what else the GOP has done at the federal level to "secure their power" (other than appointing judges and enjoying their inherent advantage in the Senate).  At the state level there's red states passing voter suppression laws, sure, but there's also blue states passing laws to make voting more and more easy.  Similar story with abortion.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

In terms of "getting things done" at the federal level, this boils down to just another argument about the filibuster.  Should they have abolished it about, say, when Obama took office?  Sure.  Did they have the votes to -- even with 60 Dem Senators?  Nope.  Have they ever had the votes to since?  Nope.

Filibuster + executive action + DOJ action + agency action + purging Republicans from positions +... . None of which Dems appear to be willing to do. Biden has a whole lot of options for things to do right now that he is not doing. 

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for "securing their power," as has just been demonstrated, the Dems can gerrymander just as much as the GOP.  Not sure what else the GOP has done at the federal level to "secure their power" (other than appointing judges and enjoying their inherent advantage in the Senate).

Yes, other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

  At the state level there's red states passing voter suppression laws, sure, but there's also blue states passing laws to make voting more and more easy.  Similar story with abortion.

See above for actions they could be doing. There's plenty at the federal level that Biden could do to change a whole lot of things. Some could be removed with the stroke of the pen, some could be challenged from courts, but doing nothing is definitely going to fail to do anything.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

Filibuster + executive action + DOJ action + agency action + purging Republicans from positions +... . None of which Dems appear to be willing to do. Biden has a whole lot of options for things to do right now that he is not doing. 

The assertion that the GOP presidents have employed unilateral/executive action (which encompasses "DOJ action" and "agency action" btw) in a way to "secure their power" more than Democratic presidents is completely unfounded.  Even in terms of using such tools to advance their policy agenda, it's pretty even other than Dubya's dangerous abuse of warmaking powers.  Biden has not been nearly as aggressive countering Trump's regulatory advances as he should be, sure, but that's..hardly the sweeping difference you're portraying.

6 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Yes, other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln

Point is only one of these speaks to the Republicans actually doing anything out of the ordinary in order to "get things done" or "secure their power" - radical gerrymandering - and the Dems clearly can and have done the same thing.

8 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

See above for actions they could be doing. There's plenty at the federal level that Biden could do to change a whole lot of things.

I don't see anything above beyond entirely vague "actions" on behalf of the executive, agencies, and the DOJ (all pretty much the same thing).  Oh, and "purging Republicans," which, actually, yeah, Biden has purged Trumpists from agencies (not that these efforts have any real effect on "getting things done" or "securing power.")

Unless you're really counting on Biden moving on student debt (which is practically a much more difficult political decision than you seem to be assuming) to make that much of a difference, this is a decidedly weak case.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The assertion that the GOP presidents have employed unilateral/executive action (which encompasses "DOJ action" and "agency action" btw) in a way to "secure their power" more than Democratic presidents is completely unfounded.  Even in terms of using such tools to advance their policy agenda, it's pretty even other than Dubya's dangerous abuse of warmaking powers.  Biden has not been nearly as aggressive countering Trump's regulatory advances as he should be, sure, but that's..hardly the sweeping difference you're portraying.

Sorry - are you saying other than the last 20 years of abuse with power with the last two Republican POTUSes Republicans haven't done much?
 

I mean...okay? But that's really irrelevant; I don't want to argue about how Ronald Reagan was doing most of the norms. I'm worried about fighting the abuses of GWB and Trump with the same fire. 

And Trump has done a lot more than just the regulatory things that need to be repealed. There's the article 42 stuff, the wall stuff, all of the covid garbage, the tariffs, the actual agency heads like the postmaster...there's a lot of things that aren't being done or are actively continuing the policies of Trump.

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Point is only one of these speaks to the Republicans actually doing anything out of the ordinary in order to "get things done" or "secure their power" - radical gerrymandering - and the Dems clearly can and have done the same thing. 

And failed, apparently. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't see anything above beyond entirely vague "actions" on behalf of the executive, agencies, and the DOJ (all pretty much the same thing).  Oh, and "purging Republicans," which, actually, yeah, Biden has purged Trumpists from agencies (not that these efforts have any real effect on "getting things done" or "securing power.")

DeJoy remaining in power is a good example of this sucking. If you like I can point you to the very heavy lists of all the things Biden could be doing with his power that require absolutely no oversight. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Unless you're really counting on Biden moving on student debt (which is practically a much more difficult political decision than you seem to be assuming) to make that much of a difference, this is a decidedly weak case.

That certainly is one thing he could do. Mostly, I don't see 'difficult' in the same way. Are the people who are going to vote for Biden going to turn away because of that, given this environment? I guess I am very skeptical that things like popular or unpopular policies matter all that much; Republicans certainly don't appear to care about that. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Only in America:

Quote

A Florida mother of three has been charged with manslaughter after her 2-year-old son got hold of an unlocked handgun and fatally shot his father in their home, authorities said.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/us/florida-mother-son-shoots-father/index.html

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

Sorry - are you saying other than the last 20 years of abuse with power with the last two Republican POTUSes Republicans haven't done much?

You identified unilateral/executive action as what Republicans have done that Democrats haven't in order to "get things done" or "secure their power."  I'm telling you that no, when it comes to the use of unilateral power," there is not a significant difference between Republican and Democratic presidents employing such tools to advance policy goals and/or to "secure their power" (again, beyond Dubya's warmaking).

6 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

There's the article 42 stuff, the wall stuff, all of the covid garbage, the tariffs, the actual agency heads like the postmaster...there's a lot of things that aren't being done or are actively continuing the policies of Trump.

Keeping Title 42 in effect still has support within the Biden administration (and, of course, among electorally imperiled Democrats).  You're throwing things out that are not relevant to you original argument. 

In the case of the postmaster general/DeJoy, Biden appointed and got confirmed five new members on the board of governors.  That's the only way to fire him, legally.

13 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

And failed, apparently. 

Um, no they didn't.

13 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

DeJoy remaining in power is a good example of this sucking.

You're asking Biden to do something he's explicitly not empowered to do.  That isn't "breaking norms," it's codified.

16 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Are the people who are going to vote for Biden going to turn away because of that, given this environment? I guess I am very skeptical that things like popular or unpopular policies matter all that much; Republicans certainly don't appear to care about that. 

Well, first of all, yes, I think Biden is right to be worried about a backlash (although obviously it's not going to have that much of an effect either way - that was exactly my point).  But more importantly, there's a clear disagreement within the party and even the administration on the best path to do so.  To me, that's far different than your argument that the Dems aren't "getting things done" that the party has near unanimity on.  Rather, it sounds like Biden isn't getting done what you want him to get done.

[The Anti-Targ]

I wish McConaughey didn't give his speech in front of a White House seal. If you want to get something done about gun control standing in front of a symbol that will generate strong partisan feelings is going to reduce the impact of the message. He's going to be immediately dismissed as a Democratic shill by a lot of people. To be sure all those people will never come to the table on gun control anyway, but they will seek to influence those who might be brought to the table with pleas and arguments that are not tainted by the partisan divide.

[ThinkerX]

Meanwhile we have Banon from bizarro land. Maybe there could be actual prison time in his future?

These January 6th hearings might almost be interesting. Anyhow:

Bannon Subpoenas Pelosi And Jan. 6 Panel In Attempt To Hit Back At Contempt Charges (msn.com)

 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

You identified unilateral/executive action as what Republicans have done that Democrats haven't in order to "get things done" or "secure their power."  I'm telling you that no, when it comes to the use of unilateral power," there is not a significant difference between Republican and Democratic presidents employing such tools to advance policy goals and/or to "secure their power" (again, beyond Dubya's warmaking). 

And beyond Trump attempting to frame his opponents and getting impeached with no consequences, sure.

Those two precedents seem like a big deal. 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Keeping Title 42 in effect still has support within the Biden administration (and, of course, among electorally imperiled Democrats).  You're throwing things out that are not relevant to you original argument. 

Biden campaigned on getting rid of it. He hasn't. That seems relevant. 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

In the case of the postmaster general/DeJoy, Biden appointed and got confirmed five new members on the board of governors.  That's the only way to fire him, legally.

Um, no they didn't.

You're asking Biden to do something he's explicitly not empowered to do.  That isn't "breaking norms," it's codified.

He could have done that day 1. It's been over 500 days and he's still not entirely gotten around to it. 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, first of all, yes, I think Biden is right to be worried about a backlash (although obviously it's not going to have that much of an effect either way - that was exactly my point).  But more importantly, there's a clear disagreement within the party and even the administration on the best path to do so.  To me, that's far different than your argument that the Dems aren't "getting things done" that the party has near unanimity on.  Rather, it sounds like Biden isn't getting done what you want him to get done.

If Biden wants to actually do things, cool - but he hasn't been doing things I disagree with either. He's just largely not been doing anything as far as what I mentioned. If he wants to fund police, or go with a bill Manchin supports, or broadly remove tariffs or increase tariffs, or put more people on the border or do less, or remove mandates for masks or vaccines or add them - cool. But what he's done is basically just let things continue on and muddle through it .

I will say Biden has signed a lot of EOs - but a third were in the first days of the office, and almost all of them are of the form 'make a task force to look into something'.