Just want to say how gratifying it is to wade into these comments and questions from such thoughtful readers every week. This is the last one that's open to the whole internet, so I'll probably do more bragging about it after tomorrow (make the trolls pay to troll!). But before that, I want to thank all of you for participating, and let you know that I look forward to it every week, hopefully with more friends and more subscribers in the months and years ahead.
The misinfo & disinfo surrounding the Gaza hospital explosion and how it was handled - and mishandled - by the world's media is a HUGELY important story.
The absolute BEST brief tackling of that was by Jeremy Bash with Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House yesterday. The key clip of that is here:
It's more about style, though occasionally about substance.
If it helps you out I'm a Pragmatic Progressive AKA a Warren Democrat. I get sh** done, and I hate BS. But I also understand nuance is *extremely* important.
I watched the entire segment yesterday. Helene Cooper, the NYT reporter, was almost comically arrogant and indifferent to the damage caused by the NYT' headline and "both-sides" reporting.
The fact that the NYT attributed the claim of Israrli responsibility to the Gaza Health Ministry seemed appropriate to Cooper, despite repeated attempts by Bash to explain that the Gaza Health Ministry was Hamas.
Imagine justifying the rote repitition of claims by a terrorist organization before any facts have been verified.
The incredibly poor judgment by legacy media, and its refusal to assume responsibility for the utter explosion of antisemitism throughout the Middle East is yet another example of the degradation of traditional media.
As a long-time media professional who OFTEN kicks the asses of those in my field, you're partially correct - and wrong in key ways.
And while I'd like to take the time to discuss the nuance, I can't, as I'm on deadline.
Suffice it to say Helene was carrying water for the NYT - and there are factions within NYT who favor flash over substance, as there are similar factions in most major news media newsrooms today.
As for the explosion of antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia, general hatred & violence, as well as disinfo & misinfo? If you're blaming the media alone or primarily, you're doing it wrong.
The media's bias isn't for or against Jews or Muslims.
It's in favor of conflict & chaos.
That's one of the big reasons they're beating the drums of war - because if they're forced to cover the 2024 elections fairly, as they've been being pushed to do? It's a no-brainer - Dems will sweep & crush Repubs. Which, to media execs, means no ratings.
But a fresh war with Iran - or China? Well, golly gee. That would solve that problemt, wouldn't it?
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently bv clear. Islamophobia and antisemitism have deep and complex roots.
The blame I note is upon irresponsible reporting that can be associated with the recent explosion of antisemitism across the Arab world...massive protests and a cancellation of diplomatic meetings with Biden in the wake of reporting devoid of facts, with rote repetition of Hamas talking points.
Whether it's racism in the U.S. versus Black people or Brown immigrants, or antisemitism or Islamophobia, to corporate media executives today, they're all just versions of the same tool - and the goal isn't to inform & spread truth.
It's to get ratings - clicks, numbers, subscriptions, TSL/TSV (Time Spent Listening/Time Spent Viewing), in order to get higher ad rates.
The effect it had on the diplomatic mission of Pres. Biden wasn't purposeful, to them.
It's all collateral damage to the corporate bottom line.
Yes, being correct instead of first would be better for the public good. And to achieve that goal, it would help to have more reporters, producers, editors, stringers, etc. But those all cost money.
Since there are no standards in the U.S. for what's allowed to call itself news, truth isn't just the first casualty in war.
It's the primary casualty on the way to profit, at least for media execs.
Again, there are plenty of great people in media who do have integrity, and many of them do work for corporate outlets.
But from your comments, I get the idea you believe their bias is ideological.
For the most part, it's not. The bias of the execs, and the atmosphere they set up within the corporations they run, is to the bottom line. Chaos drives profit in media. So, to them, it's good.
Clarity in news media drives attention metrics - and therefore profit - down.
So to them, it's bad.
As the old axiom goes, it's not personal. It's business.
Nope. I'm the Executive Producer for The Randi Rhodes Show. I've worked professionally in media for about 30 years, most of it as a producer. I will often have 2-3 sources going at the same time - So think CNN, MSNBC, NBC NOW, BBC, AJE, etc. - while I'm editing audio &/or video, like I'm doing right now.
I read somewhere in the neighborhood of about 30-70 news stories a day, and end up processing for use about 20-35 audio & video pieces.
And I know a substantial number of good folks in media, like Brian.
Thank you for validating, I thought the exact same thing about that significant line from President Biden’s remarks yesterday. Considering 9/11 as pivotal moment and all that’s occurred since makes that statement actually profound. Albeit, time will tell if our actions reflect that we’ve learned those lessons, obviously and especially regarding this particular humanitarian crisis but I was proud and grateful to hear him say it.
Do you think Biden's popularity in Isreal will lend him leverage with Bibi? I think if Biden navigates this war well and helps restore some semblance of peace that is moderately acceptable to both parties, his Presidency will have done more for America and the world than certainly any president in my lifetime (I got here in the Clinton years).
I wonder if the war and appreciation for Bidens response and the disdain for House Republicans making fools of themselves may both be culturally ubiqutous moments. It'll be interesting to see how Republicans talk about this after the dust settles, etc. I wonder how much this has done to sway independents for 2024.
I guess I'd say this: If the world avoids a big, spreading regional war, and it's at least in part because of how Biden worked the angles available to him, it will make a really striking contrast with the GOP.
SEPARATELY, I have a very hard time getting into Netanyahu's head because a) I don't know Israeli politics super well, b) he's incredibly cynical, but c) his goals aren't exactly clear to me. Right now my hunch is that he's just trying to hang on for dear life, and Biden is working against Bibi's selfish interests—if Israel embraces a more methodical response, he could easily get swallowed up in recriminations for this intelligence failure; but he might think that if he remains on war-footing, strategic aims be damned, the public will rally to him.
One of the things I found most deft about Biden's comments yesterday is that he seemed to be wanting to prevent Israeli public opinion from swinging in the pro-war; pro-Netanyahu direction, with some deep honesty (in diplomacy-adjusted terms) about America's recent failures. I don't know if it'll *work* but, I do think it's maybe the best possible path off the road to chaos.
The biggest problem for Biden in general is that he's simply presiding over a difficult time with lots of disasters all around the world. He took office in Covid, the worst catastrophe in recent history. He presided over the largest land war in Europe since WWII. There's been huge catastrophes. This is all in addition to having a fascist fifth column actively trying to make governance impossible. And that was all true before this israel issue. Biden's in an impossible position. He has IMO been very successful, particularly in foreign policy, but the reality is that conditions are simply going to be rough when these things are happening and there's no good tradeoffs.
He could've left Ukraine to the wolves. He would have been eviscerated for that. He could've appeased pro-palestine agitators by some (probably useless) anti-israel posturing but that would have killed his support in other sectors. He can send humanitarian aid but now he's selling out the american people for his foreign projects. The USA can massively overperform every economy in the world and also everyone's expectations, and still the economy won't be good enough to make people happy because plagues and wars tend to cause serious problems for the world.
So he's threading needles. That's what I see here in Israel. He goes in, he puts his own life on the line, he relies on his personally reassuring and empathetic personality to show that he cares, even as he's preaching restraint and saying openly that an invasion of Gaza would be 'big mistake.' It's just a really hard path to navigate and I think he's doing well but man do I not want to be him right now.
And sure, I agree with what you say, that progressives shouldn't be afraid to be critical of him. But the reality is that its simply not a time in
Hope you finish that thought Corny! Want you to know that I strongly agree with all of this, up to (I think) the last half sentence. But it's because he's tackled an impossible, thankless job well that I want him and Democrats to be zealous in their politics, act as though Republicans deserve contempt (and to lose) for the harm they've done to the country; not to muddy those waters with ineffectual bids to capture the center by using the word "bipartisan" all the time, and not to treat people who air these kinds of concerns like heretics for speaking up.
As discussed yesterday, I hope Jeffries is already working on that deal over the Speaker. The question is: What should Dems demand? I would keep it simple, the idea being only to avoid the worst of what the MAGA faction would do. I think that's all a non-MAGA Republican (Ken Buck?) would agree to anyway, and it would still be enough to split their caucus in a productive way. My list:
-- Support for Ukraine
-- Shut down Jordan's hearings (Hunter, pre-impeachment, etc.)
I would also throw in legislation permanently ending the idea of a "government shutdown" - which only exists because of Carter-era interpretations of budgetary law AND permanently nixing the debt ceiling but that's probably too much.
Think you're both dancing around the same idea, which Jeffries has already implicitly embraced. When he insists on a fast-track for bills that have bipartisan support, what he means (among other things) is bills to fund the government, so Republicans can't take hostages. So they're already there.
Journalists and pollsters continue to frame the issue as whether constituents prefer their representative to stand on principle or compromise to get thing done (ie: Economist/YouGov poll showed that more rank-and-file Republicans say they want their representatives to stand on principle “no matter what”). I find this question profoundly misleading. It both implies their to be some moral high ground in crediting vague "principles" are behind the Republicans actions when there is none apparent. It also willfully ignores the fundamental job of representatives in a democracy must, of necessity, compromise with representatives of a diverse country to accomplish anything of shared value. The question might better be do you prefer your representative work to achieve what is possible or simply obstruct the government from accomplishing anything at all costs.
Immigration reform is a prime example. Republicans and Democrats alike agree it is a key issue and run on it, but action remains impossible without compromise. This is not standing on principle, this is fundraising on dysfunction.
Yes, Republicans in particular have chosen not to compromise on the border IN ORDER to preserve a sense of chaos and disorder that they think helps them win elections. But with them it's not always pure cynicism. Cowardice is also at work! I think of Grover Norquist creating a whole machinery designed to destroy any Republican who votes for a tax increase of any kind. There are more than a few Republicans who, much as they hate taxes, understand that sometimes circumstances might call for taxes! But they won't ever vote for them because the money spigot will open for primary challengers, and they fear they'll lose their jobs.
NEW FROM EMMER — SCALISE AND EMMER OPPOSED TO TEMPORARY SPEAKER
“As I have made very clear over the last few days, we should never allow a Democrat-backed coalition government. Ever. The only coalition we should be looking to build is a Republican coalition uniting all of our conference.”
I think you are making something out of nothing with the office evictions. Seems like a move out of Pelosi's playbook that Maddow viewers would celebrate.
Well, I'd say (and acknowledged) that it's a small thing in the scheme of things, but where I disagree is that it's not really about the public or which subset of the public is watching. It's about expectations setting for both the public and the Republican Party: Are Democrats people who turn the other cheek at every petty slight, or will they demand to be treated with dignity and respect. Too often they just ignore these things, think maybe the public will appreciate their stoicism. But I think they get the mass psychology wrong! People view it as cowardice. They're pushovers. This train left the station long ago, but I used to try to convince Dems that they shouldn't take the Republican habit of calling them "the Democrat Party" lying down. If Republicans can be casually disdainful toward you, and you just pretend it isn't happening, you don't look "adult" you look "scared."
(Obviously the answer is not "demand an apology"—the apology won't come, and you will look weak again. My personal preference, for my personal amusement, would be for Dems to call them the Go-PEE, but will admit that's probably a bad idea."
I'm struck by how infrequently the implications of the absence of a Speaker are spelled out. A Speaker is necessary to move ANY legislation, and given any Republican majority, let alone THIS Republican majority, the possibility of moving legislation addressing the many problems we face are slim. But keeping the lights on in government is something they, and only they, can do.
Yet the crazy minority that the rest of the party seems to feel the need to appease has no apparent interest in doing so. We have what, four more weeks of funding? Assuming that a Speaker is chosen by then, will they fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year or just set up a new battle for (insert small, arbitrary number of weeks here)? Lather, rinse, repeat?
My point is that the country cannot withstand 15 months of legislative immobilty and fiscal brinkmanship until the new Congress sworn in on January 6,2025. To say that the solution is to vote them out next year downplays the immediacy of the problem. It's like sending snail mail to the fire department while our house is ablaze instead of calling 911. Sure, voting them out is part of the long term solution but that doesn't solve the current problem which is that we have a nonfunctional (not "merely" dysfunctional) legislative branch.
Aloha! Loved listening to Positively Dreadful and reading Big Tent.
Do you think that Biden's age and/or relative centrism lead to further calls from Democrats for either a new candidate or running mate?
I wonder if his age might lead to speculation that he can't handle the delicate diplomatic balancing act, not just between the regional governments, but also between factions of the Democratic party that either support or oppose Netanyahu's leadership.
I actually think Biden is at his most acute and most spirited in diplomatic environments, and (if things don't go haywire) he could end up strengthening his position by running point on the Israel-Hamas war.
My hunch is that nothing other than a big health issue or a major governing failure will get the "new candidate/VP" conversation going. The Dems who worry most about Biden also feel like they can't just spring a sudden concern about age on him and their constituents out of nowhere, and also feel they have no other basis for calling for new leadership.
FWIW, I am very torn over whether a credible primary challenge would be a good idea or bad idea on net, and we'll likely never know unless something bad happens in the next year and it becomes clear in hindsight that someone should've stepped up when they could.
Hey Brian, How do you think Democrats should address/combat the litany of conspiracy griping the nation in the upcoming election. Everything from anti-vax to anti-Semitism seems like it is going to be more upfront and in our face with Trump and RFK Jr. having funded campaigns. I worry too many people will just throw up their hands in confusion.
It is a very hard problem, but it's why I keep trying to drive home the point that they should root their campaign more firmly in the politics of truth, run against the Republican culture of lying. If they think "let the conspiracy theorists and charlatans talk about vaccines and globalists, and we'll talk about health insurance" then the zone of discourse will be flooded with unrebutted lies. If they think "we believe most Americans have become sick of the lying" they can create a cost FOR lies instead of us bearing the cost OF lies.
I want to thank you for this work. I want to let you know that I would subscribe, but I live on social security & limited savings & can't afford it. I value your insights, nonetheless.
Now that the GOP idea of a temporary speaker has collpased with them showing no signs of consolidating behind Jordan or anyone else, I have to ask.
In the West Wing fantasy world, the Democrats would make a bunch of concessions to 5 to 10 Biden district Rs to ge them to switch parties and electe Jeffries. In reality, the Don Bacons of the world would rather subject their wifes to continuous MAGA death threats than leave their party behind.
I guess my question is... is their a point where fantasy becomes reality? If this drags out with the GOP electing no one to the point where the government shuts down, etc.
Brian, Peter Navarro was recently convicted for ignoring a Congressional subpoena. Why hasn't Jim Jordan been charged with committing the same crime? I've been baffled by this question and have seen the media allude to it but never really address it. He committed a crime; they should be charging him! Not holding votes to potentially give him more power!!
By the way, I have been a fan of your work for a long time and am really enjoying Off Message. Thanks!
Hi Lori! I think the main issue is that the House voted to hold Navarro in criminal contempt, and then referred the contempt citation to DOJ. They likely did NOT do this to Jordan a) for basic long-term House functionality purposes—they have a reasonable interest in not turning the House into a place where the majority routinely subpoenas the minority and then tries to get members arrested; and b) because members of Congress have strong constitutional protection against criminal exposure for actions they take in their capacities as senators and representatives. Don't want to bring a case like that and then lose.
Also: Thanks Lori! Glad you're sticking with me. I hope you'll try to convince others to join.
Just want to say how gratifying it is to wade into these comments and questions from such thoughtful readers every week. This is the last one that's open to the whole internet, so I'll probably do more bragging about it after tomorrow (make the trolls pay to troll!). But before that, I want to thank all of you for participating, and let you know that I look forward to it every week, hopefully with more friends and more subscribers in the months and years ahead.
You convinced me. I subscribed.
The misinfo & disinfo surrounding the Gaza hospital explosion and how it was handled - and mishandled - by the world's media is a HUGELY important story.
The absolute BEST brief tackling of that was by Jeremy Bash with Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House yesterday. The key clip of that is here:
https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/status/1714738706991481301
Have to get back to prep work for today's show.
Very grateful Shawn, it feels genuinely good and inspiring that people who often disagree with me want to stick around anyhow.
We don't disagree as much as you think.
It's more about style, though occasionally about substance.
If it helps you out I'm a Pragmatic Progressive AKA a Warren Democrat. I get sh** done, and I hate BS. But I also understand nuance is *extremely* important.
I watched the entire segment yesterday. Helene Cooper, the NYT reporter, was almost comically arrogant and indifferent to the damage caused by the NYT' headline and "both-sides" reporting.
The fact that the NYT attributed the claim of Israrli responsibility to the Gaza Health Ministry seemed appropriate to Cooper, despite repeated attempts by Bash to explain that the Gaza Health Ministry was Hamas.
Imagine justifying the rote repitition of claims by a terrorist organization before any facts have been verified.
The incredibly poor judgment by legacy media, and its refusal to assume responsibility for the utter explosion of antisemitism throughout the Middle East is yet another example of the degradation of traditional media.
As a long-time media professional who OFTEN kicks the asses of those in my field, you're partially correct - and wrong in key ways.
And while I'd like to take the time to discuss the nuance, I can't, as I'm on deadline.
Suffice it to say Helene was carrying water for the NYT - and there are factions within NYT who favor flash over substance, as there are similar factions in most major news media newsrooms today.
As for the explosion of antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia, general hatred & violence, as well as disinfo & misinfo? If you're blaming the media alone or primarily, you're doing it wrong.
The media's bias isn't for or against Jews or Muslims.
It's in favor of conflict & chaos.
That's one of the big reasons they're beating the drums of war - because if they're forced to cover the 2024 elections fairly, as they've been being pushed to do? It's a no-brainer - Dems will sweep & crush Repubs. Which, to media execs, means no ratings.
But a fresh war with Iran - or China? Well, golly gee. That would solve that problemt, wouldn't it?
Anyway, back to work. I'm late now.
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently bv clear. Islamophobia and antisemitism have deep and complex roots.
The blame I note is upon irresponsible reporting that can be associated with the recent explosion of antisemitism across the Arab world...massive protests and a cancellation of diplomatic meetings with Biden in the wake of reporting devoid of facts, with rote repetition of Hamas talking points.
I appreciate your perspective.
I feel you're almost there, but not quite.
Whether it's racism in the U.S. versus Black people or Brown immigrants, or antisemitism or Islamophobia, to corporate media executives today, they're all just versions of the same tool - and the goal isn't to inform & spread truth.
It's to get ratings - clicks, numbers, subscriptions, TSL/TSV (Time Spent Listening/Time Spent Viewing), in order to get higher ad rates.
The effect it had on the diplomatic mission of Pres. Biden wasn't purposeful, to them.
It's all collateral damage to the corporate bottom line.
Yes, being correct instead of first would be better for the public good. And to achieve that goal, it would help to have more reporters, producers, editors, stringers, etc. But those all cost money.
Since there are no standards in the U.S. for what's allowed to call itself news, truth isn't just the first casualty in war.
It's the primary casualty on the way to profit, at least for media execs.
Again, there are plenty of great people in media who do have integrity, and many of them do work for corporate outlets.
But from your comments, I get the idea you believe their bias is ideological.
For the most part, it's not. The bias of the execs, and the atmosphere they set up within the corporations they run, is to the bottom line. Chaos drives profit in media. So, to them, it's good.
Clarity in news media drives attention metrics - and therefore profit - down.
So to them, it's bad.
As the old axiom goes, it's not personal. It's business.
So... uh... do you work for Deadline White House? That's cool.
Nope. I'm the Executive Producer for The Randi Rhodes Show. I've worked professionally in media for about 30 years, most of it as a producer. I will often have 2-3 sources going at the same time - So think CNN, MSNBC, NBC NOW, BBC, AJE, etc. - while I'm editing audio &/or video, like I'm doing right now.
I read somewhere in the neighborhood of about 30-70 news stories a day, and end up processing for use about 20-35 audio & video pieces.
And I know a substantial number of good folks in media, like Brian.
So… I know a few things that are going on. ;-)
Back to work, for me.
Again, thank you.
Thank you for validating, I thought the exact same thing about that significant line from President Biden’s remarks yesterday. Considering 9/11 as pivotal moment and all that’s occurred since makes that statement actually profound. Albeit, time will tell if our actions reflect that we’ve learned those lessons, obviously and especially regarding this particular humanitarian crisis but I was proud and grateful to hear him say it.
Same! It was an important, moving moment.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Do you think Biden's popularity in Isreal will lend him leverage with Bibi? I think if Biden navigates this war well and helps restore some semblance of peace that is moderately acceptable to both parties, his Presidency will have done more for America and the world than certainly any president in my lifetime (I got here in the Clinton years).
I wonder if the war and appreciation for Bidens response and the disdain for House Republicans making fools of themselves may both be culturally ubiqutous moments. It'll be interesting to see how Republicans talk about this after the dust settles, etc. I wonder how much this has done to sway independents for 2024.
I guess I'd say this: If the world avoids a big, spreading regional war, and it's at least in part because of how Biden worked the angles available to him, it will make a really striking contrast with the GOP.
SEPARATELY, I have a very hard time getting into Netanyahu's head because a) I don't know Israeli politics super well, b) he's incredibly cynical, but c) his goals aren't exactly clear to me. Right now my hunch is that he's just trying to hang on for dear life, and Biden is working against Bibi's selfish interests—if Israel embraces a more methodical response, he could easily get swallowed up in recriminations for this intelligence failure; but he might think that if he remains on war-footing, strategic aims be damned, the public will rally to him.
One of the things I found most deft about Biden's comments yesterday is that he seemed to be wanting to prevent Israeli public opinion from swinging in the pro-war; pro-Netanyahu direction, with some deep honesty (in diplomacy-adjusted terms) about America's recent failures. I don't know if it'll *work* but, I do think it's maybe the best possible path off the road to chaos.
The biggest problem for Biden in general is that he's simply presiding over a difficult time with lots of disasters all around the world. He took office in Covid, the worst catastrophe in recent history. He presided over the largest land war in Europe since WWII. There's been huge catastrophes. This is all in addition to having a fascist fifth column actively trying to make governance impossible. And that was all true before this israel issue. Biden's in an impossible position. He has IMO been very successful, particularly in foreign policy, but the reality is that conditions are simply going to be rough when these things are happening and there's no good tradeoffs.
He could've left Ukraine to the wolves. He would have been eviscerated for that. He could've appeased pro-palestine agitators by some (probably useless) anti-israel posturing but that would have killed his support in other sectors. He can send humanitarian aid but now he's selling out the american people for his foreign projects. The USA can massively overperform every economy in the world and also everyone's expectations, and still the economy won't be good enough to make people happy because plagues and wars tend to cause serious problems for the world.
So he's threading needles. That's what I see here in Israel. He goes in, he puts his own life on the line, he relies on his personally reassuring and empathetic personality to show that he cares, even as he's preaching restraint and saying openly that an invasion of Gaza would be 'big mistake.' It's just a really hard path to navigate and I think he's doing well but man do I not want to be him right now.
And sure, I agree with what you say, that progressives shouldn't be afraid to be critical of him. But the reality is that its simply not a time in
Hope you finish that thought Corny! Want you to know that I strongly agree with all of this, up to (I think) the last half sentence. But it's because he's tackled an impossible, thankless job well that I want him and Democrats to be zealous in their politics, act as though Republicans deserve contempt (and to lose) for the harm they've done to the country; not to muddy those waters with ineffectual bids to capture the center by using the word "bipartisan" all the time, and not to treat people who air these kinds of concerns like heretics for speaking up.
...Simply not a time in the world where someone can achieve widespread popular support!
There! Don't know what's wrong with me! And yes, democrats have a platform that is both **effective** and **popular**. We cannot be timid!
As discussed yesterday, I hope Jeffries is already working on that deal over the Speaker. The question is: What should Dems demand? I would keep it simple, the idea being only to avoid the worst of what the MAGA faction would do. I think that's all a non-MAGA Republican (Ken Buck?) would agree to anyway, and it would still be enough to split their caucus in a productive way. My list:
-- Support for Ukraine
-- Shut down Jordan's hearings (Hunter, pre-impeachment, etc.)
-- No budget shutdown (per Spence in Austin)
What else is a deal-killer?
I would also throw in legislation permanently ending the idea of a "government shutdown" - which only exists because of Carter-era interpretations of budgetary law AND permanently nixing the debt ceiling but that's probably too much.
Think you're both dancing around the same idea, which Jeffries has already implicitly embraced. When he insists on a fast-track for bills that have bipartisan support, what he means (among other things) is bills to fund the government, so Republicans can't take hostages. So they're already there.
Journalists and pollsters continue to frame the issue as whether constituents prefer their representative to stand on principle or compromise to get thing done (ie: Economist/YouGov poll showed that more rank-and-file Republicans say they want their representatives to stand on principle “no matter what”). I find this question profoundly misleading. It both implies their to be some moral high ground in crediting vague "principles" are behind the Republicans actions when there is none apparent. It also willfully ignores the fundamental job of representatives in a democracy must, of necessity, compromise with representatives of a diverse country to accomplish anything of shared value. The question might better be do you prefer your representative work to achieve what is possible or simply obstruct the government from accomplishing anything at all costs.
Immigration reform is a prime example. Republicans and Democrats alike agree it is a key issue and run on it, but action remains impossible without compromise. This is not standing on principle, this is fundraising on dysfunction.
Yes, Republicans in particular have chosen not to compromise on the border IN ORDER to preserve a sense of chaos and disorder that they think helps them win elections. But with them it's not always pure cynicism. Cowardice is also at work! I think of Grover Norquist creating a whole machinery designed to destroy any Republican who votes for a tax increase of any kind. There are more than a few Republicans who, much as they hate taxes, understand that sometimes circumstances might call for taxes! But they won't ever vote for them because the money spigot will open for primary challengers, and they fear they'll lose their jobs.
NEW FROM EMMER — SCALISE AND EMMER OPPOSED TO TEMPORARY SPEAKER
“As I have made very clear over the last few days, we should never allow a Democrat-backed coalition government. Ever. The only coalition we should be looking to build is a Republican coalition uniting all of our conference.”
I think you are making something out of nothing with the office evictions. Seems like a move out of Pelosi's playbook that Maddow viewers would celebrate.
Well, I'd say (and acknowledged) that it's a small thing in the scheme of things, but where I disagree is that it's not really about the public or which subset of the public is watching. It's about expectations setting for both the public and the Republican Party: Are Democrats people who turn the other cheek at every petty slight, or will they demand to be treated with dignity and respect. Too often they just ignore these things, think maybe the public will appreciate their stoicism. But I think they get the mass psychology wrong! People view it as cowardice. They're pushovers. This train left the station long ago, but I used to try to convince Dems that they shouldn't take the Republican habit of calling them "the Democrat Party" lying down. If Republicans can be casually disdainful toward you, and you just pretend it isn't happening, you don't look "adult" you look "scared."
(Obviously the answer is not "demand an apology"—the apology won't come, and you will look weak again. My personal preference, for my personal amusement, would be for Dems to call them the Go-PEE, but will admit that's probably a bad idea."
I think Jamie Raskin's Banana Republicans works pretty well...
I dig it! Get 'em all saying it until Republicans learn how to say "Democratic."
"A move out of Pelosi's playbook"
Except she didn;t do this. When she replaced Denny Hastert she gave him more Capitol office space than she got from McCarthy.
I'm struck by how infrequently the implications of the absence of a Speaker are spelled out. A Speaker is necessary to move ANY legislation, and given any Republican majority, let alone THIS Republican majority, the possibility of moving legislation addressing the many problems we face are slim. But keeping the lights on in government is something they, and only they, can do.
Yet the crazy minority that the rest of the party seems to feel the need to appease has no apparent interest in doing so. We have what, four more weeks of funding? Assuming that a Speaker is chosen by then, will they fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year or just set up a new battle for (insert small, arbitrary number of weeks here)? Lather, rinse, repeat?
My point is that the country cannot withstand 15 months of legislative immobilty and fiscal brinkmanship until the new Congress sworn in on January 6,2025. To say that the solution is to vote them out next year downplays the immediacy of the problem. It's like sending snail mail to the fire department while our house is ablaze instead of calling 911. Sure, voting them out is part of the long term solution but that doesn't solve the current problem which is that we have a nonfunctional (not "merely" dysfunctional) legislative branch.
Aloha! Loved listening to Positively Dreadful and reading Big Tent.
Do you think that Biden's age and/or relative centrism lead to further calls from Democrats for either a new candidate or running mate?
I wonder if his age might lead to speculation that he can't handle the delicate diplomatic balancing act, not just between the regional governments, but also between factions of the Democratic party that either support or oppose Netanyahu's leadership.
Dshimizu, Brian wrote about this earlier this week (see the Oct 16) post. I disagreed with him mildly in the comments ;-)
Didn't see it. Mahalo!
I love mild disagreement! My favorite kind.
I actually think Biden is at his most acute and most spirited in diplomatic environments, and (if things don't go haywire) he could end up strengthening his position by running point on the Israel-Hamas war.
My hunch is that nothing other than a big health issue or a major governing failure will get the "new candidate/VP" conversation going. The Dems who worry most about Biden also feel like they can't just spring a sudden concern about age on him and their constituents out of nowhere, and also feel they have no other basis for calling for new leadership.
FWIW, I am very torn over whether a credible primary challenge would be a good idea or bad idea on net, and we'll likely never know unless something bad happens in the next year and it becomes clear in hindsight that someone should've stepped up when they could.
Hey Brian, How do you think Democrats should address/combat the litany of conspiracy griping the nation in the upcoming election. Everything from anti-vax to anti-Semitism seems like it is going to be more upfront and in our face with Trump and RFK Jr. having funded campaigns. I worry too many people will just throw up their hands in confusion.
It is a very hard problem, but it's why I keep trying to drive home the point that they should root their campaign more firmly in the politics of truth, run against the Republican culture of lying. If they think "let the conspiracy theorists and charlatans talk about vaccines and globalists, and we'll talk about health insurance" then the zone of discourse will be flooded with unrebutted lies. If they think "we believe most Americans have become sick of the lying" they can create a cost FOR lies instead of us bearing the cost OF lies.
I want to thank you for this work. I want to let you know that I would subscribe, but I live on social security & limited savings & can't afford it. I value your insights, nonetheless.
The speaker pro tem thing is super interesting. I could see it spiraling into having broader historical implications, or just being a one-off hiccup.
What are some policies that democrats should demand if they end up having to give their votes to a unity speaker?
Now that the GOP idea of a temporary speaker has collpased with them showing no signs of consolidating behind Jordan or anyone else, I have to ask.
In the West Wing fantasy world, the Democrats would make a bunch of concessions to 5 to 10 Biden district Rs to ge them to switch parties and electe Jeffries. In reality, the Don Bacons of the world would rather subject their wifes to continuous MAGA death threats than leave their party behind.
I guess my question is... is their a point where fantasy becomes reality? If this drags out with the GOP electing no one to the point where the government shuts down, etc.
Brian, Peter Navarro was recently convicted for ignoring a Congressional subpoena. Why hasn't Jim Jordan been charged with committing the same crime? I've been baffled by this question and have seen the media allude to it but never really address it. He committed a crime; they should be charging him! Not holding votes to potentially give him more power!!
By the way, I have been a fan of your work for a long time and am really enjoying Off Message. Thanks!
Hi Lori! I think the main issue is that the House voted to hold Navarro in criminal contempt, and then referred the contempt citation to DOJ. They likely did NOT do this to Jordan a) for basic long-term House functionality purposes—they have a reasonable interest in not turning the House into a place where the majority routinely subpoenas the minority and then tries to get members arrested; and b) because members of Congress have strong constitutional protection against criminal exposure for actions they take in their capacities as senators and representatives. Don't want to bring a case like that and then lose.
Also: Thanks Lori! Glad you're sticking with me. I hope you'll try to convince others to join.