|
Trump Should Be Removed From Office |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52677"><span class="small">Mark Galli, Christianity Today</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 22 December 2019 10:07 |
|
Galli writes: "In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment."
The White House at night. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
Trump Should Be Removed From Office
By Mark Galli, Christianity Today
22 December 19
It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.
 n our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.
The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.
That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:
The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.
And this:
Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.
Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.
To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.
 |
|
Thoughts From the Back Row of the Memorial |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 21 December 2019 14:38 |
|
Keillor writes: "I learned a new word last week: 'anonymized.' It means just what it says, 'made anonymous,' and was used in reference to government reports obtained by the Washington Post that contained truthful revelations about our 18-year war in Afghanistan that the government was lying to the American people about while spending a trillion dollars to achieve something that nobody in the Pentagon could quite define."
Garrison Keillor on Grand Avenue in St. Paul, near his bookstore Common Good Books in 2014. (photo: Jean Pieri/Pioneer Press)
Thoughts From the Back Row of the Memorial
By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website
21 December 19
learned a new word last week: “anonymized.” It means just what it says, “made anonymous,” and was used in reference to government reports obtained by the Washington Post that contained truthful revelations about our 18-year war in Afghanistan that the government was lying to the American people about while spending a trillion dollars to achieve something that nobody in the Pentagon could quite define.
My uncles, may they rest in peace, would not have been surprised by the Post’s story. Their regard for generals was low, based on their own military service, and their opinion of politicians lower: they associated high office with adultery, alcohol, and bribery, end of discussion.
My generation, on the other hand, got inspired by movements — civil rights, women’s equality, antiwar, environmental — and various attractive speakers back in the days before the twittering began, and so we became idealists. Back in the day, more than once, I myself stood in vast crowds of people singing, “All we are saying is, Give peace a chance.” The words don’t make sense, but we sang with great feeling.
The revelations about the trillion-dollar war briefly gained the front page and then faded. Our government had knowingly sent men to die in a losing cause and refused to admit it. A few thousand voters in Florida in 2000, aided by the Supreme Court, had changed the course of history. President Gore might’ve paid attention to the melting of Greenland and spent the trillion on solar power, but that is mere history, so the adventures of Mr. T resumed domination of the airwaves. The man, clad in leopard-skin tights, now climbs the high tower of impeachment where, to the astonishment of the crowd, he will dive into the water tank of the Senate and emerge triumphant.
So my generation comes to disillusionment late, whereas the uncles settled into it in their twenties, ignored Washington, worked on their houses, raised kids, went fishing, grew excellent tomatoes, listened to ballgames on the radio. Mr. T is a shock to people my age and the shock doesn’t wear off. When you see him in the driveway with the Washington Monument in the background, you can’t help but compare the two men, and it’s a steep decline.
I felt better Sunday when I attended a memorial service for a friend my age who grew up Jewish in an Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn, learned to mind his manners, did well in school, went to Brooklyn College for $15 a semester, got into law school on a scholarship. He got a job in a law firm, hated it, took a government job, thought about going to grad school to study philosophy, and to earn his tuition money he drove cab for a while. “The hardest job I ever had,” he told me, but he loved talking to the passengers in the back seat. Everybody had a story and he buzzed around the city and heard some good ones.
That convinced him to go back to lawyering. He worked for the Legal Aid Society, defending the indigent, many of them too dumb to succeed at larceny. He took a job as secretary to a judge who needed serious assistance. This gave him the confidence to run for a civil court judgeship. He won and embarked on a long judicial career, winding up a state judge in the Bronx with an office on 151st Street overlooking Yankee Stadium. True to his Brooklyn upbringing, he never passed through its gates, and true to his education, he faithfully served the people of the Bronx and the laws of the state of New York. He loved his wife, Eleanor, Italian food, jazz and blues and classical music, books of history, and he regarded public service as a high calling.
The Founders envisioned the Senate as a high calling to form a body of individuals of independent mind and conscience and at times it has been and at other times it’s held more than its share of seat-warmers, ward heelers, and errand boys. The advance signals from Mr. McConnell and Mr. Graham say clearly that the fix is in. Honest corruption, in full public view, saves a great deal of time. The water tank will be forty feet deep and the leopard-skin tights will contain a parachute.
So be it. But corruption at the top means the national good depends on dedication in the middle. He was a good man. Fifteen million more like him can save the country.
|
|
|
FOCUS: Sanders Is Hot in the Polls, and Still Treated Like a Second-Tier Candidate |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52661"><span class="small">Zeeshan Aleem, VICE</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 21 December 2019 13:24 |
|
Aleem writes: "After having spent most of the past year chugging along in second or third place in national polls and struggling to stand out in key primary states, Real Clear Politics polling averages show Sanders' popularity swelling in both national and critical state polls."
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Antonella Crescimbeni)
Sanders Is Hot in the Polls, and Still Treated Like a Second-Tier Candidate
By Zeeshan Aleem, VICE
21 December 19
There's evidence that Sanders' surge in the polls is being ignored. Is this a repeat of the type of blackout that happened in 2016?
n a long-distance footrace, hovering around second or third place can be a sweet spot. The frontrunner becomes a highly visible target and must fend off challengers through constant exertion. Meanwhile, the strong, steady competitor who hangs back can reserve energy and then, in the final stretch of the race, mount a dangerous strike with an unexpected burst of might.
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ surge in the Democratic primary might just be that kind of strike. After having spent most of the past year chugging along in second or third place in national polls and struggling to stand out in key primary states, Real Clear Politics polling averages show Sanders’ popularity swelling in both national and critical state polls. Meanwhile, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s hot streak has begun to dissipate and Sen. Elizabeth Warren is still struggling to regain the momentum she had in October. Over the past month or so, Sanders has leaped ahead in the rankings in New Hampshire, Iowa, and most recently, South Carolina. A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows Sanders just two points behind Biden among Democratic voters nationwide. The poll also found that Sanders leads the race among nonwhite voters, an indispensable demographic for winning the Democratic nomination, that Biden has long been assumed to have a lock on.
This rise, which is taking place just months after Sanders experienced what could have been a campaign-ending heart attack, is the kind of trend that thrills horserace pundits and election correspondents. It’s an obvious basis for a comeback kid story, a narrative that tends to fuel analysis after analysis about how a formidable candidate was underestimated.
And yet that isn’t happening. Scan politics coverage at the New York Times for the past week, and you’ll find no headlines on the dynamic—and barely any reporting on Sanders at all. The Washington Post similarly has no headlines on it, and overall has significantly more coverage of Warren and Buttigieg. Politico and Axios, Washington’s most hyperactive evangelists of election micro-narratives, have not shown interest in the Sanders’ spike. (Politico has one long-form article this week discussing what a Sanders presidency would look like, but the article has to convince the reader that such a prospect isn’t far-fetched.) In cable news coverage last week, Sanders was tied with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg—a man averaging 5 percent in national polls—for fourth in coverage, according to the New York Times’ attention tracker. It’s clear that there isn't major press buzz over Sanders the way there has been when Warren or Buttigieg showed promise earlier in the race. On Wednesday, Sean Trende, the senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, wrote that the absence of press coverage that treats Sanders as viable is “one of the weirder features of the race.”
I’d say we can file this under “shocking but not surprising.” Sanders has long been treated by mainstream media as an unimportant or uniquely unviable 2020 candidate regardless of what the numbers say and despite a remarkable, strong primary performance in 2016. But the continued negligence of Sanders even as his poll numbers pick up is particularly galling — and suggests that he faces an unfair handicap as the primaries draw near. Even as Sanders demonstrates that he has a growing level of popularity among key Democratic constituencies, he’s likely to continue to be deemed “unelectable” by a punditocracy that’s either skeptical of or hostile to the notion of a socialist running for the White House.
Sanders has been treated as a second-class candidate since his first presidential run in 2015. Margaret Sullivan, then the New York Times’ public editor, admitted that the Times had been “regrettably dismissive, even mocking” of Sanders’ White House bid during the primary season, and pointed out how Trump, by contrast, received wall-to-wall coverage. As The Intercept has pointed out, Clinton got twice as much coverage on TV networks during the primaries as Sanders. A 2016 study from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center found that Clinton garnered triple the amount of overall news coverage that Sanders did.
This dynamic has re-emerged in 2019. Throughout this race, even after Sanders has shown himself to be a serious contender, the media has either given Sanders less coverage than he deserves given his polling numbers, or dealt him disproportionate criticism. In These Times conducted an analysis of presidential race coverage on MSNBC in August and September, and found that in its coverage of Biden, Warren, and Sanders, it was Sanders who received the least coverage and the most negative coverage. (During this time period, Biden was an unsteady frontrunner and Sanders and Warren were neck and neck in national polls until the last two weeks of September, but Sanders was continually shunned during electability-centered discussions.) Katie Halper reported in June for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting that MSNBC frequently and inexplicably ranks Sanders lower than he actually stands in infographics or makes basic polling reporting errors which are “always to his detriment, and never with any official correction.”
This is not just a cable news problem. Vox has pointed out that Sanders has been unfairly painted by major newspapers as a politician uninterested in retail politics. In Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson dissected a PBS NewsHour campaign trail segment in December in which correspondent Yamiche Alcindor discusses major candidates and obscurities such as Steve Bullock and Joe Sestak, without mentioning Sanders once. In another June report for FAIR, Halper pointed out that the New York Times correspondent covering Sanders, Sydney Embers, has criticized him relentlessly and failed to disclose the corporate and lobbying affiliations of sources she includes as critics of Sanders.
So what explains the disproportionate criticism and erasure of Sanders? Some of it is banal and structural—Sanders has been caught in a plateau for much of the race and the media’s bias in favor of newness and a compelling narrative framework has not served Sanders well.
But it’s clear also that in the eyes of many analysts that there is something fundamentally improbable about a disheveled and cantankerous socialist winning the nomination and then winning the White House. “This is America! How could that happen?!” they grumble to themselves without noting how the country has shifted to the left. That perception of unelectability has a self-fulfilling nature to it—if journalists think a candidate is far-fetched and dismiss them, then the public is more likely to swing that way as well.
But to dismiss Sanders is to turn a blind eye to a remarkable campaign. Sanders has remained popular despite the fact that much of his competition adopted the left-wing policies he made viable through his 2016 run, like Medicare for All. And he commands a huge following even after Warren’s rise as a more establishment-friendly alternative to him. As a new CNN poll indicates, compared to all his rivals Sanders is perceived as uniquely trustworthy, empathetic, and in tune with the issues that matter most by voters nationally.
It’s time for the media to stop projecting electability claims onto candidates based on their personal feelings or establishment wisdom. The only thing that will reveal the electability of a candidate is if they can actually get elected. And that’s up to voters.
|
|
FOCUS | Michael Moore Interviewed by Matt Taibbi: "We're Not Even Prepared for What We'll See in 2020" |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52660"><span class="small">Matt Taibbi and Michael Moore, Rolling Stone</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 21 December 2019 12:05 |
|
Excerpt: "In the first episode of Michael Moore's new podcast, Rumble, he tells a story of being given a gift of a new reel-to-reel tape recorder as a child, kicking off his media career."
'In 2016, Michael Moore was one of the few people in the media who correctly predicted Trump's success in the vital swing states of the Midwest.' (photo: RS)
Michael Moore Interviewed by Matt Taibbi: "We're Not Even Prepared for What We'll See in 2020"
By Matt Taibbi and Michael Moore, Rolling Stone
21 December 19
The famed documentarian tells ‘Rolling Stone’ about solar storms, pedophile coffee, the Flint water crisis, Trump’s chances next year, and other horrors
n the first episode of Michael Moore’s new podcast, Rumble, he tells a story of being given a gift of a new reel-to-reel tape recorder as a child, kicking off his media career. He taped everyone in sight, produced his own ad-hoc version of The Tonight Show before nap time, and went on to launch his own newspaper at school. In an amusing precursor of future events, the paper would be shut down almost right away after criticism of school sports programs.
More than half a century later, Moore is still going against the grain. His career arc is unique in the modern media landscape, being one of the very few figures to achieve commercial success and broad audience share without the full support of one or the other wing of the blue/red news media ecosystem.
Moore came to prominence as a critic of corporate sociopathy in Roger and Me, and became a liberal icon in the Bush years with Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, but his anti-corporate, anti-war, pro-labor message has never aligned exactly with the Democratic Party, either. Most recently he’s been a pointed critic of Democratic policies that opened the door for Trump’s election in 2016, while also voicing criticisms of the cult of Robert Mueller and Barack Obama’s contribution to the Flint water crisis.
He now feels the urgency of the political moment is such that he won’t wait to put out another movie, say, after next Election Day. The Rumble podcast will be a way for him to chime in all year long, and get out a message that is wholly his own, without having to go through studios or editors. “I’m going to say what I want to say,” he says. “I don’t have backers. I don’t have investors.”
In 2016, Moore was one of the few people in the media who correctly predicted Trump’s success in the vital swing states of the Midwest. He was ignored. This time around, it might be worth listening earlier. In a visit to Rolling Stone, Moore sat with Katie Halper and me to talk about about the presidential race, how his new podcast scratches the same independent-media itch he had as a kid with a tape recorder, pedophile coffee shops in Utah, and other topics. Some highlights:
On asking Donald Trump to fix the Flint water crisis . . .
Trust me . . . if the water had been poisoned in Bloomfield Hills, or Grosse Point, or Ann Arbor, this would have been fixed within 30 days. And somebody would have gone to prison. . . . It’s such a heartbreaker for me, I don’t know what to do about it. I even thought, I should just see if Trump would privately meet with me. And I would say, “Look, you and I are about as opposite as things can get, and my mission is to remove you from this house that you’re currently occupying, but if you’d like to be remembered for something good, if there’s one thing you know, it’s construction. I even have a belief that you could operate a backhoe. You should come to Flint and fix the water.”
On Barack Obama drinking a glass of water in Flint . . .
I’ll have [Trump] meet the people who will tell him and show him that the water Obama drank in Flint came off Air Force One. … Do you think the Secret Service are going to let the president of the United States drink poisoned water? It was all a show. The number-one question that I do not have the answer to, and I hope to talk to him someday, is “Why? Why do that?”
On being targeted by mail bomber Cesar Sayoc . . .
He had a big picture of me on the side of his van with a bull’s-eye over it. . . . Frankly, to be honest, out of respect to him, while everyone else had a bull’s-eye over the face, he put mine over the shoulder. And I thought, OK . . . two things. Number one, that’s a really good picture of me! It’s hard to find a decent picture of me. And he didn’t put the bull’s-eye over [my face], he put it over here. …
I said to [my producer], “I wonder if he’s been to any of the Trump rallies that we went to. Maybe we filmed him.” And we started going through the footage, and damn if he wasn’t right there in front of the rope line, screaming for Trump, and “make America great,” right into our camera.
On his unsuccessful attempt to inject humor into the Clinton campaign in 2016 . . .
I’ll tell you a story I probably shouldn’t tell. I won’t mention any names, other than Hillary’s. I thought the way to win this in part would be during the debates . . . if Hillary just had a comedy shiv, just something that she could use to go under [Trump’s] thin skin, to have him implode on national TV. People would go, “He is unhinged…”
We offered this to Hillary and her people that we would do this quietly, nobody would know we would write lines for her, we would help with debate prep. She had political people helping her with lines — how about from myself or some of the top satirist-comedian types? And all she’s gotta do is land one or two of these…
They turned us down. They were afraid if it ever got out, because this comedian is dirty, and that comedian said that once . . .
On the Clinton campaign not wanting to distribute its own signs in Michigan in 2016 . . .
Because, I spent a lot of time at my other apartment in Michigan. Trump signs were everywhere. More than Hillary signs. I found out the campaign in Brooklyn wouldn’t send signs. They were afraid if too many people saw it, it would inflame the Trump people, make them go out and vote. That actually happened.
On New York’s culpability in inflicting Trump on the country . . .
Something I never understood as a Midwesterner is why New York never took care of Trump. . . . If that guy, with the way he is, was from Pittsburgh or Detroit or Milwaukee, he never would have been foisted on the rest of you. He would have been dealt with. The fact that he got away with so much for so many years, and all he was was tabloid entertainment to the people of New York. He was a punchline. The Donald.
On his brief tenure as editor of Mother Jones . . .
The left liberals, whatever you want to call it, they’re not always friends of the working class. … I don’t know how you guys would describe it, that part of the so-called left. … They’re really centrists. They’re not really left. These centrists? These liberals? They love humanity, they just hate people. … I was fired on Labor Day 1986.
The owner asked me to come in. They did not like this [column Moore commissioned by an autoworker], he did not like that I refused to publish things by these neo-liberals about Nicaragua that weren’t true. I wouldn’t participate in that.
But the thing that really upset them … One day I’m sitting in my editor’s office. . . . Fifteen or 20 women came in and shut the door. They were unionized…. They say, “We’re going to go on strike, we’re going to do a wildcat, we’re walking out.” I say, “Whoa, what happened?” They say, “The publisher harasses women. We’re not respected, we’re hit on.
I went to the owner’s house …. he cut me off. He said, “All right, what are you doing listening to these women? They’re always complaining.” [I say], “Are you saying it’s not true?” He said, “What I’m saying is, the publisher is getting help. … And your job is, you’re management. You’re editor. And you’re not to take their side.
Side? It’s Mother Frigging Jones! I couldn’t believe it. I was booted, within the week.
On pedophiles and coffee . . .
The pedophile priests, the real criminals are the bishops. … They should all be in jail. The priests are sick. They have a really bad mental illness. But we don’t know how to fix that in our society. We don’t know the science, how to stop pedophilia. So I would propose we just find a chunk of land out in Utah … so they’re contained there. There are some people who are going to hurt other people, especially kids, and we can’t have that. We pay for the science to try to help them, and contain them in the city. It should be a nice city. You should go to the Cineplex. There should be a pedophilia Starbucks. I’m just saying, why should they be denied their Starbucks?
On the 2020 election . . .
This is going to be the biggest mess. We’re not even prepared for what we’re going to see. … I think if the election were held tonight, Trump would win. Not in the popular vote. Oh, no. Hillary won by 3 million votes? Whoever the Democratic nominee is, is going to win by 4 or 5 million votes. The gap will be even larger. … The popular vote is going to be huge. But Trump has not lost his base. They’ve gotten bigger, and angrier, and whiter, and madder.
|
|
ednesday’s impeachment of Donald Trump was neither a surprise nor a turning point. We’ve known for weeks that the House would vote to impeach. We also know, as surely as we can know anything in politics, that a Republican-controlled Senate won’t convict Trump and remove him from office; it may not even pretend to consider the evidence. So it would be easy to be cynical about the whole thing.
