What Now?! – 6/30/19

“The Supreme Court announced Friday it will take up next term whether the Trump administration illegally tried to end the program that shields from deportation young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children,” the Washington Post reports.

“A string of lower courts have said that President Trump’s decision to terminate the Obama-era program was based on faulty legal reasoning and that the administration has failed to provide a solid rationale for ending it.”

“The Supreme Court would likely render its verdict during the 2020 presidential election year.”

Frank Rich: “There was much more to Harris than her Biden face-off. She had sharp, unambiguous answers to every policy question. She was concise. She occasionally smiled and laughed (a card not played by any of the other 19 candidates). And she constantly reminded us that she was a prosecutor not just by saying so, but by showing off her  talent. There may be no word that Trump fears more than “prosecutor,” and no professional expertise that the Democratic base is more eager to see inflicted on him. At a juncture when Trump defends himself against a charge of rape by sliming women who are not his “type,” Harris’s emergence could not be better timed. She is not his “type,” heaven knows, and, not unlike her fellow San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi, she is not a “type” he knows how to deal with at any level, whether on Twitter or a debate stage.

I hunger to see Pete Buttigieg on a debate stage with Mike Pence. No Democratic politician has ever been so skilled at tossing the Christian card right back at the likes of right-wing religious hypocrites and homophobes. Buttigieg also implicitly took down Biden when he apologized for his own failure in highly charged racial politics rather than denying his record. Did Biden take it in and learn anything? I doubt it.”

Frank Bruni: “Imagine a Harris-Buttigieg ticket, and not only what a wealth of poise but what a double scoop of precedents that would be. Plenty of people on Twitter on Thursday night were doing precisely that.”

Joe Biden “lost one of his top fundraisers after controversial comments regarding his work with past segregationists and his flip-flop on repealing the Hyde Amendment,” CNBC reports.

“Tom McInerney, a veteran San Francisco based lawyer, informed Biden’s team on June 20 that he can no longer help him raise campaign cash to compete in the 2020 presidential election.”

Said McInerney: “I had actually let the campaign known I’d pulled back my support of Biden for now. I don’t think he did well last night.”

Axios: “The U.S. Treasury yield curve has now been inverted for more than a month — meaning the 3-month bill is paying a higher interest rate than the 10-year note.”

“An inversion of Treasury bond yields is a near-perfect recession indicator that economists at the Federal Reserve recently called ‘the best summary measure’ for an economic downturn.”

Amy Walter: “Yes, 25 candidates are running for the nomination. But, only five to six of them are serious contenders for the nomination. The RealClearPolitics average shows that five candidates combined—Vice President Joe Biden, Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg—take between 71 percent to 76 percent of the vote in national and early state polling. Nothing that happened in these two debates changed that math.”

“Senator Cory Booker and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro performed well in their Wednesday night debate. But, strong enough to break into the double digits—or overcome any of those five? I don’t see it.”

Jonathan Bernstein: “I saw a number of analysts flag the liberal positions that some candidates took as general-election vulnerabilities. Perhaps! But it’s not exactly a secret that candidates tend to play to their parties during the nomination fight and then moderate their positions when they face the larger electorate. So I’d guess that such concerns are overblown. And in a world where Republicans will call even very modest Democratic proposals ‘socialism,’ it’s not clear that supporting somewhat more liberal policies will change anyone’s perceptions.”

“That said, I’ve always thought Sen. Bernie Sanders is an exception. It’s normal to back away from a campaign promise, claim to be misunderstood or generally modify specific policy positions for the general election. Sanders just isn’t in a position to do that, and I doubt he has any interest in it. Perhaps that’s to his credit, but it makes him a very vulnerable potential nominee nonetheless. Political-science research is uncertain as to whether ideological extremism harms presidential candidates, but the truth is, there hasn’t been a comparable major-party nominee in the last century.”

“The White House is developing a plan to cut taxes by indexing capital gains to inflation, in a move that would largely benefit the wealthy and may be done in a way that bypasses Congress,” Bloomberg reports.

“Consensus is growing among White House officials to advance the proposal soon, to ensure the benefit takes effect before President Trump faces re-election in 2020.”

Delaware politics from a liberal, progressive and Democratic perspective. Keep Delaware Blue.

6 comments on “What Now?! – 6/30/19

  1. On Bernstein’s piece.
    Lol at calling Sanders’ unwavering consistency a vulnerability…. Or i guess that he considers lyingna virtue. I don’t pretend ti understand centrists.

    But also. Yes there certainly has been a major party nominee who stuck to their campaign blather through the general and kept stoking their base. Also, not for nothin, but i dont see Warren “clarifying” either. And she is electable, no matter what the bitter old Bluedogs say.

    • bamboozer

      To me “centrist” is code for Republican Lite and DINOS like Carper and Coons, they always play “the voice of reason” game but are anything but.

  2. Just as anti cannabis attacks are ramping up so are attacks on Medicare For All, the ads seem to target we greedy Boomers and our famed “I’ve got mine, to hell with you!” attitude, it’s an easy reaction to provoke for some. Reminds me of the geezers that proclaimed “Keep the federal government out of my Medicare!”. To our weak credit I noticed those that buy this line are usually shouted down, we aren’t all greedy, honest.

    • cassandram

      I saw some of those ads before one of the debates last week. Where are the MFA advocates? The GOP and insurance companies are going to Harry and Louise this thing to death. RIGHT at the point where there is a ton of openness to the idea — and esp since folks don’t quite know what it means.

      • Agreed, the smear campaign is just getting going, and as ever “no one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American people” as we are at least 40% mouth breathers by volume.

    • Yeah, I’m a boomer too. I disagree with most negative characterizations of us boomers. “If you didn’t live through it…” and let’s remember the percentage of boomers who either were already a part of or became members of even the top 20%. That makes the greedy quotient 20%, the rest of us, 80%, scraped by. The hippies went off-grid. I went into teaching. During that time, based on my wages, my own kids qualified for free or reduced lunch. Attacks on boomers often mischaracterize my generation. For a short time, we led the resistance. I helped poster Rutgers University the night before we all protested Nixon’s Cambodia incursion. The current president reminds me of Nixon, poisoning the times we lived in. Some us made speaking truth to power a lifetime pursuit, despite the personal cost. When you discount an entire generation, you dishonor those of us who truly deserve to be remembered with respect, like Mrs. Marsha Clarke, chainsmoking ACLU advocate who spoke truth to power and mentored my 11th grade history/civics class in public high school in North Jersey. And, we didn’t have allies who shared our views about the war. Now that we have you, we might just be able to get something done. Reach out, we’re alive and ready to kick.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: