• Betrifft

    Biden-Ära II


    Auf ein Neues! Wir kommen von da:

    Siehe auch: Biden-Ära I

    VerfasserGoldammer (428405)  22 Jan. 21, 15:48
    Also, let's start with her.
    Erste Ansprache der (aktuellen) Präsidentengattin:

    #1VerfasserGraceFromAbove (1267740) 23 Jan. 21, 02:23


    A President Can Govern in Poetry
    To succeed, Biden will need hope and history to rhyme. ...
    One line you didn’t hear in Joe Biden’s big-hearted Inaugural Address was one of his favorite bits of Irish verse — a yearning for the rarest of convergences, when “hope and history rhyme,” by the Irish Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney. ...
    Biden is known for his empathy ... But he also has something that leaders from Nelson Mandela to Abraham Lincoln had — a belief in the power of why not? That’s the province of poets, not policy wonks.
    Heaney was thinking of Mandela, newly released from prison as apartheid crumbled in South Africa, and the centuries-old hatreds clinging to Northern Ireland, when he wrote “The Cure at Troy,” and the stanza oft [...] quoted by Biden:

    History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave.

    But then, once in a lifetime

    The longed-for tidal wave

    Of justice can rise up,

    And hope and history rhyme.

    I looked and looked for links to recorded video (not live feeds) of the entire inauguration concert and (amazing!) fireworks display, which included a communal reading of the Heaney poem, but came up mostly empty. Maybe some of you will have a better tip.


    #2Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 23 Jan. 21, 10:39

    Trump wurde - meiner Ansicht nach zu Recht - dafür kritisiert, dass ihm das Prinzip "pacta sunt servanda" nicht allzu wichtig war. Interessant wird es jetzt, wie Biden mit Verträgen umgeht, die von der Trump-Administration im Namen der Vereinigten Staaten unterzeichnet wurden.

    Aktuell wird das Abkommen mit den Taliban diskutiert, in dem sich die USA verpflichtet haben, ihre Soldaten bis zur Jahresmitte 2021 (oder so ähnlich, ich habe nicht nachgesehen) komplett aus Afghanistan abzuziehen. Die Bidenregierung will, wie ich im Radio gehört habe, jetzt erstmal prüfen lassen, ob die Taliban ihre Verpflichtungen aus dem Abkommen einhalten. Da wird man vermutlich etwas finden, was man den Taliban vorwerfen kann. Ich finde aber, dass nur schwerwiegende Verstöße der Taliban eine weitere Stationierung amerikanischer Truppen in Afghanistan rechtfertigen könnten. Damit treffe ich keine Aussage zu der Frage, ob ausländische Truppenpräsenz in Afghanistan überhaupt sinnvoll ist. Für eine solche Abwägung kenne ich mich zu wenig aus.

    Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass es einige Verträge gibt, die Biden gerne rückgängig machen würde, aber aus rechlichen Gründen nicht kann, vielleicht auch für die Umwelt relevante Verträge zum Beispiel zu Bohrlizenzen etc.

    #3Verfasserharambee (91833) 24 Jan. 21, 09:11

    harambee, as I see it, the problem in Afghanistan is that the 'talks' for peace had consisted of almost nothing but concessions to the Taliban, including releasing hundreds or thousands of violent terrorist prisoners for nothing in return; ceding vast swaths of territory; giving up all societal and educational advances made by women and girls; and willfully endangering Afghan politicians, civil servants, and soldiers, and not least, the residents of Kabul, who have all been subjected to increasing bombs and violent attacks, in a situation that looks more and more like abject capitulation, which is not remotely the same as 'peace.'

    If the US and allied forces had wanted to weaken themselves and the causes of human rights and democracy as much as possible before declaring 'peace,' i.e., defeat, there was surely hardly any more craven way to do it.

    Of course Trump himself failed to honor any number of treaties or international agreements, from the Iran deal to the Paris climate accords to participation in NATO and the W.H.O.

    But the Afghan 'peace' 'deal' did include some claims of cooperation by the Taliban, which they almost certainly have not carried out. It seems only prudent to examine their 'compliance' before proceeding any further down a shameful, ignominious path. And it seems reasonable to consider, again, whether past treaties were in fact good or bad for the parties involved, and the world at large, based on some principles higher than mere self-interest.

    It seems highly unlikely that the US can get out of this 20-year debacle without deep, serious losses, like Russia and Britain before them. But if the Biden team can do anything at all to limit the lasting damage, surely they should at least be allowed to try.

    On a totally different, more prosaic front ...

    This article about the role that advertising may have played in the narrow Democratic win in Georgia was surprising and dismaying to me. I wish we didn't have to think that entire elections might turn on such cynical calculations. /-: But nevertheless, if this one did, I'm glad it at least turned out right in the end.


    How Alvin the Beagle Helped Usher In a Democratic Senate
    Senator Raphael Warnock was sworn in this week as Georgia’s first Black senator, and he arrived with a canny canine assist. ...
    The dog had a lot of work to do.
    He was co-starring in a political ad that had to showcase the candidate’s good-natured warmth. But the ad also needed to deflect an onslaught of racialized attacks without engaging them directly, and to convey to white voters in Georgia that the Black pastor who led Ebenezer Baptist Church could represent them, too.
    Of course, Alvin the beagle couldn’t have known any of that when he went for a walk with the Rev. Raphael Warnock last fall as a film crew captured their time together in a neighborhood outside Atlanta.
    Tugging a puffer-vest-clad Mr. Warnock for an idealized suburban stroll — bright sunshine, picket fencing, an American flag — Alvin would appear in several of Mr. Warnock’s commercials pushing back against his Republican opponent in the recent Georgia Senate runoffs.
    In perhaps the best known spot, Mr. Warnock, a Democrat, deposits a plastic baggie of Alvin’s droppings in the trash, likening it to his rival’s increasingly caustic ads. The beagle barks in agreement, and as Mr. Warnock declares that “we” — he and Alvin — approve of the message, the dog takes a healthy lick of his goatee. ...
    While there is no singular factor responsible for victories this narrow — Mr. Warnock won by less than 100,000 votes out of roughly 4.5 million and the other new Democratic senator, Jon Ossoff, won by even less — there is bipartisan agreement that the beagle played an outsized role in cutting through the clutter in two contests that broke every Senate spending record.
    “The puppy ad got people talking,” said Brian C. Robinson, a Georgia-based Republican strategist. “It made it harder to caricature him because they humanized him.”
    By the end of the campaign, Warnock aides saw dog references popping up in their internal polling, supporters hoisting up their own puppies at campaign rallies in solidarity and beagle-themed homemade signs staked into front yards. They even started selling “Puppies 4 Warnock” merchandise.
    All of which would probably come as a surprise to Alvin. After all, he wasn’t even Mr. Warnock’s dog. ...
    There has been some discussion that the beagle — the kind of breed “we psychologically associate with white people,” as Dr. Jefferson put it — was another subtle yet intentional effort to explode racial stereotypes. Mr. Magnus said the reality was more mundane: “The dog needed to be very cute, somewhat relatable and he needed to be able to hold the dog.”
    A shot of Alvin in Mr. Warnock’s arms would be the punchline.
    “Get ready Georgia, the negative attacks are coming,” the candidate said, predicting smears about everything from eating pizza with a fork-and-knife to hating puppies.
    “And by the way, I love puppies,” he added, cradling Alvin.
    It was Mr. Warnock’s opening ad of the runoffs, and it immediately went viral online.
    Mr. Warnock is not the first candidate to proclaim a love of puppies in a pre-emptive act of political self-defense. Back in 2006, another Black candidate running for Senate in Maryland, Michael Steele, a Republican, featured an ad of his own saying, essentially, the exact same thing. ...
    There is a rough rule of thumb for Georgia Democrats to win: they need 30 percent of the electorate to be Black and to carry about 30 percent of the white vote.
    “If you’re trying to make history in the South, and you’re trying to elect an African-American pastor in an election which you know you’re going to need white voters, then you need to do everything you can with your ad strategy to make white voters comfortable,” said Chip Lake, a Republican strategist in Georgia ...
    They put the ad out right before Thanksgiving, reserving, among other programs, the annual National Dog Show.
    Online, the beagle spot surged to three million views within hours, and five million in a day. ...
    When the campaign commissioned its next poll after that ad, it included an open-ended question to gauge what voters thought about Mr. Warnock. Mike Bocian, the pollster, made a word cloud of the responses and could hardly believe the results.
    “I saw ‘puppy’ and I saw ‘dog’ and I saw ‘poop,’” he said. “This is crazy.”
    In the middle of the two most expensive Senate races in American history, Alvin had broken through.
    The race remained knotted in internal polls until the end. But Mr. Bocian couldn’t help note that Mr. Warnock had taken a two-point lead after being tied in their previous survey. “You can never be sure of causality,” his voice trailed off.
    On Jan. 5, Mr. Warnock won by exactly two percentage points.


    #4Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 24 Jan. 21, 09:55

    If the US and allied forces had wanted to weaken themselves and the causes of human rights and democracy as much as possible before declaring 'peace,' i.e., defeat, there was surely hardly any more craven way to do it.

    I would be very interested in hearing what a win in Afghanistan would look like. Preferably defined in a single sentence, such as "We will have won the war in Afghanistan when ...". Alternatively or additionally, I am also highly interested in a specification of less craven ways to go about declaring peace/defeat.

    And no, these are not rhetorical questions. I am genuinely interested in well-reasoned proposals.

    #5VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Jan. 21, 10:07
    Norbert, unsurprisingly, I don't think a win is still possible.

    But I do think that we shouldn't go down without a fight, particularly on behalf of the government in Kabul, and the women, and the girls.

    Can you in turn say what brutalities you would accept in return for 'peace'? Or, alternatively, what human rights you would be willing to see US soldiers try to defend even in retreat, as a losing cause?
    #6Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 24 Jan. 21, 10:14

    Falls noch Interesse an Trump besteht, hab ich mal im QZ einen Faden eröffnet.

    Siehe auch: Trump - was jetzt noch kommen mag?

    #7VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  24 Jan. 21, 10:15

    But I do think that we shouldn't go down without a fight,

    What kind of fight do you envision? And to what end? We've been fighting there for 20 years now. Surely that was enough time to try every strategy imaginable. In my thinking a clear win would entail carnage commensurate with WW2. Use all our MOABs and some nukes, bomb and burn the country to the ground, then occupy it for the next fifty years. Are we up for that? I think not. Oh, I almost forgot. Minor complication: To my knowledge the Taliban are controlled from, supplied by, and enjoy safe haven in, Pakistan, another country with nuclear weapons.

    Can you in turn say what brutalities you would accept in return for 'peace'?


    It is not a question of acceptance per se. The inconvenient truth is that there are only shitty ways of extracting from defeat. We high-tailed it out of Vietnam after Vietnamizing the war when we finally admitted to ourselves that that wasn't a winnable conflict. The scale of human rights violations that ensued was massive. I foresee much the same scenario for Afghanistan (where incidentally, we seem to follow the same playbook by Afghanizing the war effort; we are already down to a token presence), no matter whether we leave now or ten years from now.

    #8VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  24 Jan. 21, 10:34

    Euer Thema ist natürlich auch interessant, aber mir ging es um die allgemeinere Frage, inwiefern es dem Ansehen der USA schaden könnte, wenn die Bidenregierung jetzt Gründe oder Ausreden sucht, um letztendlich von Trump unterzeichnete Verträge nicht einzuhalten. Natürlich gibt es auch auf die Frage keine einfache Antwort.

    #9Verfasserharambee (91833) 24 Jan. 21, 10:47
    As I said: when Trump basically spat on several previous treaties, there seems little reason to expect that a US government trying to return to the rule of law and the international claims of human rights would give any credence to those aberrant decisions, which themselves undermined previous treaties.
    #10Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  24 Jan. 21, 10:53

    Die wichtigste Regel ist, wie du schon sagtest, "Pacta sunt servanda". Trump hat da schon genug Schaden angerichtet, und das ist wahrscheinlich ein sehr langfristig wirkender Schaden. Es wäre Wahnwitz, wenn Biden auf der Schiene weitermachen wollte.

    Was andere Dinge wie z.B. die Ölkonzessionen angeht, da war die Nachfrage so gering, dass meines Wissens z.B. eine staatliche Gesellschaft des Staates Alaska die meisten dortigen zum Mindestpreis von $25/acre aufgekauft hat. Man kann auch Umweltauflagen (wieder-)einführen, die die Aktivierung solche Konzessionen äusserst unattraktiv machen.

    #11VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Jan. 21, 10:56

    #10: In der Konsequenz heißt das aber trotzdem, dass man sich auf Verträge und Abkommen mit den USA besser nicht verlassen sollte. Ganz neu ist das sicher nicht, aber richtig toll finde ich das auch dann nicht, wenn mich die Abkommen stören.

    #12Verfasserharambee (91833)  24 Jan. 21, 10:56
    I actually think that other democratic nations are probably well able to discern which treaties are in accord with international law and human-rights standards, and which are not.

    Re #8: Well, that's cheering, not. /-:

    I'm sorry, I don't have anything better to suggest. But I do think that the human costs of total retreat -- again, particularly to women and girls -- should at least be weighed and recorded. For posterity, if nothing else.
    #13Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 24 Jan. 21, 11:03

    We should carefully weigh and record our objectives before getting involved in any military action. I hope that Biden takes this to heart, but I am not so sure. The way we eventually got Osama bin Laden seems to indicate that a full-fledged war in Afghanistan was unnecessary to achieve our objective of bringing to justice the masterminds behind 9/11.

    #14VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Jan. 21, 11:09
    Harambee, ich finde aber deine Prämisse, dass Biden „Kleinkram“ der Taliban nutzen wird, um aus dem Vertrag herauszukommen, auch etwas früh. Ich vermute auf Seiten der Taliban auch nicht die große Vertragstreue, so dass es nicht unwahrscheinlich ist, dass wichtige Teile des Abkommens nicht eingehalten werden/wurden. Und Biden darf und sollte das prüfen, da stimme ich hm—us zu.

    #15VerfasserQual der Wal (877524) 24 Jan. 21, 11:22

    Und Biden darf und sollte das prüfen, da stimme ich hm—us zu.

    Ja natürlich! Ich schließe auch nicht aus, dass ich zustimme, wenn man zum Ergebnis kommt, dass die Taliban ihre Verpflichtungen nicht eingehalten haben. Mich beunruhigen allerdings zwei Dinge:

    1. Es wird sehr schwierig sein, ein objektives Urteil zu fällen. Die Taliban haben laut https://www.n-tv.de/politik/USA-wollen-Abkomm... zugesagt, ihre Verbindungen zu terroristischen Gruppen zu beenden, die Gewalt in Afghanistan zu reduzieren und sich auf ernsthafte Friedensverhandlungen mit der afghanischen Regierung einzulassen. Das ist alles windelweich und Auslegungssache.
    2. Wenn es Streitigkeiten gibt, ob die Verpflichtungen aus einem solchen Vertrag erfüllt werden, würde ich mir eine unabhängige Instanz wünschen, die darüber entscheidet. Im Idealfall würde eine solche Instanz bereits bei Vertragsschluss festgelegt. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, wer hier eine Schiedsrichterrolle einnehmen könnte, die von beiden Seiten anerkannt wird, aber es stört mich, wenn eine Vertragspartei nach eigenem Gutdünken feststellen kann, dass die andere Seite die Verpflichtungen nicht erfüllt hat.

    Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das nötig ist, aber zur Sicherheit sei doch gesagt, dass ich keineswegs ein Fan der Taliban bin.

    #16Verfasserharambee (91833)  24 Jan. 21, 12:18

    Mich beunruhigt der Gedanke, dass wir in vier Jahren immer noch diskutieren werden, wie sich die USA aus Afghanistan lösen könnten. Ich halte das sogar für ziemlich wahrscheinlich, denn die Federführung scheint momentan beim jungen Sicherheitsberater Jake Sullivan zu liegen, der sich unter Frau Clinton seine Sporen verdient hat. Dass verheißt nichts Gutes.

    #17VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Jan. 21, 12:42

    beim jungen Sicherheitsberater Jake Sullivan

    Der gute Mensch ist 44, also ca 2 Jahre jünger als Obama als er Präsident wurde :)

    (Ansonsten stimme ich dir zu in Sachen Afghanistan)

    #18VerfasserDixie (426973)  24 Jan. 21, 12:59

    (OT: Dazu fällt mir ein, dass ich damals nach Tony Blairs Wahl einen Kommentar gelesen habe, der sinngemäß ging: Man weiß, dass man alt wird, wenn man nicht sagt 'Der neue PM ist 43' sondern 'Der neue PM ist erst 43' :-)

    #19VerfasserGibson (418762) 24 Jan. 21, 19:15

    Age isn't the only factor when it comes to experience, but it is an important one. For all his positive qualities, one issue with Obama was his relative immaturity as a politician, which showed especially in his foreign policy. While Mr. Sullivan has a certain breadth of experience, having traveled with Ms. Clinton to something like one hundred countries around the world, I am afraid he might be lacking the depth I would prefer to see in a national security adviser. For the most part, he appears to have cut his teeth under Ms. Clinton, whom I considered a warmonger during her tenure as Secretary of State.

    #20VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  24 Jan. 21, 20:31
    I'm inclined to agree about Sullivan's age and inexperience, but surely 'warmonger' is over the top. It seems to me that Hillary Clinton was probably damned if she did and if she didn't; if she hadn't supported strong military postures when it seemed advisable, she would likely have been criticized for being too weak and feminine, the pushover that US enemies in patriarchal regimes hoped for.

    In any case, wasn't Biden himself on the opposite side of those internal discussions within the Obama administration? He seems genuinely likely to resist interventionist inclinations, especially when he needs so much funding freed up for domestic use. And he's well aware of the need to reestablish the concept of the trustworthiness of treaties and agreements, so even the admittedly deeply flawed deal with the Taliban ('windelweich und Auslegungssache' is a depressingly good description) might suit his purpose, if, like some of you, he just feels it's high time to get out of Afghanistan on any terms, however unfavorable.

    What might suit both US factions would be, as we pull out, a corresponding increase in peacekeeping troops and special forces in Afghanistan from other countries. I'm just not sure there's any appetite for that among the population at large in, say, the UK or the EU, even though the leaders could surely see the need for it. If the territory had been securely held in the first place, it might be possible even to speak of peacekeeping, but now that so much of it has been lost again, it's probably not a job that any first-world country's military would welcome.

    The other possible option for just adjusting the status quo in the right direction, or resisting it slipping further in the wrong direction, might be an increase in US support for 'soft power': communications, education, health care, etc., via agencies like USAID and the state department.

    But if none of that works, I'm afraid the whole country is just going to go up in flames, and the remaining enlightened, educated, or just younger Afghans will still be forced to emigrate to make a life for themselves, like the brain drains of Iranis, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Saudis, Iraqis, Syrians, Turks, etc., before them. I don't think an increase in the flow of refugees is what any Western country wants, but it's hard to see any alternative if some semblance of peace with some semblance of human rights can't be kept, and hard to see how that can be done without some remaining occupying forces.

    Alternatively, if all foreign forces pull out and the country returns to just being a failed state, again, there's the same problem of exporting terrorism, again.

    I don't know the answer, and I don't envy anyone faced with making those decisions, young or old.
    #21Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 25 Jan. 21, 00:21

    but surely 'warmonger' is over the top

    I don't think so. We probably have different personal scales. See whether you agree on these: John McCain was a warmonger. Lindsey Graham is a warmonger. I don't care one iota why someone is a warmonger. I do not like warmongering, period.

    I see much arrogance and some racism on the part of Western countries when we think we need to, and are capable of, "fixing" various countries around the world by "bringing them democracy". A modern version of the "White man's burden" school of thought, perhaps. Recent history demonstrates that no such capability exists. Look at Somalia and Libya for two worked examples. In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that all our meddling has made the situation in many places worse.

    #22VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  25 Jan. 21, 00:37
    Maybe the word some of us use is just 'hawk.' I could certainly agree that there are people in both parties who are generally more hawkish, and others in both parties -- namely, Trump, as well as Biden, no? -- who are generally more dovish, less inclined to support military intervention. (*edit* Well, I take that back about Trump; he used to sound as if he opposed unnecessary wars, but then look at how he encouraged the Saudis in Yemen. He seems happy to let other people kill each other.)

    I don't feel able to make any sweeping statement that using military force is always bad or always good. In retrospect, WW2 surely had to be fought; Vietnam, say, or the Falklands war, surely didn't. But between those conflicts on the ends of the spectrum, there's a lot of gray area in the middle, in some of which earlier intervention might have been better. As in, say, Bosnia, which may have shaped Mrs. Clinton's views, even in some contrast to her husband's. As for Africa, a lot of vicious killing has happened, as in Rwanda, when the richer northern hemisphere has washed its hands and looked away.

    To me it just always seems pendulum-like -- governments, and people, tend to go in one direction until it's clear they've gone too far, and then they tend to go too far in the opposite direction. I do think this administration, like Obama's, will try to be measured and seek a middle ground, but they too may make mistakes, Iike anyone.
    #23Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  25 Jan. 21, 01:43

    To avoid misunderstandings: I am not a pacifist. I do see a legitimate role for the military, nukes and all. If I had my druthers, it would be used for a strong defense in a peace-keeping capacity: If any country attacks the United States, we will flatten it to the ground, by use of overwhelming force. Otherwise, we should adhere to a non-interventionist stance. The US had no business being in Bosnia. Neither we nor any of our NATO allies had been attacked. No treaty party had invoked article 5.

    With that approach we could easily cut our defense budget to the NATO target of 2% of GDP and use the money saved for more constructive endeavors, both inside and outside the United States. As a realist, I am under no illusions that this could happen anytime soon. The military-industrial complex is very strong and influential. In the meantime, I'll do my little part by not voting for warmongers like McCain and Clinton.

    #24VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 25 Jan. 21, 02:20

    Auch ein windelweicher Vertrag hat noch einen Gegenstand. Und wenn man rauskommen will, sollte man halt genau hinschauen, wo ein nützlicher Paragraph zu finden ist.

    Bezüglich Afghanistan: Da ist zuviel Porzellan zerschlagen. Das braucht eine Generation für eine Machtbalance, die erlaubt, das Land überhaupt wieder aufzubauen, und dann noch ein paar Generationen, um gesellschaftlich an unsere heutigen Normen anzuschliessen. Und das unabhängig davon, ob westliche Militärpräsenz bleibt oder nicht. Wobei die Machtbalance sehr davon abhängen wird, wie der Truppenabzug gestaltet wird.

    #25VerfasserAGB (236120) 25 Jan. 21, 08:17

    I apologize for having taken up so much space with hypotheticals about war and peace, at a length beginning to evoke War and Peace. It was just interesting at the time, and nothing much else seemed to be happening ...

    On a more prosaic level, the immediate question of the filibuster seems to have been shelved once again. McConnell clearly thinks he has a couple of moderate Democratic votes for preserving it in Manchin and Sinema, and he may be right, though I devoutly hope those Democrats are at least playing hard to get and demanding something tangible and immediate in return. (17 votes to convict in the impeachment trial? McConnell, if he isn't ailing, could surely get those votes if anyone could.)

    I wonder if he hasn't also just been employing some canny gamesmanship, perhaps even seeking to irritate the Democratic leadership into prematurely blowing up the filibuster, no doubt with the hope of retaking the chamber in the next election and then blowing up the Democrats.

    To me it would make more sense to simply narrow the rules for when, under what circumstances, the 60-vote margin can be required. Perhaps they could agree on two categories of voting -- a rare one for a few very important matters, like Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments, or major new legislative programs, that would still need the 60-vote margin; vs. a normal one for all others, such as normal bills and amendments, and normal nominations and confirmations to lower judicial and administrative posts, all of which just need to be debated and receive an up-or-down vote shortly after they are presented.

    The other internal rule I'm still unclear about is when, and why, a single senator can effectively completely block a piece of legislation from coming to a vote. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see why that ever needs to happen -- and particularly not when there are such loony, obstreperous senators as Cruz and Hawley, whom I would very much like to see sanctioned or even dismissed by their peers, not that I expect it to happen.


    War Over Filibuster, a Famed Stalling Tactic, Stops the Senate From the Start
    Before the Senate can get down to business, Senator Mitch McConnell wants Democrats to promise not to scrap the procedural weapon that can grind the chamber to a halt. Democrats are balking.


    McConnell Relents in First Filibuster Skirmish, but the War Rages On
    Senator Mitch McConnell dropped his demand that Democrats promise to preserve the procedural weapon that can grind the Senate to a halt, but with President Biden’s agenda in the balance, the fight is not over. ...
    ... late Monday, as the stalemate persisted, Mr. McConnell found a way out by pointing to statements by two centrist Democrats, Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, that said they opposed getting rid of the procedural tool — a position they had held for months — as enough of a guarantee to move forward without a formal promise from Mr. Schumer.
    “With these assurances, I look forward to moving ahead with a power-sharing agreement modeled on that precedent,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement.

    #26Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 26 Jan. 21, 09:51

    Zieht Euch warm an, Mädels. Jetzt hat es ein Ende, daß menstruierende Personen Sportwettbewerbe gewinnen. Auch in den Umkleidekabinen wird es enger werden:


    Biden’s trans rights agenda is bad news for women and girls

    'Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.'

    Let’s be clear about what this means in reality: boys who identify as girls could soon be able to use girls' locker rooms, even if girls using those facilities feel uncomfortable about that. And in school sports, boys who identify as girls could soon be competing alongside girls, despite often having physical advantages, such as being stronger or taller than their peers.

    This isn't simply my interpretation of Biden's order. The order cites a Supreme Court ruling – Bostock v Clayton County – to argue that sex discrimination laws covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Within 100 days, plans will need to be drawn up to ensure that boys who identify as girls are not discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity.

    #27Verfasserkehd (353378) 26 Jan. 21, 12:10

    Das ist ein Trauerspiel, aber nur das logische Ende der ganzen Gender-Verirrung. Demnächst gibt es keinen Damentag in der Sauna mehr, da darf jeder Zutritt bekommen, wer sich als Frau fühlt. Gefühle können schwanken und niemand kann anderen Leuten Gefühle ausreden, also muss man diese Männer gewähren lassen sonst macht man sich noch strafbar.

    Da braucht man bei einer Olympiade auch keine Hormontherapie mehr, um wie eine Frau auszusehen, einfach das Gefühl genügt? Einmal Weltmeisterin zu sein, das Gefühl möchten doch bestimmt manche Männer erleben.

    Ich glaube, Biden verliert damit mehr Wähler als er gewinnen kann.

    #28VerfasserPuppengesicht (807439) 26 Jan. 21, 12:29

    Ich würde ja vermuten, die wenigsten Männer würden sich freiwillig als Trans/Frau kostümieren, nur um als verdeckte Trans-Person mal in den Damentag in der Sauna reingucken zu können. Bei dem Durchschnittsalter in typischen Saunen könnte ich mir vorstellen, ein Klick auf einschlägige Internetseiten ist nicht nur einfacher, sondern auch ästhetisch eher dem Mainstream entsprechend. Oder man geht einfach zum gemischten Saunatag. Da kann man gucken, so viel man will.

    Es ist ja auch nicht so, dass Transgender-Personen in Horden rumlaufen, das sind doch immer noch Einzelschicksale. Ich halte das für ein ziemlich konstruiertes Problem, zumindest das mit den Schultoiletten (Und sollte es vereinzelt zu Problemen kommen, kann das sicher lokal gelöst werden).Im Profisport mit dem hohen Leistungsdruck könnte ich mir eher vorstellen, dass einer "auf Frau" macht, um mal einen Titel abstauben zu können. Derjenige müsste dafür aber auch sein komplettes Leben als Frau leben.

    #29Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 26 Jan. 21, 12:45

    Damit der Biden-Faden nicht in die Genderdebatte abgleitet, könnte man auch hier weiterdiskutieren, da wird das Thema auch besprochen:

    Siehe auch: cancel culture

    Es ist halt kompliziert. Und schwierig, allen gerecht zu werden.

    #30VerfasserGibson (418762) 26 Jan. 21, 12:48

    Ich bleib bei dem Thema einfach mal stumpf auf meinen Händen sitzen ... *grrrmpf*

    #31VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 26 Jan. 21, 12:54

    An der Nachricht in #27 ist mir etwas anderes wichtiger: Gleich in den allerersten Tagen der Präsidentschaft eines Amtsinhabers, auf den ich hoffte, nicht zuletzt weil er - wie ich mich erinnern zu können glaube - das Land zusammenführen wollte, sehe ich ausgesprochen polarisierende Entscheidungen. Mein Eindruck ist, dass die Linke nicht viel weniger auf Zündelei aus ist als Herr Trump. Dass man das narzisstische Gequatsche auf Twitter und die prahlerischen Lügen nicht mehr vernimmt, macht einen Unterschied der Form, doch nicht unbedingt der Sache nach. Respice finem: aber wohin soll das führen?

    Historische Parallelen zu ziehen ist immer sehr problematisch (das fängt damit an, dass das spanische Militär, das allein im 19. Jahrhundert buchstäblich Dutzende Male geputscht hatte, für seinen Prätorianismus berüchtigt war, von dem ich als Außenstehender in den USA gar nichts sehe, und hört bei den Zentrifugalkräften noch lange nicht auf, die die Völker am Rande der iberischen Halbinsel entwickelten). Doch die Zweite Spanische Republik wechselte zwischen 1931 und 1936 scharf von links auf rechts auf links - jeder Regierung machte die Maßnahmen der anderen rückgängig, jede Seite provozierte die andere, wo sie konnte. Was am Ende der Republik stand, setze ich als bekannt voraus. Wer will garantieren, dass der Bau der USA unter solchen und ähnlichen Schlägen nicht auch einstürzen könnte?

    #32VerfasserGart (646339)  26 Jan. 21, 14:22

    Ich sehe bei Biden nicht die Gefahr, dass er sehr weit nach links ausschlägt. Zumindest nicht so weit links, wie in den 1930er Jahren die Kommunisten standen.

    Außerdem bin ich ein wenig verwirrt: Biden hat meines Wissens in den ersten Amtstagen die Rücknahme eines Gesetzes erlassen, das Trans-Personen aus der Armee ausschließt. Je nach Perspektive ist das eine polarisierende Entscheidung oder die Rücknahme einer polarisierenden Entscheidung. Was in dem Post weiter oben besprochen wird, ist Bidens "Trans Agenda" - das wäre nach meinem Sprachverständnis ein Plan. Also bei weitem noch nicht umgesetzt.

    Falls hier meine Fakten oder mein Sprachverständnis fehlerhaft sein sollte, kann man mich gern berichtigen.

    Biden sagte übrigens nicht nur er wolle das Land einen, sondern auch er werde für mehr Diversität einstehen. Diversität hat eben nicht nur mit Hautfarben und Religionen zu tun, sondern auch mit sexuellen Identitäten. Dass beide Grundsätze nicht immer vereinbar sind, ist offensichtlich.

    #33Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 26 Jan. 21, 14:55

    Meiner Auffassung nach trifft das den Punkt nicht. Nimm 74 Millionen Trump-Wähler, denen im November 2020 bei der Wahl Trump trotz seiner ganz und gar unübersehbaren charakterlichen Defizite immer noch lieber war als Biden. Richtig, ihre Repräsentanten haben vier Jahre lang der Linken zuleid gelebt, wo es nur ging, und ein Teil dieser Wähler wird noch nicht mal dann ein Zusammengehen in Erwägung ziehen, wenn die Marsmenschen die Erde angreifen. Wie auch immer: Offensichtlich misstrauen diese Leute Biden und seiner Regierung zutiefst. Einer der pet peeves dieser Gruppe - man kann wohl sagen, des überwältigenden Teils davon - ist die Vorstellung, dass Geschlecht ein gesellschaftliches Konstrukt sei. Diese Auffassung teilen sie nicht, und zwar nicht, weil sie dumm, böse oder unwissend wären, sondern weil ihre Weltanschauung diesen Subjektivismus ablehnt - aus ihrer Meinung nach guten Gründen, die sie keineswegs als arbiträr betrachten. Sie liegen mit der Linken nicht nur in dieser Sache, sondern - weil diese Kluft in der Weltanschauung tief reicht - noch mit ganz anderen Sachen über Kreuz. Wenn sie auf Vokabeln wie "transphob" und dergleichen überhaupt noch reagieren, dann so, wie man in Deutschland die Augen verdreht, wenn jemand "Merkel-Diktatur" ruft. (Mir geht es hier nicht darum, ob zu Recht oder zu Unrecht, sondern darum, dass es sich mit diesen Wählern meiner Auffassung nach as a matter of facts so verhält.)

    Diese Wähler wirst Du nicht mit Hinweis auf Einzelfälle und dergleichen beschwichtigen. Es geht ihnen darum, dass biologische Männer aus ideologischen Gründen, die sie nicht nur nicht teilen, sondern ablehnen, Zutritt zu Frauentoiletten und Frauenumkleideräumen erhalten, was sie erstens als bare Schildbürgerei betrachten und ihnen zweitens eine ausgesprochen unangenehme Vorstellung ist. Die Aussicht, dass Frauen im Sport gegen diese biologischen Männer anzutreten haben könnten, nehmen sie nicht als Ausdruck von Diversität, sondern als Ausdruck einer Botschaft, die ungefähr wie folgt lautet: Sport ist Männersache und Frauen haben dort nichts verloren. In ihren Augen ist das auch keine Entscheidung über eine Einzelmaßnahme, sondern eine Aussage darüber, was man künftig zu erwarten haben wird.

    Es ist klar, dass die Regierung Biden keineswegs republikanische Politik fortführen muss und bestimmt auch nicht wird, nur um ja keinem früheren Trump-Wähler zu missfallen, und dass ihr Wählerauftrag nicht darin besteht, sich von der anderen Seite treiben zu lassen. Dennoch: Dies alles in Rechnung gestellt, würde ich meinen, dass ein Präsident, der das Land zusammenführen möchte, aber nach Übernahme der Regierung praktisch als erstes ein Programm verkündet, das die Umsetzung solcher Maßnahmen vorsieht, zumindest sehr unglücklich agiert.

    #34VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 07:15

    Warum soll eine Regierung eine Maßnahme unterlassen, die einem Teil der Bevölkerung missfällt, wenn dieser Teil eh bei jeder Maßnahme dieser Regierung die Augen verdreht, und die Regierung in den verdrehten Augen dieses Teils eh alles nur falsch machen kann?

    #35VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Jan. 21, 07:41

    Ähm, weil dieser Präsident wie oben angeführt mit dem ausdrücklichen Anspruch angetreten ist, Gräben zuzuschütten und die Nation wieder zusammenzuführen?

    #36VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 07:42

    Klar, aber wenn er schaufeln kann, wie verrückt und die anderen das reingeschaufelte immer wieder rausschaufeln? Da hatte Sysiphos ja einen leichten Job gegen.

    #37VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Jan. 21, 07:57

    Wer sagt denn, dass diese Aufgabe einfach ist? Gut vertretbar, dass Biden den schwierigsten Job seit Lincoln oder F. D. Roosevelt hat.

    #38VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 07:59

    Außerdem bin ich ein wenig verwirrt: Biden hat meines Wissens in den ersten Amtstagen die Rücknahme eines Gesetzes erlassen, das Trans-Personen aus der Armee ausschließt. Je nach Perspektive ist das eine polarisierende Entscheidung oder die Rücknahme einer polarisierenden Entscheidung. Was in dem Post weiter oben besprochen wird, ist Bidens "Trans Agenda" - das wäre nach meinem Sprachverständnis ein Plan. Also bei weitem noch nicht umgesetzt.

    I believe we’re talking about two separate things: (a) an executive order reversing the transgender military ban (which I don’t think is particularly controversial among reasonable people) and (b) an executive order to combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity (which contains some undeniably positive things, but also essentially says that all legislation offering protections on the basis of sex should be interpreted to include gender identity… which is, shall we say, problematic in its wider implications).

    *also sitting on my hands*

    On the question of how conciliatory the Democrats should be, I found this opinion piece in the New York Times interesting: 

    Democrats, Here’s How to Lose in 2022. And Deserve It.


    #39Verfasserdulcinea (238640) 27 Jan. 21, 08:07


    Was ich mich in Bezug auf deine Ausführungen in #34 frage:

    Warum haben andere Maßnahmen, mit denen Biden Anordnungen von Trump zurückgenommen hat, bei dir keine so engagierte kritische Reaktion hervorgerufen?

    Eine der ersten Maßnahmen, die Biden ergriffen hat, war die, den Einreisestopp aus diversen überwiegend muslimischen Staaten aufzuheben. In der Denk- und Gefühlswelt der erwähnten 74 Millionen Amerikaner muss doch diese Maßnahme eine ebenso heftige Gegenreaktion ausgelöst haben! Sie stellen sich jetzt ja vor, dass da Massen von Terroristen ungestört einreisen und Amerikaner killen werden. Auch bei diesem Thema können die Trump-Anhänger nicht mit Statistiken beschwichtigt werden, dass die Maßnahme definitiv nicht zu einer Erhöhung der Terrorgefahr führen werden.

    Warum sprachst du da nicht von einem unglücklichen Agieren der neuen Regierung?

    Warum hast du dich da nicht mit einem warnenden Appell, Biden wäre doch angetreten, um die Gräben zuzuschütten, und was mache er da jetzt denn, zu Wort gemeldet?

    Ich bilde mir ein, da trotz aller Sachlichkeit deines Beitrags irgendwo unterschwellig ein gewisses Verständnis für die Anschauung der 74 Millionen herauszuhören. Vielleicht liege ich damit falsch, aber wie oben gesagt, die Intensität deines Beitrags ausgerechnet zu diesem im Grunde marginalen Thema*) hat mich verwundert.

    (*) ...nicht falsch verstehen! Ich finde das Thema sehr wichtig und habe mich gefreut, dass es bei den Dingen war, die Biden schnell geregelt hat, aber andere Dinge wie Klimapolitik, Pandemie-Handling, WHO usw. sind insgesamt eben doch von größerer Bedeutung!)

    #40VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 27 Jan. 21, 08:38

    Das ist ein subtiler Themenwechsel: Anstelle der Frage, ob es sich um eine glückliche Maßnahme handelt, wenn der Präsident als eine der ersten Maßnahmen eine derart kontroverse Ankündigung in die Welt setzt (die nicht ich in die Diskussion eingeführt, sondern vorgefunden habe), soll es jetzt um mich gehen. Hätte ich nicht dieses Thema, sondern das des Endes des Einreisestops behandelt, wäre die Frage sinngemäß dieselbe gewesen. Auf diese Provokation, die ich als nicht hilfreich ansehe, werde ich nicht antworten - ich werde auch nicht die Gegenfrage stellen, weshalb denn #34 bei Dir eine so engagierte Reaktion hervorruft.

    #41VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 08:44

    Ich antworte noch mal kurz, aber ein wenig "breiter": Bei jeder seiner Maßnahmen besteht die nicht nur theoretische Möglichkeit, dass er einen Großteil der überzeugten Trumpel- und Rep-Jünger massiv vor den Kopf stößt. Egal, was er macht. Einfach nur, weil er Biden und nicht Trump, und Democrat und nicht Republican ist. Dann würde er die nächsten vier Jahre einfach mal gepflegt nix machen können. Von daher kann er doch gar nicht Rücksicht auf diesen Teil derf Bevölkerung nehmen.

    So, over and out.

    #42VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Jan. 21, 08:51

    Danke für deine Antwort, Gart, ich erlaube mir, sie interessant zu finden.

    Ich kann dir die nicht gestellte Gegenfrage gerne beantworten: weil es mich saumäßig aufgeregt hat. Jetzt hab ich mich aber auch wieder abgeregt und wir können zu anderen Aspekten übergehen.

    #43VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 27 Jan. 21, 09:01

    Vielleicht ist jemand, der die kohärente Darstellung irgendeiner Position schon als Zustimmung zu dieser Position auffasst, Teil des Problems, das sich Herrn Biden stellt.

    #44VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 09:06

    Den Satz verstehe ich nicht.

    #45VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Jan. 21, 09:07

    Ich male ein Bild von einem Picknick. Jemand kommt und sagt, ich wünsche mir also sehnlich, auf ein Picknick zu gehen. Ich persönlich würde das als non sequitur ansehen.

    Auf eine Botschaft hin auf den Boten zu schießen, ist zwar gewiss eine Reaktion auf diese Botschaft. Ist es aber auch eine angemessene? Wird sie der Botschaft gerecht?

    #46VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 09:11

    Ich bin vermutlich intellektuell zu einfach gestrickt, um Deinen letzten Post zu verstehen. Du schreibst in 34 "meiner Auffassung nach" und "würde ich meinen, dass ...", und jetzt soll das irgendwie doch nicht Deine Meinung sein, sondern - ja, was denn?

    #47VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Jan. 21, 09:25

    Gart: Ich wollte eigentlich noch anfügen, dass ich deine Antwort auch respektieren wollte, denn damit, dass ich den Schwerpunkt der Diskussion verlagert habe, hattest du recht.

    Allerdings grundsätzlich muss sich der, der eine Meinung äußert, auch zu seinem persönlichen Bezug zum Thema hinterfragen lassen.

    Zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Thema: unabhängig vom Aufhänger, den du gewählt hast, sehe ich natürlich schon das Dilemma, das jede einzelne politische Maßnahme von Biden bedeutet: wichtige Irrwege zu korrigieren vs. die Gräben vertiefen bzw. zumindest nicht aufschütten.

    Es wird nicht möglich sein, die politischen Gegner von Inhalten zu überzeugen. Man kann nur hoffen, dass sich durch die Politik und die weitere Entwicklung nach und nach die heftigsten Wogen glätten, so dass viele der nicht-ganz-so-extremen Trump-Anhänger, denen ich auch unterstelle, im Grunde nicht so sehr an Fragen der Politik und Gesellschaft interessiert zu sein, einfach keine Lust mehr haben, sich weiterhin über alles und jedes furchtbar aufzuregen.

    #48VerfasserGoldammer (428405)  27 Jan. 21, 09:28

    #47: Jetzt sind wir erneut dahin geraten, dass ich mir meinen Kopf von anderen Leuten zerbrechen lassen muss. Wo schreibe ich Deiner Auffassung nach etwas, was über meine Meinung über die Position, wie Trump-Wähler sie meiner Meinung nach zumindest mehrheitlich einnehmen (woraufhin ich zu einem bestimmten Schluss komme) hinausgeht?

    #48: Allerdings grundsätzlich muss sich der, der eine Meinung äußert, auch zu seinem persönlichen Bezug zum Thema hinterfragen lassen.

    Nein, muss er nicht. Ein Historiker kann zum Beispiel die Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus kohärent darstellen, ohne dass er sich ständig persönlich davon zu distanzieren braucht.

    Im Übrigen stimme ich Dir darin zu, dass zu den besten Verbündeten, die Biden hat, die Zeit gehört. Irgendwann werden sich auch alle wieder abregen - in den Siebzigern gingen die Wogen auch hoch, aber das hat sich irgendwann gelegt. Dabei hilft es allerdings, nicht einen Aufreger nach dem anderen zu setzen. Für einen etwaigen republikanischen Präsidenten in weiteren vier Jahren würde dasselbe gelten.

    #49VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 09:35

    Eine "kohärente Darstellung" ist aber keine "Meinung", sondern hoffentlich genau das Gegenteil.

    #50VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 27 Jan. 21, 09:45

    Am Edith wie folgt gehinmdert:

    Nein, muss er nicht. Eine Meinung ist eines, eine Darstellung, auf der eine Meinung basiert, ein anderes. Was die Darstellung angeht, muss zum Beispiel ein Historiker, der die Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus kohärent darstellt, sich nicht ständig persönlich davon distanzieren.

    #51VerfasserGart (646339) 27 Jan. 21, 09:47

    Der Unterschied ist der, dass wir hier nicht in einem wissenschaftlichen Diskurs, sondern in einer geselligen Diskussionsrunde sind.

    Das ist für mich etwas ziemlich grundlegend anderes.

    Hier werden Themen eingebracht, aufgegriffen oder auch nicht, in unterschiedlicher Gewichtung behandelt, Meinungen dazu geäußert, und da ist ein Hinterfragen völlig legitim, finde ich.

    Aber lass uns doch diesen Side-Track vielleicht besser verlassen. Ist irgendwie etwas fruchtlos.

    #52VerfasserGoldammer (428405)  27 Jan. 21, 09:59

    Debatte ist Debatte, ob im Hörsaal oder im Forum. Wenn ich zum Beispiel sage, wenn A > B und B > C, dann A > C, hängt diese Schlussfolgerung nicht davon ab, was ich von A, B, C oder allen zusammen halte. Wenn ich das mache, dann laufe ich ganz im Gegenteil Gefahr, dass niemand mehr über A > C redet, sondern nur noch über meine Meinung zu C.

    Deinem letzten Satz würde ich mich aber gerne anschließen.

    #53VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 10:08

    Danke, dulcinea. Der zweite Punkt war mir nicht präsent.

    Dass Menschen ein diffuses Unbehagen spüren, wenn ihnen etwas "Fremdes" gegenüber steht, ist ja normal. Ob dieses Fremde sich dadurch äußert, dass das Gegenüber eine andere Hautfarbe hat, einen fremdartigen Kleidungsstil pflegt oder eben eine ungewöhnliche Geschlechteridentität hat, ist dabei erst mal egal.

    Ich glaube nicht, dass Biden die Gesellschaft weiterbringen kann, wenn er nur verhindert, dass Menschen dieses Unbehagen spüren müssen, indem er polarisierende Themen totschweigt oder wie Trump einem Teil der Gesellschaft suggeriert, dass ihr diffuses Unbehagen richtig und gut ist. Die diverse Gesellschaft kann nur funktionieren, wenn Menschen lernen, mit dem Unbehagen umzugehen und es dann in der Folge irgendwann kleiner wird oder ganz verschwindet - wenn ich mich mit ein paar Frauen mit Kopftuch unterhalten habe (nur so als Beispiel) wird mir irgendwann klar, dass deren Alltagssorgen so ziemlich die gleichen sind wie meine, und irgendwann nehme ich das Kopftuch nicht mehr als fremd, sondern nur noch als Kleidungsstück wahr.

    Mit dem Unbehagen umzugehen lernt man durch Bildung, durch Sichtbarkeit von Minderheiten in positiven Zusammenhängen* und, wenn möglich, durch Interaktion. Die eigentliche Baustelle (nicht nur in den USA) ist doch, dass unsere Kommunikationskultur völlig vor die Hunde geht, sodass die Interaktion zwischen Menschen mit unterschiedlichen Hintergründen immer schwieriger wird und sich so Mauern eher auf- als abbauen.

    Und noch ein kleiner Seitenhieb, den ich mir leider nicht verkneifen kann (danach setze auch ich mich auf meine Hände): Durch Bildung könnte man etwas darüber lernen, was einen "biologischen Mann" ausmacht, da spielen nämlich noch mehr Sachen rein als nur die von außen sichtbaren Geschlechtsmerkmale.

    #54Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 27 Jan. 21, 10:25

    nur die von außen sichtbaren Geschlechtsmerkmale.

    ...die ja in den meisten Fällen eben nicht sichtbarlich präsentiert werden.

    Jeder hat mehr oder weniger eine Lupe, mit der er sein Lieblingsthema betrachtet und alles andere als zweitrangig hintenanstellt. Ja, Trump ist ein unsittliches Ferkel, aaaber: Der war jedenfalls gegen das und das, im Gegensatz zu Clinton oder Biden. Also habe ich ihn gewählt.

    Umgekehrt wird es auch Wähler geben die Biden zähneknirschend gewählt haben, weil er in einer Sache ihr Steckenpferd geritten hat oder sich in einem anderen Punkt deutlich gegen etwas ausgesprochen hat. Der Rest seines Programms geht unter oder wird in Kauf genommen. Das ist in Deutschland nicht anders.

    #55VerfasserHarri Beau (812872) 27 Jan. 21, 10:47

    Viele haben Biden auch gewählt, weil er nicht Trump ist, bspw. Schwarzenegger und andere Republikaner. Die werden bei der Wahl in 4 Jahren auch wieder einen Republikaner wählen, wenn es nicht gerade Ted Cruz ist, egal was Biden tut oder lässt. Aber all das finde ich nicht so wichtig. In 4 Jahren ist Biden so alt, dass er sinnvollerweise sowieso nicht mehr antritt. Hoffentlich kann er mit seiner manchmal etwas drögen, aber zumindest freundlichen und höflichen Art einfach wieder andere Maßstäbe in der Kommunikation setzen.

    #56Verfassergrinsessa (1265817)  27 Jan. 21, 10:50

    #54: Du sprichst fast nur von "diffusem Unbehagen". Damit verbindet sich meiner Meinung nach aber die Auffassung "die Trump-Wähler wissen zuwenig über Migranten, Transsexuelle usw., aber wenn sie mehr wüssten, wären sie ganz meiner Meinung, und wie Gegensätze würden geringer werden". Es ist zwar gut möglich, dass Deine Auffassung in großen Teilen zutrifft. Aber was, wenn oder soweit sie es nicht tut? Wenn für einen (und vielleicht einen großen) Teil der Trump-Anhänger das Problem nicht darin liegt, dass sie sich zuwenig mit guatemaltekischen Zuwanderern unterhalten und sie weniger gut kennen, als sie vielleicht sollten? Deine Antwort ist eine Antwort, zweifellos. Passt sie auch zur Frage (oder zu den Fragen) - wie immer sie aussieht? Wenn zum Beispiel viele Trump-Wähler in einer Konkurrenzsituation um Arbeitsplätze für Geringqualifizierte stecken und wirtschaftliche Sorgen haben, wird eine bessere Kenntnis der Umstände, unter denen konkurrierende guatemaltekische Migranten ihr Leben fristen, wenig daran ändern. Meiner Auffassung nach war eher diese Situation und nicht so sehr eine diffuse Fremdenfeindlichkeit einer der effektivsten Hebel, an dem Trump angesetzt hat.

    #57VerfasserGart (646339)  27 Jan. 21, 10:54

    Es ist nicht unbedingt sicher, daß man, je mehr Kontakt jemand zu Flüchtlingen hat, umso mehr Verständnis für sie aufbringt. Ich kenne Mitbürger, die voller Engagement ganze Familien unter ihre Fittiche nahmen. Jetzt, nach Jahren sind sie teilweise sehr frustriert über die Ergebnisse der Integrationsbemühungen.

    Sie werden dadurch nicht zum Fremdenfeind, aber die anfängliche Begeisterung ist völlig verflogen.

    #58VerfasserHarri Beau (812872) 27 Jan. 21, 11:10

    Ich schrieb, es sei normal, vor Fremdem ein diffuses Unbehagen zu spüren. Das schließt nach meinem Verständnis alle Menschen ein, auch dich und mich, nicht nur Trump-Wähler. An dem Unbehagen an sich ist meiner Meinung nach auch nichts verwerflich. Es geht darum, ob man den Willen hat, es zu überwinden, oder ob man nach Gründen sucht, es zu bestätigen.

    Deine Frage war: Ist es sinnvoll, mit polarisierenden Themen anzufangen, wenn man das Land einen will.


    Meine Antwort ist: Es ist nicht sinnvoll, polarisierende Themen aufzusparen, wenn man das Land einen will. Man muss über polarisierende Themen sprechen, damit umgehen lernen und eine Diskussionskultur etablieren, wenn man das Land einen will. Je früher man damit anfängt, desto besser. Dass das länger dauern wird als Bidens Regentschaft, ist mir durchaus bewusst.

    Ich bin Naturwissenschaftlerin, genauer kann ich mich nicht schriftlich ausdrücken.

    Edit re Harris Post: Ja, solche Fälle kenne ich auch. Ich kam eher von der Gender-Debatte her. Der Integrationswillen von Flüchtlingen ist ja ein ganz anderes Thema.

    #59Verfassergrinsessa (1265817)  27 Jan. 21, 11:12

    Es ist nicht sinnvoll, polarisierende Themen aufzusparen, wenn man das Land einen will. Man muss über polarisierende Themen sprechen, damit umgehen lernen und eine Diskussionskultur etablieren, wenn man das Land einen will. Je früher man damit anfängt, desto besser.

    Da bin ich anderer Meinung. Eine Reihenfolge macht schon deutlich, welches Gewicht ich einer Sache beimesse. Und es gibt sicherlich wichtigere Themen für die USA, zum Beispiel das Atomabkommen mit dem Iran, als es eine Gendergeschichte im Militär wäre, die (keine Ahnung), vermutlich nur eine winzige Minderheit betrifft.

    OK, jetzt habe ich meine Lupe hervor gekramt, andere Leute werden das Iran-Thema oder China als nebensächlich betrachten und Anderes in den Fokus nehmen.

    #60VerfasserHarri Beau (812872) 27 Jan. 21, 11:22

    Natürlich sind diese Themen wichtiger. Der Unterschied ist, dass man die Sache mit dem Iran oder China nicht mit einem Erlass regeln kann. Ein als ungerecht empfundenes Gesetz zu Transsexuellen im Militär kann man dagegen durch eine einzige Unterschrift ungeschehen machen. Dass es so eine hohe Wichtigkeit bekommt, liegt doch in der Hauptsache daran, dass es ein Aufreger ist und deshalb in allen Medien rauf und runterdiskutiert wird. Meines Wissens hat Biden in den ersten 3 Tagen 17 Erlasse unterzeichnet. Wer erinnert sich an die anderen 15 (außer Aufhebung des Einreisestops und die Gendersachen?). Ob und an welchen anderen, komplexeren und wichtigeren Themen gearbeitet wird, mit welcher Priorität und wann damit begonnen wurde, kann doch von uns keiner beurteilen.

    #61Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 27 Jan. 21, 11:36

    It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread that an executive order (EO) can somehow cancel/change a law ("Gesetz"), including that the transgender ban in the military was such a law.

    That's not the case. The transgender ban in the military had its origins in one of 45*'s tweets, not in Congress, which is where laws come from in the US. At some point, apparently, 45* must have had his staff write up an EO on that topic.

    EOs are "weak," meaning that all that the next president has to do is issue a new EO that contradicts the previous president's EO to establish the new policy. (OK, it's a bit more complicated than that, but it's a heck of a lot easier than changing an actual law. Luckily, 45* and the GOP were lazy (or mostly interested in tax cuts for the filthy rich), and didn't pass much in the way of substantial legislation, even in the two years where the GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office.)

    An EO can, however, provide direction on how a law or a court/SCOTUS decision is to be interpreted. A SCOTUS decision on a law prohibiting sexual discriminationd should be interpreted left the definition of sexual discrimination rather broad, so that the law was being interpreted as applying to sexual/gender identity as well. 45* issued an EO requiring that the law be interpreted as applying solely to male/female discrimination, thus removing some of the little legal protection that LGBTQ+ folks have in the US. President Biden issued an EO countermanding 45*'s EO. (I'm a bit fuzzy on the precise details surrounding this, but I believe that the general situation is similar to what I described.)

    #62Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 27 Jan. 21, 13:13

    Ah danke, hbberlin. Ich war etwas verwirrt über die Begriffskonfusion Gesetz / Erlass bzw. Verordnung in dieser Diskussion.

    #63VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 27 Jan. 21, 13:21

    Danke auch von meiner Seite.

    #64Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 27 Jan. 21, 14:42

    Glad that I could help clear up some confusion.

    Recently, I've heard US news reports from reputable sources such as NPR speak of both "executive orders" and "executive actions," even within one sentence, so they must be different things. I have no idea what that distinction is, though.

    #65Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 27 Jan. 21, 16:25
    Die Angestellten im Weißen Haus in Washington freuen sich mehrheitlich über den Einzug der Bidens und fühlen sich nun wie in den "Flitterwochen", den 2 präsidialen Hunden scheint es auch zu behagen. Die Angestellten wechseln meistens nicht, nur die Präsidenten. Mit wenigen Ausnahmen. "Chief usher“, sowas wie Chef*diener*in des Weißen Hauses, ist nun Katie Hinson. .

    https://www.merkur.de/politik/joe-biden-praes... The word "usher" doesn't specifically refer to a male. You may call ladies in this position (auch als "Pförtner*in" oder "Platzanweiser*in" übersetzt) female ushers (men are male ushers) or usherettes.
    #66VerfasserGraceFromAbove (1267740)  28 Jan. 21, 15:08

    (OT, aber: warum sollte das Wort 'usher' sich auch nur auf Männer beziehen? Eine gender-getrennte Form ist doch im Englischen sehr, sehr selten. Ich sehe auch den Zusammenhang zu dem Merkur-Link nicht und halte 'ladies' hier für das falsche Register. Alles in allem ein seltsamer Kommentar.)

    #67VerfasserGibson (418762) 28 Jan. 21, 15:45

    Genau, es heißt ja im Englischen auch nicht teacheress oder singerette oder whatever.....

    #68VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 28 Jan. 21, 16:17

    Usherette was (perhaps no longer is except in the minds of old people) the standard BE form for the female ushers in cinemas and similar venues.

    #69VerfasserEcgberht (469528) 28 Jan. 21, 21:58

    Ich weiß - es gab ja auch manageresses und einige andere weibliche Formen, aber heute fände ich das überraschend. (Bei 'usherette' denke ich an Bauchläden ;-). Und deshalb überrascht mich eben auch der Kommentar.

    #70VerfasserGibson (418762) 28 Jan. 21, 22:08

    In der SZ vom letzten Wochenende stand im "Stil"-Teil (den ich meist gleich wegschmeiß, weil ich die Modeartikel darin meist extrem anstrengend, uninteressant oder langweilig finde) ein Artikel über die Frauen in der vergangenen Regierungsmannschaft und in der neuen. Die Autorin beschreibt sehr schön, wie monoton der Frauentyp in ersterer war und wie herrlich divers und individuell sie in der neuen ist, wo ganz offensichtlich nicht nach Typ, sondern nach Eignung ausgewählt wurde.

    #71VerfasserSelima (107) 29 Jan. 21, 07:14
    Der kleine rote Knopf ("Spielzeug" von Donald Trump) wurde von Joe Biden aus dem Oval Office entfernt.
    Dabei gab es ihn schon unter Barak Obama. Der hatte Tee für die Gäste damit bestellt.

    Und: Das Team von Joe Biden führt die Briefings im Weißen Haus wieder ein, mit den Presse📷leuten. Mit Auflagen, die nicht allen gefallen.
    #72VerfasserGraceFromAbove (1267740) 04 Feb. 21, 02:59

    "spleeping Joe"! So ein Witz!

    Es ist besser zu schweigen und als Idiot verdächtigt zu werden, als zu reden und dadurch alle Zweifel zu beseitigen.

    #73VerfasserGrossbouff (465598) 29 Apr. 21, 15:59


    #74VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 29 Apr. 21, 17:31

    @Bubb: ging mir genauso. Ich fand den Beitrag von Grossbouff auch etwas kryptisch....

    #75VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 29 Apr. 21, 17:52

    Wahrscheinlich bezieht sich Grossbouff auf Bidens gestrige Antrittsrede vor dem Kongress, die ich live mitverfolgt habe. Ich bin zwar kein großer Biden-Fan, fand sie aber eigentlich ganz gut. Wobei ich Reden einen recht geringen Stellenwert beimesse. Grossbouff kann uns ja noch erzählen, was ihm/ihr als besonders idiotisch dabei aufstieß.


    Watch Joe Biden's full speech to Congress

    #76VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  29 Apr. 21, 18:13

    Ist Trumps Spitzname für Biden nicht 'Sleepy Joe'? 'Sleeping Joe' habe ich noch nicht gehört.

    #77VerfasserGibson (418762) 29 Apr. 21, 19:37

    Richtig, "Sleepy Joe", wobei Herr oder Frau Grossbouff ja eigentlich "spleeping Joe" schrieb. Beispiel:


    President 'Sleepy Joe' Biden puts Sen. Ted Cruz to sleep during address to Congress

    #78VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  29 Apr. 21, 19:43
    Der hat sich nur schlafend gestellt. Ein Ted Cruz schläft nicht, wenn Kameras im Raum sind.
    #79VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 30 Apr. 21, 04:54

    It sure looked like he was dozing off, then was briefly jolted back to a state of half-consciousness by something the president said, then dozed off again.

    I have no information on Cruz's acting skills. As someone who regularly dozes off in front of the TV only to wake up at the end of the show, I know that a near constant flow of speech can have a sleep-inducing effect, at least in people my age. Now Cruz is a good deal younger than me, but I think it's possible that he actually fell asleep. It's also possible he faked it.

    #80VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 30 Apr. 21, 06:19

    Nie im Leben war das echt. Der gute Mann sitzt seit 2013 im Senat; der wird doch imstande sein, bei langweiligen Reden wach zu bleiben. (Nicht dass ich Bidens Rede langweilig fand.) Cruz wollte wohl

    1. ins Fernsehen und

    2. demonstrieren, wie uninteressant Bidens Ausführungen für ihn waren.

    Beides legitim, wenn's auch ein bisschen kindisch war.

    #81VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  30 Apr. 21, 07:09

    In dem Fall hat er sein Ziel erreicht, denn wir unterhalten uns über Cruz und nicht Bidens Rede ...

    #82VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 30 Apr. 21, 08:03

    I haven’t been following this non-story, but it seems like a fairly stupid thing to do if it was intentional. Sure, Fox News presented it as “Joe Biden is such a boring speaker that his speech put Ted Cruz to sleep”, but couldn’t it just as easily be framed as “Ted Cruz is so unprofessional that he is incapable of staying awake at work”? I used to have a colleague who regularly fell asleep during presentations when everyone else managed to stay awake, and it didn’t exactly reflect well on him. (Dozing off in front of the TV is different, of course.)

    #83Verfasserdulcinea (238640)  30 Apr. 21, 09:28

    Das ist genau dasselbe unerträgliche Verhalten wie das von Grease-Smug, der sich im englischen Unterhaus ostentativ gelangweilt auf die Bank fläzte, und ein erneuter Beweis dafür, dass die angeblich so auf "Werte" bedachten "Konservativen" großteils einfach eine Bande unanständiger egoistischer Widerlinge sind.

    #84VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 30 Apr. 21, 09:36

    #83 (dulcinea), it seems like a fairly stupid thing to do if it was intentional

    It would have been stupid if it had been intended for you or me, but it was probably targeted at the 55 percent of Republicans who believe that Biden didn't really win the election. In which case there would obviously be no point in listening to his speech. I think that's what Sen. Cruz was trying to convey here.

    #85VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  30 Apr. 21, 10:59

    Das mit Ted Cruz ist höchst spekulativ und unglaubwürdig. Jeder Aspekt davon. Jeder. Was er gedacht hat. Was er beabsichtigt hat. Vielleicht hat er ein medizinisches Problem (Corona kann enorme Müdigkeit verursachen). Vielleicht konnte er aus irgendeinem Grund letzte Nacht nicht schlafen.

    Ist diese Sequenz überhaupt von diesem Ort und von dieser Veranstaltung? Wurde das Video manipuliert (slow motion oder anderes)? Das alles hat Null Beweiskraft.

    In which case there would obviously be no point in listening to his speech. I think that's what Sen. Cruz was trying to convey here.

    Das halte ich für höchst unwahrscheinlich. Ïch weiss ja nicht, wieviele von den gut 500 im Kongress anwesend waren, aber die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die Kamera im richtigen Moment genau ihn rauspickt und dass das dann aufgegriffen wird, um Biden (und nicht ihn selbst) schlecht dastehen zu lassen, ist verschwindend gering. Oder glaubst du, das wurde alles so arrangiert? Das wäre nahe an einer Verschwörungstheorie.

    #86Verfassermordnilap (835133) 30 Apr. 21, 11:49

    Also ich habe die ganze Rede am Fernsehen live verfolgt, und dass eine Konserve eingeblendet wurde, die den Senator beim Nickerchen zeigt, scheint äußerst unwahrscheinlich, zumal ja auch die Kleidung dieselbe ist, die in anderen Bildern von Herrn Cruz bei dieser Veranstaltung zu sehen ist. Vielleicht leidet er ja an Narkolepsie, oder war einfach übermüdet, etc. Es sah für mich jedenfalls echt aus und nicht wie eine demonstrative Aktion wie das Fläzen vom Rees-Mogg im britischen Parlament.

    #87VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  30 Apr. 21, 11:57

    Sorry, dass ich mich nicht mehr gemeldet habe.

    Zu #73: blöd sind natürlich diejenige, die von "sleepy Joe" geredet haben.

    Es ging ja von seiner Rede aber grundsätzlich von was er bis jetzt gemacht hat.

    Gut oder nicht gut, er hat schon viel gemacht.

    Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass eine Wende in Richtung erneubare Energie viele neue Arbeitsplätze schaffen wird und bin begeistert, dass er ein Signal in diese Richtung gegeben hat.

    #88VerfasserGrossbouff (465598)  05 Mai 21, 10:47

    I would be hopeful if there were any hope in hell for Biden's party to actually pass ambitious clean-energy legislation. But for all their big talk, the Democrats do not seem to remotely comprehend how terribly fragile their mica-thin majority is -- not sharp enough to be a razor -- or how terribly little time they may have.

    It drives me mad to hear them throwing around meaningless boasts like 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass major legislation,' when the truth seems to be that Joe Manchin is a Democrat in name only and they cannot do anything he isn't brave enough to vote for, not to speak of a couple of others from Arizona.

    And it does not make me confident at all to see reports that a certain California senator is looking frailer and more dazed by the month, and Republicans are passing bills to restrict voting right and left, while Biden wastes entire days and weeks being briefed about how clean energy would affect pipefitters in Pennsylvania (!!!), and putting off decisions that needed to already have been made about nominees for positions like judges and ambassadors. Aaargh!

    Not to speak of acting as if there's nothing else the Democratic party needs to do fast to improve their entire campaign performance! They have to figure out fast how to make up for their dismal results in states like Texas and Florida, and how to try to avoid Arizona and Georgia tipping back the other way. 2022 is right around the corner, all signs so far are looking ominous, party chair Tom Perez seems completely useless, and no one seems to be calling in anyone like Stacey Abrams who has the vigor and fast thinking to get in there and shake things up. Instead, complacency and exhaustion seem destined to doom them to the status quo, which is in fact already unbelievably feeble.

    Someone needs to light a fire under this president, right now. There were a couple of months when it was a relief just to be calm and quiet and focus mainly on the pandemic, though he managed to shoot himself in the foot over immigration in the same period. But that time for reflection has long since passed, and the window for action is closing fast.


    Beneath Joe Biden’s Folksy Demeanor, a Short Fuse and an Obsession With Details

    As Mr. Biden settles into the office he has chased for more than three decades, aides say he demands hours of debate from scores of policy experts. ...

    It was late March, and President Biden was under increasing pressure to penalize President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia for election interference and the biggest cyberattack ever on American government and industry. “I have to do it relatively soon,” he said to Jake Sullivan, his national security adviser.

    Mr. Biden had already spent the first two months of his presidency debating how to respond to Mr. Putin, and despite his acknowledgment in March that he needed to act quickly, his deliberations were far from over. He convened another meeting in the Situation Room that stretched for two and a half hours, and called yet another session there a week later.

    “He has a kind of mantra: ‘You can never give me too much detail,’” Mr. Sullivan said. ...

    What emerges is a portrait of a president with a short fuse, who is obsessed with getting the details right — sometimes to a fault, including when he angered allies and adversaries alike by repeatedly delaying a decision on whether to allow more refugees into the United States.

    On policy issues, Mr. Biden, 78, takes days or weeks to make up his mind as he examines and second-guesses himself and others. It is a method of governing that can feel at odds with the urgency of a country still reeling from a pandemic and an economy struggling to recover. The president is also faced with a slim majority in Congress that could evaporate next year, giving him only months to enact a lasting legacy. ...

    Mr. Biden is gripped by a sense of urgency that leaves him prone to flares of impatience, according to numerous people who regularly interact with him. The president has said he expects to run for a second term, but aides say he understands the effect on his ability to advance his agenda if Republicans regain power in Congress next year.

    He never erupts into fits of rage the way President Donald J. Trump did. And the current president rarely exhibits the smoldering anger or sense of deep disappointment that advisers to Mr. Obama became familiar with.

    But several people familiar with the president’s decision-making style said Mr. Biden was quick to cut off conversations. Three people who work closely with him said he even occasionally hangs up the phone on someone who he thinks is wasting his time. Most described Mr. Biden as having little patience for advisers who cannot field his many questions. ...

    For political advice and policy direction, he turns to the group one White House aide called the “Biden historians” — Ron Klain, the chief of staff and longtime aide; Bruce Reed, a top policy adviser who sometimes ran his vice president’s office; Mike Donilon, his political counselor and alter-ego; and Steve Ricchetti, his legislative guru and longtime friend. ...

    On the morning of March 31, Mr. Biden was in the Oval Office with Gina McCarthy, his climate czar, and Ali Zaidi, her deputy, to talk about methane emissions and the effort to reclaim mines. The aides wanted to talk about the global effect of policies that they believed he should enact.

    He had different kinds of questions.

    During a lengthy discussion, Mr. Biden quizzed them on how his climate policy would influence specific workers in Pennsylvania, his home state. How would all of this affect earth-moving workers, fabricators, those pouring concrete, derrick operators, plumbers and pipe fitters, and licensed truckers, he asked.


    ‘We May Not Have a Full Two Years’: Democrats’ Plans Hinge on Good Health

    In a narrowly divided Congress, an illness or a death could upend the balance of power and threaten an ambitious agenda. ...

    ... history has some Democrats worried that deaths or illnesses could derail President Biden’s efforts to pass ambitious bills through Congress, which his party controls by the narrowest margins in decades.

    “Our ability to make good on Biden’s agenda is pretty much dangling by a thread,” said Brian Fallon, a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader. “I don’t think it’s uncouth to talk about it. I think it’s a reality that has to inform the urgency with which we approach those issues.” ...

    On average, 10 lawmakers have died in each two-year Congress ... Deaths peaked in the 1940s, and have slowed in recent decades. But every Congress except two has lost at least one member.

    In the House this term, deaths have already affected the parties’ close margins. Three members — Ron Wright of Texas and Representative-elect Luke Letlow of Louisiana, both Republicans; and the Democrat Alcee Hastings of Florida — have died, the most in a Congress in its first three months since the early 1980s. (Mr. Wright and Mr. Letlow died from Covid-19.)

    Health problems have also dogged the Senate. Patrick Leahy, 81, Democrat of Vermont, was briefly hospitalized in January. Thom Tillis, 60, a North Carolina Republican, underwent cancer treatment. Questions have been raised about the health of Dianne Feinstein, 87,

    ( https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dian... )

    a Democrat who has represented California since 1992. Vermont’s other senator, Bernie Sanders, 79, had a heart attack in 2019.

    In the most extreme case, deaths could end Democrats’ ability to pass legislation without Republican support — or even flip control of either chamber. That’s more likely in the evenly divided Senate, where a single Democratic vacancy could hand Republicans committee gavels and the power to schedule votes until a Democratic successor was appointed or elected.

    A serious illness could also upset the party’s delicate legislative arithmetic. “Schumer needs all 50 votes,” said Mr. Fallon, now the executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive advocacy group focused on the federal judiciary. “If somebody is laid up or is hospitalized for a long period of time and their vote’s not there, then having the majority is somewhat meaningless.”

    It’s also possible that a special election or governor’s appointment could shift Senate control more lastingly. Several states require governors to fill vacancies with a temporary replacement of the same political party as the departed senator. But nine senators in the Democratic caucus represent states with Republican governors who can appoint anyone they choose. That could let a Republican governor name a Republican replacement, giving Republicans the majority, even if it may be temporary. (Six Republican senators represent states with Democratic governors who have similar authority.) ...

    Of course, deaths or illnesses could accrue to Democrats’ political benefit. The early retirement of the ailing Republican senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia in 2019 left his seat open. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to it and lost to Raphael Warnock in January, helping give Democrats their current majority. ...

    More recently, the 2009 death of Senator Ted Kennedy of brain cancer — and Scott Brown’s upset victory to fill his seat — cost Senate Democrats their filibuster-proof majority. That forced the House to abandon its more progressive version of the Affordable Care Act and pass a stingier bill that had already cleared the Senate. ...

    Mr. Kennedy’s death may have also indirectly empowered legal threats to Obamacare’s survival. The Senate version was hastily written and lacked a so-called severability clause, which protects laws from being overturned entirely if parts of them are ruled unconstitutional. That omission is now the reason a pending Supreme Court case could invalidate Obamacare in full.


    Tracking Biden appointees

    President Biden’s transition has been slower than previous ones. 


    #89Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  15 Mai 21, 10:36
    So, apparently that was a lead balloon. )-:

    Nevertheless, here's another article, which just happens to cast Biden in a vaguer but slightly more favorable light.


    Has Biden Changed? He Tells Us ...
    By David Brooks
    Opinion Columnist
    What happened to Joe Biden? Many people thought he was a moderate incrementalist, but now he’s promoting whopping big legislative packages that make many on the progressive left extremely happy.
    I asked him that when I spoke on the phone with him this week. The answer seems to be — it’s complicated.
    The values that drive him have been utterly consistent over the decades, and the policies he is proposing now are similar to those he’s been championing for decades.
    It’s the scale that is gigantically different. It’s as if a company that was making pleasure boats started turning out ocean liners. And that’s because Biden believes that in a post-Trump world we’re fighting not just to preserve the middle class, but to survive as the leading nation of the earth. ...
    Some people get their worldviews from ideological constructs or philosophical movements like “conservatism” or “progressivism.” Biden derives his worldview from lived experience, especially the world of his youth, and how his parents taught him to see that world. ...
    First, a social location. What matters is not only how a person sees an issue, but also where he or she sees it from. Biden sees most issues from the vantage of the folks that used to be called “the common man,” the lower-middle- and middle-class Truman Democrats he grew up around.
    Second, an acute awareness of the vicissitudes of life. Biden said that his dad once showed him an image of the comic strip Viking, Hagar the Horrible, getting hammered by life and screaming out, “Why Me?!” God answers, “Why Not?” Biden still has that comic strip. “That was my dad,” he added.
    Third, an intense focus on human dignity. “I think the Irish most often use the world ‘dignity’ of any other group of people,” Biden said. “I think it’s because when you’ve been deprived of dignity you put a high, high premium on it.” In the white ethnic hierarchies of midcentury America, “To be Irish was to be second class,” Biden recalls. “The English owned the town.” ...
    Another piece of his basic worldview comes from 20th-century Catholic social teaching. He said that his father loved the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain ...
    Like most of the major figures of Catholic social teaching, Maritain placed great emphasis on social solidarity, the organic interdependence of people and communities. If you’re drenched in Maritain, you believe we have serious responsibilities for one another. ...
    So has Biden now become a straight-up progressive? Biden certainly doesn’t think so. “The progressives don’t like me because I’m not prepared to take on what I would say and they would say is a socialist agenda.” He thinks the people who take the big risks to generate wealth should reap the big rewards.
    He’s suspicious of the generous college debt forgiveness plans that have sprung up on the left. “The idea that you go to Penn and you’re paying a total of 70,000 bucks a year and the public should pay for that? I don’t agree.”
    There’s also a difference in the way Biden and the left critique big corporations. Some on the left make a comprehensive critique of capitalism, while Biden wants capitalism to keep within the bounds of common decency. He argues that corporations used to take responsibility for their communities, now it’s just shareholder value. “The C.E.O.s back as late as the 70s were making 35, 40 times as much as the average employee. Now it’s 320 times. What are they promoting? What are they doing? As my mother used to say, ‘Who died and made you boss?’”


    #90Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 21 Mai 21, 14:43

    Someone needs to light a fire under this president, right now. There were a couple of months when it was a relief just to be calm and quiet and focus mainly on the pandemic, though he managed to shoot himself in the foot over immigration in the same period. But that time for reflection has long since passed, and the window for action is closing fast.

    Based on his extensive political career, we as the American electorate knew what we were going to get when we elected Biden. If we wanted someone with a fresh perspective, another Democratic candidate could have been nominated. Biden is performing as well as I expected and circumstances (razor-thin margins) allow. He seems to have delegated responsibility for immigration issues to Harris, who has yet to deliver much of anything, which isn't surprising given how gnarly of an issue it is.

    #91VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  21 Mai 21, 22:04

    For any observers wondering why nothing at all useful has been happening in the US legislature since the current members were installed in January, one answer was the West Virginia senator Joe Manchin. Elected from a heavily red state, he often appears to be a Democrat in name only, willing to block almost anything that any Republicans at all object to.

    But on the voting rights bill, there seems finally to be some slight hope that Manchin may at least be able to use the discussion to put the Republicans in a position where they are forced to actually vote openly against some very popular provisions like early voting, and for some very unpopular ones like gerrymandering. Then it will at least be clear which party is blocking the will of the people.

    I'm not sure if the Democrats have any plan for what to do after that. But with such a logjam in Congress, caused in no small part by Manchin himself, maybe it would be a small step at least to get a trickle of legislative activity flowing.

    I'm also not sure what Europeans could do to encourage the process, but sending some reporters to interview Joe Manchin (and possibly also Kyrsten Sinema) might at least not hurt.


    Manchin presents his wish list for a voting rights and ethics bill. ...
    Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, showing some flexibility on major voting rights legislation, indicated on Wednesday that he opposed the blanket prohibition on all voter identification laws in the Senate Democrats’ current version and would not support public financing of elections.
    But he expressed support for statutory expansions of early and mail-in voting that would turn back dozens of voting restriction laws that have passed or are nearing passage in Republican legislatures in key states like Georgia, Florida and Texas.
    He also suggested privately this week that he was working to alleviate pressure to end the legislative filibuster — a move that he has publicly promised to oppose — even though not even his version of a voting rights measure could overcome a Republican blockade. ...
    On Wednesday, he responded to ... criticism with an exhaustive list of provisions for a voting rights, ethics and campaign finance bill that he could support. For Democrats, there was much to like. Mr. Manchin said he wanted Election Day to be a public holiday. He wants at least 15 consecutive days of early voting, including two weekends; a ban on partisan gerrymandering and the use of computer models to tailor House districts to a candidate’s political party; and a requirement that states send mail-in absentee ballots to eligible voters if they are unable to vote in person, among several other provisions to expand ballot access.
    His provision would scale back the For the People Act’s mandated “no excuse” absentee ballot access, but remains broad.
    On ethics, he would maintain many of S1’s efforts to address the abuses of President Donald J. Trump, including the mandatory release of presidential and vice-presidential tax returns, and the divestiture of all presidential business and financial interests within 30 days of taking office.
    His campaign finance changes are not as far-reaching as those in the Democratic bill, but he would mandate disclosure of donors to “dark money” political committees and stronger rules to expose who is paying for social media advertising.
    Together, Mr. Manchin’s proposals would make a significant bill, perhaps the biggest expansion of voting rights since passage of the Voting Rights Act.
    “A good voting bill has to be accessible. It has to be fair and it has to be secure,” the senator told reporters on Wednesday.
    But as long as 10 Republicans would be needed to break a filibuster, the Manchin version would have no chance of passage.
    In a Zoom call reported by The Intercept, Mr. Manchin told the affluent financial supporters of the centrist group No Labels that he still hoped to preserve the filibuster, but that he needed some Republicans to help him prove that bipartisanship could still survive the toxic atmosphere in Congress.


    How Joe Manchin Can Fix the Filibuster
    It’s easy to sympathize with the liberal desire to bury the Senate filibuster forever. The 60-vote threshold for Senate legislation is a choke point in a political system defined by gridlock, sclerosis and futility. It provides an excuse for policy abdication, encouraging the legislative branch to cede authority to the presidency and the courts, and the Republican Party to decline to have a policy agenda at all. Its history is checkered, its pervasive use is a novelty of polarization, and its eventual disappearance seems inevitable — so why not adapt now?
    At the same time, it’s also easy to see why Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from a conservative state, might have some doubts about his party’s confident filibuster-busting ambitions.
    Listen to Manchin’s fellow Democrats talk about their political position and the constitutional structures impeding them, and you would be forgiven for thinking that they have been winning commanding majorities for years, of the sort enjoyed by Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson, while being thwarted again and again by a much smaller reactionary faction.
    But in reality the Democrats have a relatively thin majority, opposed by a very large minority. The national presidential vote in 2020 was roughly 51 percent to 47 percent; the national vote for the House of Representatives was about 51 to 48 percent. These are clear victories, but not the margins of a transformative majority. ...
    Maybe abolishing the filibuster would eventually lead to Democratic senators from Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C. But in the short term it might make the prospects of the few remaining red-state Democratic senators even dimmer than today.
    But there is a half measure available that Manchin should consider as an alternative to abolition: weakening the filibuster by taking its threshold to 55 votes instead of 60.


    Maybe Joe Manchin Knows Exactly What He’s Doing ...
    By the standards of the age, Manchin is a political magician. West Virginia, the state he represents as a Democrat in the Senate, has a 35.5-point lean toward the Republican Party, according to FiveThirtyEight. To put that into context, there is only one Republican in the Senate representing a state that’s even mildly bluish, and that’s Susan Collins, from Maine, which has a four-point Democratic bias.
    Put simply, Manchin shouldn’t exist. And Democrats cannot take him for granted. Their Senate majority, and thus the whole of their legislative agenda, hinges on his ability to win elections anyone else would lose. None of that makes Manchin’s every decision laudable, or even wise, but it demands recognition. He has honed instincts worth respecting. And now, in the 50-50 Senate that teeters on his vote, he is the most powerful legislator of our age.
    The question obsessing Washington, then, is simple: What does Manchin want? And Manchin, in statement after statement, has offered a clear answer: bipartisanship. ...
    Part of the strategy relies on changing the rules. Manchin has said, over and over again, that he will not eliminate or weaken the filibuster. I wish he’d reconsider, but he won’t. The possibility remains, however, that he will
    strengthen the filibuster. ...
    It’s possible to imagine a set of reforms that would restore something more like the filibuster of yore and rebuild the deliberative capacities of the Senate. This would begin with a variation on the congressional scholar Norm Ornstein’s idea toshift the burden of the filibuster: Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate, require 40 (or 41) to continue it.


    Joe Manchin and the Magic 50th Vote for Democrats’ Voting Rights Bill
    Democrats know that their election overhaul has no chance as long as the filibuster exists, but they are eager to show that all that stands in its way are Republicans. ...
    Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has hesitated to bring top Democratic priorities to the floor this year without the backing of all 50 senators. Given the Senate’s even partisan split, it takes every Democrat and Democratic-leaning independent, plus the tiebreaking power of Vice President Kamala Harris, to guarantee a majority. Then, if Republicans mount a filibuster, Democrats can point out that they had the votes to approve legislation, bolstering their argument that the Senate rules are being abused by Republicans and unfairly impeding highly popular policy changes.

    #92Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 18 Jun. 21, 06:50

    It's not just Joe Manchin who opposes eliminating the filibuster; Kyrsten Sinema is also on record as opposing elimination. In fact, according to a site that tracks this issue, only 18 Democratic senators have clearly stated support for elimination. There are 27 who indicated they would consider the issue, and there are 3 who aren't on record one way of the other.


    My Senator Padilla tweets incessantly about eliminating the filibuster, but Sen. Feinstein seems to lean towards keeping it.


    #93VerfasserMartin--cal (272273)  18 Jun. 21, 08:00
    Yes, I think it's a pretty open secret that a lot of senators in both parties who have been there long enough to remember what's it's like to be in the minority would be very hesitant to completely eliminate the filibuster. But the proposal to lower it to, say, 55 instead of 60 votes made some sense to me, even if I doubt many of them would consider it.

    As much as I used to respect Sen. Feinstein, isn't she having some pretty serious cognitive issues? Can't anyone persuade her that it's time to hand over the baton, rather than risk the loss of her own vote if she's not able to carry on?
    #94Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 18 Jun. 21, 08:35
    I haven't been following this thread, so sorry if it's already been discussed, but has anyone else noticed how the German TV media always calls him "Joe Biden" (and, in fact, rattles it off more like it's all one name: "Joebiden")? Not just "Biden" and also not "President Biden". Always "Joebiden".
    At first I found it a bit amusing but now it is starting to bug me.....why do they do that? Did he request it? Does the American media refer to him as "Joe Biden" too? Do they just think it sounds cool? Does "President Biden" take too long to say?
    Trump was always just "Trump" (or rather "Trahmp") or maybe "President Trump" and same goes for Obama.
    So what's different about Biden? Grateful for any insights...
    #95VerfasserMiss Anthropy (700297) 01 Jul. 21, 22:46

    Gibt es tatsächlich einen Unterschied zu Trump und Obama in der Berichterstattung? Eine Besonderheit ist, dass "Biden" gleich klingt wie das deutsche Wort "beiden".

    "Putin stattete Biden/beiden einen Besuch ab."

    Ich gebe zu, die Verwechslungsgefahr ist etwas theoretisch.

    #96Verfassermordnilap (835133)  01 Jul. 21, 23:24

    that's true, and it did occur to me (forgot about it in my list of possibilities above), that they simply want to avoid any confusion with the german word "beiden". i still insist "präsident biden" would be more respectful but obviously doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as "joebiden". :-p

    apologies for lack of caps.

    #97VerfasserMiss Anthropy (700297) 02 Jul. 21, 07:31

    Mir ist das noch nicht aufgefallen. Aber ab jetzt werde ich aufpassen. Für Trump und Obama ist es zu spät.

    Respektlos finde ich das eigentlich nicht. Warum ist das respektlos? Ist "Emmanuel Macron hat XYZ gesagt" respektlos im Vergleich zu "Macron hat XYZ gesagt" und "Präsident Macron hat XYZ gesagt"?

    Es gibt auch massenhaft Schlagzeilen, in denen "... Angela Merkel ..." ohne Amtsbezeichnung steht.


    #98VerfasserSelima (107)  02 Jul. 21, 07:37
    Ich habe gerade einige aktuelle und alte Artikel über Trump und Biden auf tagesschau.de angeschaut (nur schriftliche, keine Videos, da grad auf lautlos) und in beiden beides gefunden, Nennungen mit und ohne Vornamen. Vielleicht bei Biden tendenziell mehr mit Vornamen, das könnte sein. Aber nicht ausschließlich. Ich achte auch mal drauf.
    #99VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 02 Jul. 21, 07:53

    Da ich keinen Fernseher habe, kann ich nur über das Radio berichten. In den aktuellen Nachrichten kam Biden vor und wurde als Präsident Biden bezeichnet. Es gab auch einen Hintergrundbericht und in dem war von Joe Biden die Rede. In dieser sehr kleinen Stichprobe kam also beides vor.

    Trump was always just "Trump" (or rather "Trahmp") or maybe "President Trump" and same goes for Obama.

    Es ist natürlich schwierig, das für die Vergangenheit zu prüfen, aber ich bin doch recht sicher, dass das (wieder für das Radio, aber warum sollte es im Fernsehen, auf das sich Miss Anthropy bezieht, anders sein?) so nicht stimmt. Ich meine mich an zahlreiche Berichte zu erinnern, in denen von Donald Trump oder Barrack Obama die Rede war. Bei George W Bush bin ich sogar noch sicherer.

    #100Verfasserharambee (91833) 02 Jul. 21, 08:27

    (or rather "Trahmp")

    Wie sonst sollte ein deutscher Nachrichtensprecher das sagen? Außer vielleicht mit kurzem A, was ich auch üblicherweise gehört habe.

    #101VerfasserGibson (418762) 02 Jul. 21, 11:41

    Ich habe gerade mal "Biden", "der", "das", "und" in die Suchmaschine eingegeben. Die drei letzten, weil mir sonst erst mal nur französische Quellen angezeigt werden.

    Beim Überfliegen der ersten sechs Seiten mit sechzig Funden waren wirklich überpropotional viele dabei, die "Joe Biden" enthielten. Gezählt habe ich sie nicht, nur geschätzt und bin auf höchstens fünfzehn gekommen, die nichts, Präsident oder Hunter vor dem Nachnamen hatten.

    #102VerfasserReeva (908916) 02 Jul. 21, 12:27

    Reeva, ergibt das gleiche Experiment mit Trump oder Obama denn deutlich andere Ergebnisse?

    #103Verfasserharambee (91833) 02 Jul. 21, 12:35

    Zum Vergleich: In den US-Medien ist das Verhältnis "Joe Biden zu "President Biden" in meinen Versuchen je nach Medium zwischen 2:1 und 1:1. Das mag auch daran liegen, dass in die Suche auch ältere Artikel aus der Zeit vor Bidens Präsidentschaft hineinrutschen.

    #104VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  02 Jul. 21, 12:35

    Beim Überfliegen der ersten sechs Seiten mit sechzig Funden waren wirklich überproportional viele dabei, die "Joe Biden" enthielten.

    Was bedeutet hier "überproportional"? Mehr als bei "Barack Obama" und "Donald Trump"? Vergleichen mit "Präsident X" sollte man übrigens nur, wenn man für einen ähnlichen Zeitraum sucht, da die beiden ja länger Präsident (und Ex-Präsident) sind als Herr Biden.

    Ich halte das wie harambee für einen Fehleindruck von Miss Anthropy. Vielleicht wirkt das wegen des Kurznamens "Joe" vergleichsweise unangenehm oder respektlos auf sie?

    #105VerfasserMattes (236368) 02 Jul. 21, 12:37

    Mit der gleichen Suchstrategie bei den gleichen US-Medien scheint "President Obama" leicht zu überwiegen gegenüber "Barack Obama".

    Es scheint bei Joe Biden in den US-Medien also schon eine stärkere Präferenz für die Version mit Vornamen zu geben als bei Obama. Herr Biden zeigt sich gerne dem Volk verbunden, Herr Obama dagegen tendiert eher in Richtung Intellektueller. Hat vielleicht auch damit etwas zu tun.

    Bei DJT ist das Übergewicht für die Version mit Vornamen noch stärker ausgeprägt als bei Joe Biden. Liegt vielleicht daran, dass man ihn eher ungern in diesem Amt sah. So geht es mir selbst zumindestens. Ich habe höchst selten "President Trump" benutzt.

    #106VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  02 Jul. 21, 12:44

    Ich habe mit Google auf DE-Seiten gesucht nach der Wortfolge "aber X hat" und X jeweils mit dem Nachnamen oder Vornamen und Nachnamen der drei letzten US-Präsidenten ersetzt. Die Ergebnisse Nachname zu Vorname Nachname waren*:

    Trump: 7:1 (8040:1120)

    Biden: 2:1 (540:223)

    Obama: 10:1 (1490:143)

    Das bestätigt eher Miss A.s Eindruck. Aber s.u.

    Mit Präsident Nachname habe ich nicht gesucht, weil mir das mit den unterschiedlichen Zeiträumen zu kompliziert war. Obama hatte ja viel länger Zeit, in den Medien als Präsident bezeichnet zu werden.

    *Jeweils die "ungefähre" Zahl der Ergebnisse. Beim Durchblicken bis zur letzten Seite ergeben sich andere Verhältnisse. Die Ergebnisse Nachname zu Vorname Nachname waren*:

    Trump: 1:1 (96:125)

    Biden: 2,5:1 (66:26)

    Obama: 4:1 (98:25)

    #107VerfasserMattes (236368) 02 Jul. 21, 12:58

    Harambee, Mattes

    Soo wichtig ist mir das nun auch wieder nicht. Ein Versuch mit "Joe Biden" und "Biden" ohne oder mit anderen "Vornamen" reicht mir. Und das "überpropprtional" bezieht sich auch nur darauf. Viel mehr mit Joe als ohne Joe.

    #108VerfasserReeva (908916) 02 Jul. 21, 12:59

    Ich hab die Methode "Juffa" mal auf andere Politiker angewandt und komme auf ein Verhältnis von V+N zu N von:

    0.8 Merkel (4400/5480)

    3.1 Biden (2790/916)

    3.5 Macron (1250/350)

    3.7 Steinmeier (718/195)

    3.9 Draghi (324/84)

    4.2 Johnson (1950/462)

    13.0 Kurz (4920/379)

    14.5 Putin (6330/436)

    Wenn die Nennung von Vor- und Nachnamen in dt. Medien mit fehlendem Respekt, die Nennung ohne Vornamen aber mit Hochachtung zu tun hat, dann steht Frau Merkel ganz unten und Herr Putin ganz oben in der Rangliste.

    #109VerfasserSelima (107)  02 Jul. 21, 13:16

    (aus dem Off und etwas off topic:)

    Ich finde diese Recherchen absolut faszinierend, und noch faszinierender fast, wie der alteingesessene Leoniden-Schwarm auf so einen Beitrag "anspringt" und wie er methodisch vorgeht, sich der Materie anzunehmen, sie zu analysieren und dann Statements abzugeben. Das ist so was von unglaublich Leo, oder nicht? 😉

    #110VerfasserGoldammer (428405)  02 Jul. 21, 16:11

    Oh no, my big long post didn't get posted. *starting over* :-/

    I actually didn't intend to start a Google competition *g* but indeed the results are interesting!

    My statement was only referring to the TV news, and specifically ARD, since that is all we watch, sorry for the overgeneralization.

    A lot of people jumped on the topic of respect; in fact, the word that came to mind as I wrote "'Praesident Biden' would be more respectful" was "angebrachter" and I wasn't able at that moment to look up what "angebrachter" would be in English and ended up writing "respectful" instead. But yes, I do think it is a sign of respect to use political titles; maybe this is a cultural difference. Look at the pro-Trump "news" site One America News Network. They *still* refer to Trump as "President Trump" and the now-president Biden is always just "Biden". An obvious slap in the face.

    In Germany, where doctor and professor titles are publicly flaunted (as a status symbol?), I am surprised that apparently not as much attention is paid to political titles.

    To be clear, I do not expect *every* mention of Biden in the news to be preceded by "President", I hope it didn't come across that way. But in a news broadcast, I would expect the *first* mention to be "President Biden" and then afterwards just "Biden" or "the president" or "Joe Biden" to keep the broadcast interesting.

    The whole thing has made me a little curious though now, and I think I will look back at some older broadcasts and see if my impression is indeed warranted or if it's only the run-together "Joebiden" that's getting to me.

    #111VerfasserMiss Anthropy (700297) 02 Jul. 21, 18:05

    #111 if it's only the run-together "Joebiden" that's getting to me

    Hör dir zum Vergleich auch mal "Angelamerkel" an - zumindest ich höre das auch oft als ein Wort. Vielleicht ist es eher dann der Fall, wenn der Vorname auf einen Vokal endet?

    #112VerfasserNica (de) (236745) 02 Jul. 21, 18:53

    Ich bin alt genug, um jimmycarter und sogar (in historischen Dokumentationen) johneffkennedy im Ohr zu haben. Bei Bill Clinton war immerhin eine kleine Pause zwischen Vor- und Nachnamen, das liegt aber nur daran, dass zwei betonte Silben aufeinander folgen. Und Ronald Reagan lässt sich auch nur mit Pause sprechen (die Zunge muss nach dem vorn angetippten D ganz nach hinten rollen). Georgedoubleyoubush funktionierte auch prima in einem Wort - da war das W ja auch als Unterscheidungsmerkmal zum Papa wichtig.

    Bei fast allen US-Präsidenten seit den Siebzigern wurde nach meinem Eindruck Vornamenachname präferiert, außer bei Ronald Reagan - da hatten die Sprecher*innen oft Schwierigkeiten mit den zwei amerikanischen R. Bei Barack Obama habe ich oft den Vornamen falsch ausgesprochen gehört, ['bəɹək] statt korrekt [bəˈɹɑːk] - da lag das Weglassen vielleicht näher.

    #113VerfasserRaudona (255425) 02 Jul. 21, 20:32

    Gibt es denn noch keine Studentin, die zu dem Thema "Benennung des amerikanischen Präsidenten in deutschen Medien" eine Diplomarbeit geschrieben hat? Ad-Hoc-Datensammlung mit Sofortanalyse ist ja ganz unterhaltsam, aber von geringer Aussagekraft. Ich denke, dass die Präferenzen multikausalen Ursprungs sind.

    #114VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 02 Jul. 21, 21:06
    Ich denke, dass die Präferenzen multikausalen Ursprungs sind.
    That's a good way of putting it! 🙂
    #115VerfasserMiss Anthropy (700297) 03 Jul. 21, 00:08

    Look at the pro-Trump "news" site One America News Network. They *still* refer to Trump as "President Trump" and the now-president Biden is always just "Biden". An obvious slap in the face.


    In Germany, where doctor and professor titles are publicly flaunted (as a status symbol?), I am surprised that apparently not as much attention is paid to political titles.

    Soweit ich weiß, ist "Doktor" ein akademischer Grad, der umgangssprachlich Doktortitel genannt wird.

    "Professor" ist ein akademischer oder Ehrentitel bzw. eine Amts- und Berufsbezeichnung.

    Meines Wissens sind Bundespräsident, Bundeskanzler und Bundesminister auch Amtsbezeichnungen und geben Auskunft über die politische Funktion, es sind keine Titel.

    Sagt man in Reportagen "(Bundes)kanzlerin Merkel" bzw. "(Bundes)präsident Steinmeier, ist das für mich vergleichbar mit "president Biden". Ich glaube nicht, dass die Verwendung oder das Weglassen von Vornamen und Amtsbezeichnungen vor dem Nachnamen in deutschsprachigen Medien irgendetwas mit Respekt oder Achtung vor dem Amt/der Person ( nicht so wie bei OANN) zu tun hat, sondern andere Gründe:

    • man schenkt der Tatsache überhaupt keine besondere Aufmerksamkeit
    • man möchte nicht immer dieselben Worte benutzen
    • man geht davon aus, dass (nicht) alle die Amtsbezeichnung kennen
    • es gibt zwei Politiker mit demselben Nachnamen (Bush)
    • ....

    #116VerfasserReeva (908916)  03 Jul. 21, 09:15

    Ich vermute, wie oben auch schon jemand, dass in gesprochenen Nachrichten auch einfach die Verwechslung mit 'beiden' im Satz vermieden werden soll. Und 'Joe' ist schön kurz, anders als 'Prä-si-den', und geht leicht von der Zunge.

    #117VerfasserGibson (418762) 03 Jul. 21, 19:32

    Heute Morgen in den Radionachrichten wurde von "(US-)Präsident Biden" gesprochen ... ganz ohne Vorname ... bei der Meldungs-Übersicht mit "US", in der darauffolgenden Meldung selbst ohne das "US" ...

    #118Verfasserno me bré (700807) 04 Jul. 21, 20:03
    After Texas Republicans recently made negative headlines even across the pond,

    ( Siehe auch: Neuigkeiten vom Rest der Welt 3 - #232

    & passim up to

    Siehe auch: Neuigkeiten vom Rest der Welt 3 - #246 )

    it's becoming more apparent that Texas Democrats, despite an attempt to push back, are unlikely to actually accomplish much, even with their fellow party members in D.C. But they seem to be at least trying to hang on to the media attention, for anyone still interested in following that story.

    It also seems increasingly unlikely that the Democrats are going to be able to accomplish much else this term, since they seem to have mostly bogged down even on infrastructure, police reform, and other issues besides voting rights. That, along with the discouraging news from Afghanistan, has meant that Biden has been in the spotlight less, which has allowed Republicans (e.g. at CPAC) to spread malicious rumors about his cognitive ability, among everything else.

    I don't think any of that bodes well for the 2022 campaign, and neither does the official Democratic push for trillions of dollars more in spending at exactly the moment when people in both parties are paying much more anxious attention to inflation. /-:


    Texas Democrats find voting rights are a tough sell as Capitol Hill turns its focus to Biden’s economic agenda ...
    ... the Texas state legislators ... arrived in Washington just as the congressional Democrats they are trying to prod into action on voting legislation have turned their full attention toward a trillion-dollar infrastructure deal and a potentially historic $3.5 trillion expansion of federal social and climate programs. ...
    ... on Thursday, a contingent of Texas Democrats emerged from a meeting with one key senator — Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) — without securing any new concessions that would allow a voting bill to pass the Senate in the coming weeks. ...
    Manchin is not the only Democrat who has resisted changes to the filibuster; Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) has also publicly opposed changes, and several more senators are quietly skeptical.


    #119Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 16 Jul. 21, 07:36
    Regarding Biden in the TV news here, tonight on the Tagesschau, he was mentioned in two separate stories. Both times they started with "US-Präsident Biden" and thereafter he was "Biden" or "der US-Präsident" but not once "Joebiden". So I guess I take it all back. 😇
    #120VerfasserMiss Anthropy (700297) 16 Jul. 21, 20:56

    Ich haette eine kleine Anfrage and die amerikanischen Leoniden:

    Ist es in den USA generell so, dass auch ein ehemaliger Amtsinhaber (in diesem Fall der Praesident) weiterhin mit seinem (frueheren) Titel angesprochen oder besprochen wird?

    Hintergrund: Ich schaue viel CNN und habe den Eindruck, dass Trump selbst von Kritikern haeufig noch als "President Trump" bezeichnet wird. Ist das dann Respekt vor dem Amt?

    Allerdings gibt es auch einige Moderatoren, die ihm konsequent den Titel absprechen. Das scheint deutlich Verachtung fuer den Menschen und seine politische Haltung/seine (Un)taten zu sein.

    Und noch eine Frage: wird es als respektlos empfunden, wenn auslaendische Medien den "President" weglassen?

    #121VerfasserStepha3nie (568942) 17 Jul. 21, 01:49

    Ist es in den USA generell so, dass auch ein ehemaliger Amtsinhaber (in diesem Fall der Praesident) weiterhin mit seinem (frueheren) Titel angesprochen oder besprochen wird?

    Wenn Leute im Fernsehen interviewt werden, erfolgt die Ansprache mit dem höchsten erreichten Titel normalerweise bei ehemaligen Präsidenten, Gouverneuren, Senatoren, und Generalen. Ich müsste jetzt Beispiele bei YouTube suchen gehen, ob das auch auf andere Ämter zutrifft, wie z.B. bei Richtern, ehemaligen Kabinettsmitgliedern oder Botschaftern. Ich meine, solche Fälle hätte ich schon gesehen, bin mir aber nicht sicher.

    Andere hier aktive Amerikaner haben vielleicht einen besseren Überblick oder kennen vielleicht eine protokollarische Regel, in der das festgelegt ist.

    #122VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 17 Jul. 21, 03:08

    Danke schonmal.

    #123VerfasserStepha3nie (568942) 17 Jul. 21, 04:07

    The news continues, even if it isn't very good.


    In String of Wins, ‘Biden Democrats’ See a Reality Check for the Left
    Progressives are holding their own with moderates in fights over policy. But off-year elections suggest they need a new strategy for critiquing President Biden without seeming disloyal.


    Biden’s Honeymoon Is Over, and He Knows It
    By Thomas B. Edsall
    The first seven months of the Biden presidency have been easy compared with what’s coming down the pike.
    Key provisions of Covid relief legislation came to an end on Aug. 1, with more set to follow — including a cessation of moratoriums on evictions and mortgage foreclosures, termination of extended unemployment benefits (which carried $300-a-week supplemental payments) and a stop to enhanced food stamp subsidies and student loan forbearance. ...
    The rate of inflation has been rising at its fastest pace in over a decade — to 5.4 percent in June, from 1.4 percent in January when Biden took office, with no end in sight. The number of homicides grew by 25 percent from 2019 to 2020, and the 2021 rate, 6.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, is on track to become, according to The Washington Post, “the highest recorded in the United States in more than 20 years.”
    The number of illegal border crossings has more than doubled during Biden’s seven months in office, raising the potential for immigration to become a central campaign issue once again, both next year and in 2024. ...
    The danger for Biden if crime and immigration become primary issues of public attention is clear in polling data. The RealClearPolitics average of the eight most recent polls shows Biden’s favorability at plus 7.5 points (51.1 positive and 43.6 negative) and that the public generally approves of his handling of the Covid pandemic, of jobs, of the economy and of the environment.
    Regarding Biden’s handling of crime and immigration, however, the numbers go negative. In the July 17-20 Economist/YouGov Poll, 38 percent of voters approved of his handling of crime, and 45 percent disapproved. In the Economist/YouGov poll taken a week later, Biden’s numbers on immigration were worse: 35 approving, 50 disapproving.


    #124Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 05 Aug. 21, 12:39
    More reading matter for a Monday.

    What I'm not linking to, because it's everywhere in the news, is the very, very bad news coming out of Afghanistan, because (a) it was entirely predictable, and (b) Biden actually followed the same policy as Trump, a fact which no one now seems inclined to comment on, because, I suppose, what is there to say.

    But it seems likely that Biden's reward for choosing what may be the greater of evils in the short term may be a very short political term, along with any other predictable failures of bipartisanship. )-:


    Don’t Be Fooled by Mitch McConnell’s Sudden Bout of Bipartisanship
    Are we entering a new era of bipartisanship? On the surface, the news from Washington seems remarkably encouraging. The Senate is close to passing a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, with $550 billion in new spending on everything from transit to highways to broadband to climate change mitigation. Political insiders are hailing the bill as a breakthrough, with the Senate poised, at last, to overcome the partisan gridlock that has ground its legislative machinery to a halt. Many thought that President Biden’s belief that he could get Republican votes was naïve, but he delivered. In a surprise, even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, voted to move the compromise to a vote.
    Of course, this is the same Mitch McConnell who said of Mr. Biden, “100 percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration.” The same Mr. McConnell who made sure Donald Trump’s impeachment did not result in conviction, who filibustered the bipartisan plan for a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 violent insurrection until it died, who kept all of his Republican senators in line against the American Rescue Plan early in the Biden presidency. And the same Mr. McConnell who said that he would not confirm a Biden nominee to the Supreme Court if Republicans recaptured the Senate in 2022.
    So why the reversal on infrastructure? Why dare the brickbats of Donald Trump after the former president bashed the effort and tried to kill it? Mr. McConnell has one overriding goal: regaining a majority in the Senate in 2022. Republicans must defend 20 of the 34 Senate seats up for grabs next year; there are open seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina; and Senator Ron Johnson, if he runs again, could easily lose his seat in Wisconsin. Attempting to block a popular infrastructure bill that later gets enacted by Democrats alone would give them all the credit. ...
    You don’t have to be a Machiavellian to understand another reason Mr. McConnell was willing to hand Mr. Biden a victory on infrastructure: By looking reasonable on this popular plan, claiming a mantle of the kind of bipartisanship that pleases Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and that mollifies suburban moderate Republicans in key states, Mr. McConnell can more easily rally his troops behind their goal of obstruction and delay for every other important Democratic priority, including the blockbuster reconciliation bill, as well as voting rights and election reform.

    Norman J. Ornstein is an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, which he wrote with E.J. Dionne and Thomas E. Mann, is “One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate and the Not-Yet Deported.”

    A Pyrrhic Victory in a Broken Senate


    America’s Dismal Foreign Policy — and What to Do About It ...
    Few critics have been more penetrating than Andrew Bacevich, a conservative Catholic who made his career as an Army officer and saw active service in Vietnam and the first [G]ulf war, a contrast indeed to the chickenhawks and armchair warriors of Washington. His first and easiest task in “After the Apocalypse” is to deride the failures — who now defends those wars? ...
    But there is much more, and Bacevich looks back at the long and rather weird tradition of American exceptionalism, as it’s called. From Lincoln’s “last best hope of earth” to Wilson’s belief that America could “vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world,” the idea runs to Bill Clinton’s “the greatest nation on earth,” Madeleine Albright’s “we are the indispensable nation” and on to Hillary Clinton’s “America is great because we are good.” Other nations may have sometimes basked in their own self-esteem, but have the leaders of any other modern country ever spoken quite like that?


    #125Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 09 Aug. 21, 11:48

    Ich habe den Eindruck, die anfänglich große Biden-Begeisterung hat in Deutschland stark nachgelassen.Dieser überstürzte Rückzug aus einem Land dem man Demokratie beibringen wollte. 20 Jahre und über 2000 Milliarden Dollar später hat man nichts mehr vorzuweisen. Daran waren natürlich auch Bidens Vorgänger nicht ganz unschuldig, aber er hat jetzt das Problem. Mit hastig zurückgelassenen Fahrzeugen und Munition fahren jetz die Talibans durch Kabul. Die deutschen Bundeswehrsoldaten fühlen sich verraten und verkauft, Bidens Image ist schwer angekratzt, mich hat er dadurch auch endtäuscht, da hätte ich mehr internationale Absprache und Professionalität erwartet.

    #126Verfasserzacki (1263445) 16 Aug. 21, 12:04

    Die Amerikaner haben schon immer sehr deutlich gemacht, daß die Deutschen für sie nur Mittel zum Zweck sind. Insofern bei mir keine Enttäuschung. Sondern erwartbar.

    #127Verfasserulinne (894128) 16 Aug. 21, 13:03

    Zum tagesaktuellen Thema des plötzlichen Zusammenbruchs der Zentralregierung und Armee in Afghanistan:

    Ich finde es in hohem Maße unfair, unredlich oder - more often than not - schlicht ignorant, wenn in den Medien, Diskussionsforen und der Politik jetzt Biden oder überhaupt den westlichen Regierungen irgendwie Vorwürfe deswegen gemacht werden. Afghanistan war und ist ein hoffnungsloser Fall. Immer schon. Irgendwann musste man Schluss machen. Dieselbe Situation wäre in jedem Fall eingetreten, egal wie lange man jetzt noch westliche Truppen im Land gelassen oder wieviele zig Millarden man noch da reingebuttert hätte. Besser ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende.

    Davon abgesehen hätte man es vielleicht besser managen können, das stimmt.

    Aber dass die afghanische Regierung nun wirklich kampflos in Rekordzeit zusammenbricht, ist in der Tat beschämend. Für alle Beteiligten, in jeder Hinsicht.

    Dafür sind aber die Afghanen selber verantwortlich und nicht Biden.

    Und der Urfehler ist George W., Rumsfeld & Co. anzulasten, nicht Biden.

    Die deutsche Rolle, d.h. die der deutschen Poltik, insbesondere der Regierung Merkel, die das die letzten 16 Jahre zu verantworten hat, beschränkt sich auf Mutlosigkeit, Traumtänzelei und schlechtes Management. Einmal mehr.

    #128Verfassermad (239053)  16 Aug. 21, 13:58

    Kann man so sagen, meine Formulierungen wären aber drastischer.

    #129Verfasserjo-SR (238182)  16 Aug. 21, 14:13

    Besser ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende. (#128)

    Ich vermute mal, du bist nicht in Afghanistan. (Ich bin's auch nicht.)

    Ohne dir zu nahe treten zu wollen, aber so was lässt sich aus sicherer Entfernung leicht sagen.

    #130VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  16 Aug. 21, 17:06

    Och wenn der Schrecken nur andere Leute betrifft, ist das doch OK :-/

    #131VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 16 Aug. 21, 17:14

    @ 130, 131: Wohlfeile Kritik, die weise ich zurück. Ich frage im Gegenzug: Was wäre denn sonst die Lösung gewesen, Eurer Meinung nach? Bundeswehr in den Kampf? Westliche Militärpräsenz ad infinitum? Hat nichts gebracht außer unnötige Tote und Verletzte, beim Militär und bei der einheimischen Bevölkerung, und horrende finanzielle Kosten usw. Afghanistan ist von außen nicht zu helfen. Ein Schlussstrich war überfällig. Das Ergebnis wäre auch nächstes Jahr dasselbe gewesen, oder auch in fünf Jahren, oder vor fünf Jahren.

    Edit: Falls Ihr Euch am prägnanten Ausdruck "Ende mit Schrecken..." stören wollt, so berufe ich mich auf die alten Preußen: https://www1.wdr.de/stichtag/stichtag4296.html

    (Mehrfach editiert. Pardon.)

    #132Verfassermad (239053)  16 Aug. 21, 17:20

    Ich stimme (wahrscheinlich?) mit dir überein, dass die 20-jährige Intervention der Westalliierten keine gut überlegte Idee war, die Prämissen, die Voraussetzungen, die Vorbereitung, die Durchführung und wahrscheinlich noch mehr nicht stimmten, die Zielsetzung, das Land großflächig nach westlichem Vorbild demokratisieren und liberalisieren zu können, blauäugig und naiv (sicherlich in Teilen auch unehrlich) war.

    Doch bin ich ganz und gar nicht der Meinung, dass der Abzug der Truppen, wie er nun stattgefunden hat, mit irgendeinem Argument gerechtfertigt werden könnte. Auch wenn man nach zwanzig Jahren reichlich spät zu der Überzeugung gekommen ist, Al Qaida habe man ja nun spätestens seit der Liquidierung von Osama Bin Laden besiegt und die Demokratisierung des Landes sei einzig die Sache der Afghanen selbst, kann man diejenigen nicht Knall auf Fall schmählich im Stich lassen, die einem hilfreich zur Seite gestanden haben. Und auch diejenigen, die es aufgrund der westlichen Präsenz gewagt haben, sich für Menschenrechte einzusetzen und sie einzuforden, haben mehr Vorlaufzeit verdient.

    #133VerfasserReeva (908916)  16 Aug. 21, 18:05

    Edit: das gehört hinter #132 (Reeva, die fast das gleiche sagt, war gerade noch nicht da).

    Ich stimme dir im Prinzip zu, finde diesen überstürzten Abzug allerdings auch problematisch. Eine vernünftige Vorwarnung und vor allem eine ehrliche Ankündigung des Rückzugs hätte nicht dazu geführt, dass die Verbündeten zum Teil morgens zur Arbeit erschienen und amerikanische oder sonstigen Truppen einfach nicht mehr da waren. Wir lassen ja Menschen dort zurück, kein Material. Und dass die Helfer jetzt völlig im Stich gelassen werden, ist auch gerade nebenan ein Thema. (Es sind ja auch nicht nur die Amerikaner, deshalb finde ich den Biden-Faden dafür nicht ideal.)

    #134VerfasserGibson (418762)  16 Aug. 21, 18:07

    Gut, ja, Afghanistan gehört eher dorthin: Siehe auch: Neuigkeiten vom Rest der Welt 4 - #104

    #135Verfassermad (239053)  16 Aug. 21, 18:14

    *Gelöscht* WWDI.

    #136VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  16 Aug. 21, 18:18

    All this content should probably have been in a Trump thread, namely,

    Trump-Ära XXIV

    Unfortunately, it was nipped in the bud by the LEO team, so all current topics related to US politics now apparently have to be filed under 'Biden,' even if they were initiatives completely opposed to Biden.

    Siehe auch: Trump-Ära XXIII - Auf der Zielgeraden - #210

    Since US politics has recently come up in another thread, here are some links.

    Siehe auch: Neuigkeiten vom Rest der Welt 4 - #182

    Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won’t Block Texas Abortion Law
    The law, which prohibits most abortions after six weeks and went into effect on Wednesday, was drafted by Texas lawmakers with the goal of frustrating efforts to challenge it in federal court.


    US {S}upreme {C}ourt refuses to block radical Texas abortion law
    Court voted 5-4 to deny emergency appeal from abortion providers against law that bans abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity


    Federal judge throws out Trump administration rule allowing the draining and filling of streams, marshes and wetlands
    Many farm and business groups backed the rule, but a U.S. district judge ruled it could lead to ‘serious environmental harm’


    What Voters in a California Swing District Say About Afghanistan
    In a battleground district, even some Trump voters said they were hesitant to hold President Biden accountable for the casualties and chaos in the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan.


    #137Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 02 Sep. 21, 12:15

    Ist das nur ein Gefühl oder ist Harris ebenso stumm wie der Pence? Der war ja wenigstens noch sichtbar und stand bei den Reden irgendwo wie eine Schaufensterpuppe rum. Aber nach dem ganzen Tamtam bei der Amtseinführung hatte ich eigentlich erwartet, dass Harris irgendwie mehr macht.

    #138Verfasserzacki (1263445) 02 Sep. 21, 12:28
    No, that's not just an impression, Harris is indeed completely sidelined and mute, as far as we as outsiders can tell.

    The move by Biden to 'give' her (read: dump on her) all the most difficult topics, like immigration, was quite cynical in the first place, basically setting her up as someone to blame for predictable failures, and also conveniently distancing her from the inner workings of power, as well as from any Democratic succession. It's almost as though he chose her against his will, to keep her safely out of future elections.

    Nevertheless, she has not managed to show any personal initiative or feeling, over several months when she could have been visiting refugee and migrant camps on the southern border, but instead has basically looked away and kept her mouth shut. Her showing up in Vietnam and Singapore at exactly the moment the US was failing in Afghanistan was evidently the result of yet another rebuff from the Biden camp, and another instance in which some Democratic party insiders apparently managed to keep her safely away from actual immigration issues, such as safety and hygiene in camps on both sides of the US/TX border, despite retaining her as a scapegoat for those very issues.

    I might be very angry if I were her. But at the same time, surely she has only her own record to question, in all the years in which she was not really able to form any alliances with Democratic activists at the grass-roots level, or to make any connection with the broader Democratic electorate through charismatic speaking or innovative ideas. That political failure may now be coming back to haunt her. In any case, I suspect she has already been sidelined for the longer term. I suppose the only good news, if you can call it that, is that when the Democrats lose a ton of seats in 2022, as seems highly likely, she won't appear to be to blame. /-:

    #139Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 02 Sep. 21, 12:48

    Bei allem "die USA/der Westen haben versagt" möchte ich daran erinnern, dass vorher die Russen versucht haben in Afghanistan ihre Art von System zu installieren.

    Die russische Invasion/Intervention dauerte ca 10 Jahre und war genauso erfolglos. Offiziell war es glaube ich die Sorge um die muslimische Bevölkerung. In Realität ging es eher um den Erhalt des sowjetischen Einflusses. 

    In sofern fand ich es vorige Tage etwas irritierend, dass ausgerechnet Putin Kritik los lies.


    Es war mMn ein Stellvertreterkrieg, den keine der Seiten gewonnen und dem afghanischen Volk sehr viel gekostet hat.

    #140VerfasserMasu (613197)  02 Sep. 21, 16:05

    @139: ... when the Democrats lose a ton of seats in 2022, as seems highly likely, she won't appear to be to blame.

    Ist das so wahrscheinlich, dass die Demokraten tonnenweise Sitze verlieren werden? Macht die Biden Administration so einen schlechten Job?

    #141Verfassermordnilap (835133) 02 Sep. 21, 20:06
    Of course all that is a matter of opinion. But it seems all too likely in my opinion, and I say that as someone who generally supports progressive issues.

    In practical terms, the Biden administration has proved itself able to accomplish almost nothing positive, except to spend money. It has dawdled and done almost nothing to appoint ambassadors and judges, all of whose nominations should have been planned in November and December and made in January and February. It has completely failed to regulate the flow of immigrants at the southern border, or to get humane Covid treatment for prisoners and detainees. It has gone back and forth on masks and vaccines, while ignoring all other useful measures that should have been being equally encouraged for months, like ventilation, air purifiers, distancing, cohorts, and testing and tracing, both individual and community (e.g. sewage).

    It apparently hasn't gotten anywhere even close to passing a bill on police reform or election reform. Even on infrastructure, the supposed one bipartisan achievement, it still doesn't even have one signed bill on roads and bridges yet, does it? Much less the second Democratic bill that would include child and elder care, communications, utilities, green energy, and so on.

    And now it has completely botched the Afghanistan pullout, which is gong to drag on and in in the news, and Biden himself is flatly refusing to admit that he, or they, or the Pentagon, made any mistakes on that front at all. His political advisers, who all seem to be kind of nameless male political insiders, seem to think that the whole issue will just blow over in a few months, but I very much doubt it will, nor should it. I never thought that he had anyone very competent on his staff, and now it looks even more urgent to get rid of his weak buddies and get some people in there with a grip on reality. (He ought to consult with Stacey Abrams, for instance, but he probably won't.)

    The state legislatures, which are mostly Republican-controlled, are just about to begin redistricting, that is, redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts after the (deeply flawed) 2020 census. Many of them have already succeeded in passing laws that will make it more difficult for minorities and elderly and disabled voters to vote, especially in contested large southern states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona.

    And the 2020 election was already incredibly close in the states where it mattered. Biden barely won the electoral college, because all the extra Democratic votes in large cities and coastal blue states basically don't count for anything. (The one thing that voters in New York or California could really do to help: Move.) Midterm elections usually go against the party in power anyway, and now with redistricting and Afghanistan, it's likely to be even worse for Democrats than it might otherwise have been.

    And remember, they have absolutely no votes to lose! 51 to 50 in the Senate, 220 to 212 currently in the House (with 3 seats vacant, which I think may all be Republican). One senator could get sick or die, and the rest of this whole term until the election could be completely wasted.

    And in the middle of the pandemic, millions of Americans are still watching Fox News and believing medical rumors on social media. I would like to think that at least some of them might reconsider their opinions and repent, when their friends and family end up in the ICU. But I doubt that will happen, since many of them seem to think that everything from Covid to hurricanes and wildfires was ordained by God, not made worse by our own sinful choices.

    Perhaps other Americans who are in a more cheerful frame of mind will see things differently. If there's a more optimistic perspective, I would certainly be glad to hear it.

    The next sign of which way the wind is blowing seems likely to be the referendum to recall the (Democratic) governor of California, I believe September 14. Gavin Newsom has certainly been something of a disappointment, but I hope voters there will be practical and smart enough to realize that every US election is a two-party race, so that it's looking like they must vote for him if they don't want the radio talk show host Larry Elder. The signs so far aren't looking very good as far as I can tell, but on the other hand, the Democrats should be able to win again if they just take the trouble to vote.

    Maybe Martin and Norbert can tell us more about what the feeling is there on the ground.

    #142Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  03 Sep. 21, 05:30
    Na, das sind ja erfreuliche Aussichten :-/
    #143VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 03 Sep. 21, 05:50
    Bubb, sorry to disappoint you, and on a Friday, too. /-:

    Maybe the German elections will look more hopeful by comparison. Don't we now have a thread on Germany somewhere as well?

    Here's some follow-up on California, for those watching from afar.


    Newsom has a huge cash advantage in California’s recall vote. It may mean nothing
    The governor’s rivals have only a fraction of his funds, but an unorthodox voting process throws the usual rules out the window ...
    ... the unorthodox, rarely tested rules of the recall don’t allow the incumbent to face off directly with his opponents. Rather, the ballot is split into two parts: the first asking voters whether Newsom deserves to stay in office, and the second asking who should replace him if he doesn’t.
    While money can be very useful to an incumbent in a normal election to create a clear contrast with a challenger whose policy positions may be unpalatable to a majority of voters, that’s not the situation Newsom faces, because he is excluded from the second question on the ballot. Polls indicate that he may win two or three times as many votes as Elder, but that won’t help him if he doesn’t reach 50% on the first, yes-or-no recall question.
    And it’s far from clear that he can buy his way out of that problem – even in a state that last year voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump by a 30-point margin. ...
    Money can, of course, buy television ads and fund get-out-the-vote operations. But the challenge for Newsom in an election that does not follow the usual calendar, and has not yet fired up registered Democrats the way it has fired up anti-Newsom Republicans, is to persuade low-propensity voters to send in the absentee ballots sitting on their kitchen tables.





    Latest Polls Of The California Recall Election


    Tracking the political appointees Biden is nominating to fill the top roles in his administration
    Follow the president-elect’s progress filling nearly 800 positions, among the 1,200 that require Senate confirmation


    #144Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 03 Sep. 21, 06:00

    Re #142: The next sign of which way the wind is blowing seems likely to be the referendum to recall the (Democratic) governor of California, I believe September 14. Gavin Newsom has certainly been something of a disappointment [...]

    Off-cycle recall elections are notoriously tricky due to low voter turnout. Last time California held a recall election for governor, incumbent Democrat Gray Davis was replaced by Republican candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger. That was in 2003 when California voters weren't leaning as strongly Democratic as they do today.

    On the nightly news today they said that latest polls indicate that 58% of likely voters intend to vote "No" on the recall question. Governor Newsom made some serious missteps in handling the pandemic, but his overall performance as a governor has not been totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned. I would rate it a C+. Compared to the smorgasboard of replacement candidates, most of whom seem to have eloped from a horror show or lunatic asylum, I very much prefer Newsom and will cast my vote accordingly.

    We received our ballots a couple weeks back and will likely drop them off at the closest drop-off location (the local branch library) this weekend, well ahead of the September 14 election date.


    CA recall election ballots returned so far show more than twice as many Democrats have voted as Republicans

    Sep 1, 2021

    With the recall election less than two weeks away, the mail ballot returns so far show that more than twice as many Democrats have voted than Republicans and that liberal areas of the state such as the Bay Area have the highest rates of return, according to state officials and political data researchers. The early numbers provide good news for Gov. Gavin Newsom. But they also show his weaknesses and what his campaign must do between now and election day on Sept. 14 — turn out young and Latino voters — key parts of the coalition he needs to stay in office but notoriously difficult populations to mobilize in nonpresidential elections.

    #145VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  03 Sep. 21, 07:02

    "Bubb, sorry to disappoint you, and on a Friday, too. /-:"

    Ain't your fault, innit? And I don't like shooting the messenger anyway ;-)

    #146VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 03 Sep. 21, 08:00

    Abkühlung zwischen USA und Deutschland nach Afghanistan-Debakel | Deutschland | DW | 03.09.2021

    Offensichtlich ein Kommentar zur Lage aus deutscher Sicht & Befindlichkeit für die internationale Presse.

    #147Verfasserjo-SR (238182) 03 Sep. 21, 10:57

    Re #147: Zita aus dem verlinkten Artikel:

    Nach den Ereignissen in Afghanistan wird der Ruf nach mehr deutscher und europäischer militärischer Unabhängigkeit lauter. Notfalls müsse "die EU in der Lage sein, ohne die US-Partner zu handeln. Wir müssen einen Flughafen wie den in Kabul auch alleine sichern können", sagte Laschet im Interview mit der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung.

    Ich hoffe, dass solchen Worten jetzt auch umgehend Taten folgen. Besonders zuversichtlich bezüglich der Umsetzung bin ich allerdings nicht.

    #148VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 04 Sep. 21, 01:56

    A recent NYT op-ed says much the same thing.

    Laschet is quoted as telling the FAZ that the EU ought to have an army that could manage an Afghan airport (wtte). I agree that it might be desirable, but does he have any idea how much that would cost, the level of high technology needed to maintain air superiority over an entire region? And does he think German/EU voters have an appetite for, say, doubling or tripling their military spending for the EU, when they can't even get air purifiers into schools? And what about recent revelations about far-right ideologies flourishing in European military and police ranks, not unlike in the US? A larger military might not be a good thing, without other reforms.

    I guess the place to actually discuss that would be a thread on Germany and Europe, as opposed to the rest of the world. But I have a vague memory that that didn't work out somehow, or was not what Doris wanted to see any more of, so perhaps we should keep it to one side here.


    Europe Doesn’t Want to Fight America’s Battles Anymore

    To listen to the debate in Europe over the chaotic retreat of United States troops from Afghanistan is to be struck by what a huge vocabulary Europeans have developed over the centuries for describing military calamities. What we just witnessed has already been described as a débâcle, a débandade, a dégringolade and a déroute, not to mention a “rout,” a “fiasco” and a “humiliation.”

    The question at the heart of these discussions is whether the botched withdrawal is a failure serious enough to merit a rethinking of European-American defense arrangements. The Afghan war was a NATO operation, involving the core of the trans-Atlantic alliance system that dates from the Cold War. American fecklessness has left European leaders infuriated. ...

    Bidenesque incompetence comes atop four years of Trumpian contempt. ...

    Pro-European Union politicians generally look to move governing responsibilities from national capitals to Brussels. The more ambitious among them even seek a measure of military autonomy for the bloc. That would require a rethinking of NATO operating procedures and would almost inevitably bring a loosening of ties with the United States, although E.U. leaders generally deny this when within earshot of Americans.

    But in the wake of the Afghan debacle, E.U. leaders have begun to air such ambitions. This week, Bernard Guetta, a member of the European Parliament from the party of President Emmanuel Macron of France, called on Europeans to find a geostrategic substitute for an increasingly inward-looking United States. Mr. Macron shows signs of wanting to use recent blunders as a pretext for deploying de-Americanized European fighting units. He told a conference in Baghdad in the wake of the Taliban takeover of Kabul that France would keep its terror-fighting forces in Iraq “no matter what the Americans do.”

    Italy and Germany now lean in this direction, too. ... Ms. Merkel has reportedly been part of intra-European discussions about keeping a “strong temporary presence” in Kabul.

    European decision makers have never lacked the ambition for such projects. (In 1998, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and President Jacques Chirac of France issued a portentous “Saint-Malo declaration” calling for an autonomous European strike force.) What they have lacked is a popular consensus for them. Creating an army befitting a superpower is a colossal expense. ...

    E.U. elites today also face a challenge of credibility. The bloc’s interior ministers spent the first days of this month trying to devise a common migration system to handle a possible large flow of migrants out of Afghanistan. It is a priority, but it was just as much ... a priority when migrants were fleeing Syria in the hundreds of thousands in 2015, and the European Union managed no durable solution then.

    At a time when polls show that Europeans consider immigration their continent’s biggest security threat, the European Union’s reputation for legalism and dawdling does not spread confidence that it can follow through on even more ambitious projects.

    Christopher Caldwell is ... the author of “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West.”


    #149Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  04 Sep. 21, 08:54

    This thread continues to seem like the place to post topics about current American politics and culture, whether pro- or, now mostly, contra Biden. Hope that's still okay.

    I'm deliberately not posting just more bad news about Afghanistan, the Haitian border crisis, or the legislative total shutdown, because we're all probably supersaturated with those grim facts in the news, in any language.

    But I thought some of you, especially overseas, might like to see how some of the discussion and analysis is playing out within the US, and indeed, within the realm of political sanity, from center right to center left. These two pieces seemed to do a good job of collecting other sources and each summarizing a particular problem, though I thought they both did absolutely nothing toward suggesting a solution.

    Which is basically where America is today and for the foreseeable future, IMO, until we elect Stacey Abrams or Elizabeth Warren as president. But in the meantime, we might as well read something.


    For Some, Afghanistan Outcome Affirms a Warning: Beware the Blob
    The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan exposed the shortcomings of views within the foreign policy establishment, also known as ‘The Blob.’ ...
    First there was the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. Then there was the chorus of disapproval. And then, as is so often the case in American foreign policy, there was the Blob.
    “‘The Blob’ turns on Jake,” Alex Thompson and Tina Sfondeles wrote in Politico,
    ( https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-win... )
    referring to President Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. ...
    What is this Blob of which they speak? What does it have to do with the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and whether they can actually govern? And why, like the nebulous malevolent organism in the 1958 horror film with which it shares a name, is it perpetually lurking around, sucking up everything in its path?
    The term “Blob” is generally understood to describe members of the mainstream foreign-policy establishment — government officials, academics, Council on Foreign Relations panelists, television talking heads and the like — who share a collective belief in the obligation of the United States to pursue an aggressive, interventionist policy in the post-9/11 world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen in this context as Blob-approved.
    This foreign-policy philosophy has its origins in the post-World War II view of American exceptionalism, epitomized by officials like Dean G. Acheson, that U.S. military intervention in foreign conflicts was vital to defending American interests and generally did more good than harm. To the extent that the Blob holds this view, the Afghanistan withdrawal was a defeat for its position. For Blob critics, it was more fodder for discussing why the Blob gets things so wrong. ...
    The term was coined in 2016 by Benjamin J. Rhodes,
    ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/t... )
    who was a deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama at the time. It was not a compliment. Rather, it was a criticism directed at foreign-policy experts with an “unrealistic set of assumptions about what America could do in the world,” Mr. Rhodes, who is now a co-host of the “Pod Save The World” podcast, said in an interview.
    “It’s not that people are issued a card with their name on it that identities them as part of the Blob,” he said. But back in 2016, he singled out “Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties,” who, he said, had an unpleasant tendency to “whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order.” ...
    “A lot of people who are proud members of the foreign policy community would object to the phrase,” said Hal Brands, the Henry A. Kissinger distinguished professor of global affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He himself objected last year, writing an essay with Peter D. Feaver and William C. Inboden for Foreign Affairs that had a title intended to tease: “In Defense of the Blob: America’s Foreign Policy Establishment Is the Solution, Not the Problem.”
    ( https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite... )
    “Ben Rhodes had a very precise definition, and his definition was ‘people who disagree with me,’ or ‘people who disagree with me and Obama,’” said Mr. Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University.
    “And he added onto that a layer of faux populism, as in ‘Woe is me, I’m just a poor assistant to the president trying to speak truth to all these well-entrenched fat cats.’ That is nutty. No one could be more inside the system than the speechwriter for the president.” ...
    Gideon Rose, a former editor of Foreign Affairs magazine and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Mr. Biden “had to overrule the Blobbish, deep-state-ish, permanent government-ish factions within his own administration” in order to carry out his Afghanistan withdrawal.
    That is potentially confusing. For one thing, who could be Blobbier than Mr. Sullivan, the national security adviser, or Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, both veteran establishment foreign-policy figures? (“The Blob is Back,” The American Conservative magazine said in December, referring to the Biden administration’s foreign policy team.) ...
    ( https://www.theamericanconservative.com/artic... )
    The people claiming that there is some sort of unified theory of Blob-dom are not thinking clearly, said Thomas Wright, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. For one thing, he said, even within Brookings there is a wide range of opinion on Afghanistan. ...
    “... if they want to say that Biden is doing something that Richard Haass disagrees with, then that’s true, he is.”
    It is also true that any discussion of this topic inevitably leads to Mr. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was christened “Pope of the Blob” by the writer Andrew Sullivan in 2019.
    ( https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andre... )
    For the record, Mr. Haass’s view on Afghanistan is that America should have maintained its presence by leaving behind a small number of troops and not pulled out completely.


    The Middle-Aged Sadness Behind the Cancel Culture Panic 
    By Michelle Goldberg
    “The Chair,” a Netflix comic drama about academia starring Sandra Oh, turns on a particularly absurd and unfair cancellation. In the first episode Bill, a onetime superstar English professor who’s falling apart after the death of his wife, is giving a lecture on modernism when, drawing a connection between fascism and absurdism, he gives a mock Nazi salute.
    After some students capture the gesture on their phones, a campus meltdown ensues and — spoiler alert — Bill, played by Jay Duplass, gets railroaded out of his job. Bill has a very specific sort of irony-laden aging hipster sensibility ... He is far more sympathetic than the maliciously literal-minded students who mobilize against him and think, or at least pretend to think, that he’s a genuine white supremacist.
    I don’t think Bill’s story really reflects what’s happening on college campuses; few instances of real-life cancellations are so factually simple or ethically ridiculous. But it is a near-perfect reflection of the generational anxiety driving much discussion about cancel culture, one that causes otherwise sensible people to make wild historical analogies between today’s intellectual climate and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the U.S.S.R. or 17th-century theocracies.
    A few weeks ago Anne Applebaum published a piece in The Atlantic titled “The New Puritans,”
    ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/... )
    about people who have “lost everything” after breaking, or being accused of breaking “social codes having to do with race, sex, personal behavior or even acceptable humor, which may not have existed five years ago or maybe five months ago.” Around the same time, The Economist published a cover package about the illiberal left, warning that as graduates of elite American universities have moved into the workplace, they have “brought along tactics to enforce ideological purity, by no-platforming their enemies and canceling allies who have transgressed.”
    I agreed with parts of Applebaum’s argument, particularly about how political attacks can be a cover for petty power struggles. But it is bizarre to bring earnest talk of Mao and Stalin into a discussion of the travails of figures like Ian Buruma, who lost his job as editor in chief of The New York Review of Books after publishing a misleading and self-justifying essay by a man accused of serial sexual assault.
    In a sharp essay in Liberal Currents,
    ( https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-case-not-... )
    Adam Gurri looked at empirical evidence that might tell us how big a crisis academic cancellations really are, and he came away nonplussed. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for example, documents 426 cases of scholars “targeted for sanction by ideological adversaries” since 2015,
    ( https://www.thefire.org/research/publications... )
    a relatively small number given the size of American higher education. “If any other problem in social life was occurring at this frequency and at this scale, we would consider it effectively solved,” writes Gurri.
    Yet to many in elite enclaves, the problem feels far bigger than this — so big that it’s tempting to reach for dramatic historical analogies to describe it. The Economist compared today’s progressive cultural vanguard to the state churches of the 1600s.
    ( https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/09/04... )
    “In Restoration England, Oxford University burned the works of Hobbes and Milton in the great quad next to the Bodleian Library,” it said. “Today academics put trigger warnings on books, alerting students to the dangers of reading them. Young publishers try to get controversial books ‘canceled.’”
    This is so histrionic that it suggests the usually sober Economist is in the grips of extremely strong emotions. One of these emotions, I believe, is loss. Many people I know over 40 — maybe 35 — resent new social mores that demand outsized sensitivity to causing harm. It has been jarring to go from an intellectual culture that prizes transgression to one that polices it. The shame of turning into the sort of old person repelled by the sensibilities of the young is a cause of real psychic pain.

    #150Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 21 Sep. 21, 03:00

    In den Nachrichten wurden Bilder gezeigt wo eine berittene Polizei an der Grenze Jagd auf Haitianer macht um sie einzufangen und zurück zu fliegen. Im Augenblick gibt es noch ein gewisses Verständnis dafür, aber das ist auch sicher: Unter Trumps Regierung hätte es einen Aufstand gegeben wegen Unmenschlichkeit.

    Ich bin aber weit entfernt davon, eine Lösung zu wissen.

    #151Verfasserzacki (1263445) 21 Sep. 21, 09:16

    Unter Trumps Regierung hätte es einen Aufstand gegeben wegen Unmenschlichkeit.

    Da ist sicher was dran. Allerdings hat Jen Psaki, Bidens Sprecherin, erklärt, dass die Bilder furchtbar anzuschauen waren. (Quelle: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/ber... ) Zudem hat der Heimatschutzminister eine Untersuchung der Vorgänge angekündigt.

    Dass man sowas aus der Trump-Regierung gehört hätte, halte ich für unwahrscheinlich.

    #152Verfasserharambee (91833) 21 Sep. 21, 09:24

    Wem ist denn diese "berittene Polizei" unterstellt? Der Bundesregierung in Washington oder der Staatsregierung von Texas?

    #153VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 21 Sep. 21, 09:30


    Soweit ich weiß, geht es um die CBP und die gehört zu einer Bundesbehörde: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_C...

    #154Verfasserharambee (91833) 21 Sep. 21, 09:44

    OK, danke; das wird aus dem verlinkten Artikel m.E. nicht deutlich.

    #155VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 21 Sep. 21, 10:26

    So, since you all ask ...

    Many members of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) take a hard-line stance, whether because they see no other way to stem the trafficking in drugs, guns, and human migrants, or because they value their well-paid jobs in an economic desert, or because they take their cues from their senior officers, who are often ex-military and used to using nothing else but violence to beat down cowed civilians.

    Some of those 'tough' border agents are probably the same ones who made the decision to ship planeloads of Haitian migrants back to Haiti -- without any chance at an asylum hearing, much less legal representation -- even though many of the migrants had lived for years in other Latin American countries. (Using a Trump-era pandemic regulation, in the height of Biden-era cowardice.) They're probably right that the US needs to send a stern signal to discourage other migrants. But the cruelty to individuals and families is nevertheless sickening, not unlike European anti-migrant measures along the Mediterranean coast.

    Ilia Calderón, the part-Afro-Dominican anchor of Noticiero Univisión, made the excellent point tonight that when most migrants were Hispanic, hundreds and thousands of community and church groups stepped up to help them and give voice to their needs. But now that this group is mostly black and non-Spanish-speaking (and she herself didn't even have a French or Creole interpreter, alas), they are evidently finding very little support, on either side of the border. Black people have traditionally been discriminated against in most Latin American countries, even though there has not been much discussion of it until relatively recently. If no one wants them anywhere, including in their own country where the current 'president' is under accusation of complicity in the assassination of the previous one, where are the Haitians supposed to go? Our hearts reach out to them, but we seem powerless to help. )-:

    With regard to Texas more generally, here's another post. Anyone not interested, fair warning.

    Throughout the pandemic and the Biden administration, as the woefully weak Texas governor Greg Abbott has increasingly allowed himself to be manipulated by his evil puppeteers Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton, I've occasionally linked to Texas politics and culture elsewhere, in the Corona threads or the Crossover Chat -- if only because it can all seem so jaw-droppingly unbelievable to people from almost anywhere else, especially overseas.

    As Texas is increasingly becoming a model for just how venal and vicious the Trumpite Republican party is willing to become nationwide, I thought (1) I didn't want to keep spoiling the mood in the Corona and CC threads, and (2) maybe this is now the most appropriate place for depressing American political content, since Doris has closed the Trump thread.

    Two articles that caught my eye were both in today's Dallas Morning News. Since the editorial concerns not just Cruz or Texas, but American international diplomacy and the Nord Stream (? Nordström?) pipeline, I thought some of you might find it interesting.

    And the anti-Abbott TV commercial that vanished from the broadcast of the UT football game is very much like the disappearance of a recent book interview, about the real story of the Alamo, from an Austin museum's programming.

    And don't even ask about abortion, voting, or redistricting. )-:



    Sen. Cruz, This ‘Tantrum’ Isn't Helping

    Our junior senator is letting his ambitions stand in the way of an effective diplomatic corps ...

    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is right to be concerned over a soon-to-be-operational Russian gas pipeline. He's wrong to obstruct U.S. diplomacy over it.

    For months, Cruz has been holding up dozens of State Department nominations as leverage to get the Biden administration to reinstate sanctions related to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It's an unprecedented level of obstruction, affecting nearly 80 diplomatic posts.

    To be clear: Cruz's actions have nothing to do with the nominees or their qualifications. The nominees simply appear to be the only lever Cruz can think of, so he's pulling it.

    This is not a minor hiccup. Without those emissaries on watch, the world is less accountable to U.S. interests. This newspaper's reporting of Cruz's “tantrum,” as it was characterized by U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D–San Antonio, last week, has drawn a sobering comparison, just days after our nation's observance of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The commission formed to investigate those attacks identified unfilled diplomatic posts as a dangerous vulnerability at the time.

    Eight months into his term, 57% of President George W. Bush's nominees for key national security posts had been confirmed. At the same point in his tenure, Biden has just 26%, we reported. ...

    Biden needs to show that the U.S. will stand up to Russian aggression.

    But blocking diplomatic confirmations is the most counterproductive and petulant way for Cruz to raise those concerns.

    —DMN, September 20, 2021, p. 11A


    UT-Rice football game

    Anti-Abbott ad pulled last-minute

    Group implies governor had it scrapped, but his office denies involvement ...

    A national television ad blasting Gov. Greg Abbott's handling of the coronavirus pandemic that was slated to air during Saturday's University of Texas vs. Rice University football game was pulled minutes before the contest started, according to the group that produced the television spot.

    Members of the Lincoln Project, a group of former and current members of the Republican Party who resisted the policies of former President Donald Trump, are asking why the ad they produced and paid for didn't air. The $25,000 spot was approved by ESPN's legal department ...

    UT officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

    Abbott is a UT graduate. As governor, he appoints members of the school's board of regents. ...

    The television ad, named “Abbott's Wall,” says that if you made a wall from the caskets of Texans [who] died because of COVID-19, it would stretch from Austin to San Antonio.

    —DMN, September 20, 2021, p. 7B


    Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Bullock Museum nix event for book that challenges Alamo history

    The state history museum’s Republican-led board of directors ordered staff to call a same-day cancellation of the event, leading one of the authors to say he thinks they’re being censored. ...

    The Bob Bullock Museum, with the outspoken support of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, pulled the rug out from underneath authors of a retelling of the Alamo on Thursday with a same-day cancellation of an event to promote the book.

    The move is viewed by many as a politicized effort against the book’s authors, who attempt to retell the story of the Alamo with a critical lens on the heroism of its defenders.

    About 4 p.m. Thursday, the museum’s board of directors contacted the authors to inform them that the museum-sponsored promotional event for “Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth,” had been canceled. The authors were scheduled to speak with Becka Oliver, executive director of the Writers’ League of Texas, in a virtual event at 8 p.m. Thursday.

    “A @BullockMuseum employee says they had to cancel following a social media campaign by rightwingers and an order from the board,” wrote Houston Chronicle columnist Chris Tomlinson, one of the book’s three authors, in a tweet Thursday evening. ...

    “I think we’re being censored, which is a shame because the mission of the Texas history museum is to promote examining our past,” Tomlinson said in an interview with the Houston Chronicle. “We’ve done more than a dozen events, and this is the first time we’ve been shut down like this.”

    The Austin museum’s board of directors includes Patrick, Gov. Greg Abbott, and Speaker Dade Phelan, all Republicans.






    I apologize that I can't post direct Dallas Morning News links to the more recent articles, because their paywall seems to block all their content entirely, not only from users but also from search engines like DuckDuckGo.

    It seems to me that they themselves would benefit from making at least a part of their articles more visible online, if they want to interest readers in eventually subscribing for better access. But evidently they think that zero PR for their own content is just fine, and simply don't care that national and international readers are now increasingly drawn to the Austin American-Statesman instead, even though under Gannett it's increasingly only a shell of a paper filled with little but syndicated recipes. (And we wonder why the rest of Texas also keeps shooting itself in both feet.)

    Again, sorry this turned out to be so long, but thanks for your replies and your interest.

    #156Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  21 Sep. 21, 10:33

    So, Germany isn't the only country that's completely stuck and making zero progress, with a glaring lack of charismatic inspiration, or even competent leadership, ahead.

    I really miss both Obama and Merkel, and I don't see anyone in the pipeline who will be able to step up when they are both off the stage.


    Can Joe Biden Recover?
    By Ross Douthat ...
    This was a good week for anyone enthused about relitigating the 2020 election. First there was new evidence,
    ( https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook... )
    reported in a new book about the Biden family from the Politico writer Ben Schreckinger and in an Insider story on an abortive Libya-related influence operation,
    ( https://www.businessinsider.com/10-things-in-... )
    suggesting the famous Hunter Biden emails were real and indicating how much Hunter’s influence-peddling depended on proximity to his father. The Twitter and Facebook decisions to censor The New York Post’s election-season version of the Hunter Biden story looked partisan and illiberal at the time; now they look worse.
    Then along with that spur to conservative frustration there was a new revelation for Trump-fearers: the exposure of the entirely insane memo that the conservative legal scholar John Eastman wrote
    ( https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-... )
    explaining how Mike Pence could supposedly invalidate Joe Biden’s election. This was presumably the basis for Donald Trump’s futile demand that Pence do exactly that, and it’s understandably grist for the “coup next time” fears
    ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/... )
    that already attend Trump’s likely return to presidential politics.
    But sometimes looking backward can obscure where we are right now. And that’s a place where few Democrats expected to be when Biden took office with his party in control of government, vaccinations ramping up and hopes of an economic boomlet growing. It’s not just that the president’s approval rating is dropping toward Trump-like levels (and falling sharply among the minority voters who surprised liberals with their Republican shift in 2020).
    ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/... )
    Trump’s own approval may be rising, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll suggests, to a point where Americans think at least as favorably of the ex-president as of the current one.
    Along with any worries about Trump stealing the next presidential election, then, Democrats should recognize the possibility that he might simply win it.
    What’s gone wrong for Biden is a combination of bad luck, bad choices and inherent weakness. The bad luck is mostly about Covid itself, whose Delta-variant surge no president could have easily controlled. That may be the most important drag on Biden’s approval rating — which started to decline in earnest around the time the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention restored a mask recommendation. ...
    ... while he has passed one key test of governing acumen — getting Republican votes for his infrastructure bill — he’s failed several others, letting his administration’s Covid messaging dissolve into dissonance and watching his own party’s internal negotiations get snarled by Squad-versus-Sinemanchin disputes.*
    In general Biden seems to do best on issues that require either spine or simple glad-handing — holding firm against the generals who wanted to stay indefinitely in Kabul, keeping Republicans at the table for an infrastructure deal — but worse the more that success depends on a mastery of strategy or minute detail, or a careful negotiation between hostile factions.
    Which shouldn’t be surprising since Biden’s inherent weakness is that he’s an old man, suffering from some manifest deficits relative to his vice-presidential self, in a job that devours younger politicians. ...
    ... what should worry Democrats most are scenarios that require a lot from this president: adaptability, finesse, a skillful use of the bully pulpit. ...
    Here it would be really helpful if Biden had a vice president who balanced his weaknesses and reaffirmed his strengths — who seemed more energetically engaged with policy and congressional politicking while also extending his normalcy-and-moderation brand should she be required to inherit it.
    I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that describes the Kamala Harris vice presidency to date — or whether Harris offers more reasons for Democrats looking toward 2024 to fear not just chaos but defeat.


    * the Squad – nickname for a gadfly group of vocal far-left representatives in the House
    Sinemanchin – nickname for the fiscally conservative roadblock formed by nominally Democratic senators Sinema of Arizona and Manchin of West Virginia

    Old man in a hurry: Biden must act quickly to save his presidency
    Slumping approval ratings, political deadlock at home and blunders on foreign policy leave the White House facing its moment of truth ...
    Joe Biden failing? Less than nine months into his presidency, rising numbers of Americans and not a few foreign allies appear to think so. Polls last week by Gallup and Rasmussen put his national approval rating at minus 10 points. His overall poll average is minus 4.
    ( https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/othe... )
    That compares with a positive approval rating of 19 points in January when he took office.
    These figures suggest one of the steepest ever early falls in presidential popularity is under way. Jolting, too, is a new Harvard-Harris survey giving Donald Trump a 48% favourability rating to Biden’s 46%.
    ( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-tru... )
    Among independent voters and in battleground states, the outlook for Democrats appears grim. In Iowa, 62% disapprove of Biden’s performance while 70% say the country is “on the wrong track”.
    ( https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066... )
    Michigan and Virginia tell similar stories.
    Numerous factors are contributing to what is starting to look like a presidential meltdown. At home, Biden’s didactic handling of the pandemic attracted growing criticism during a summer Covid surge. Continuing mistreatment of migrants on the Mexico border, which he promised to end, is a lose-lose issue for him. A Biden-backed police reform bill, prompted by the death of George Floyd, was killed off in Congress last week.
    Abroad, Biden’s reputation for foreign policy competence was shattered by the Afghan withdrawal debacle and the loss of American and Afghan lives. Normally loyal foreign allies complained noisily about chaotic mismanagement – and voters listened. The row with France over a US-UK-Australia defence pact (Aukus) has deepened disillusion over his commitment to multilateralism.
    Biden’s practised use of longstanding connections, personal acquaintance and avuncular charm to get his way brings diminishing returns. China’s president, Xi Jinping, reportedly refused a summit meeting. Russia’s ill-disposed leader, Vladimir Putin, met him in Geneva, banked the kudos, then carried on regardless. Biden waited days for a phone call last week with France’s pissed-off president, Emmanuel Macron. ...
    Latest poll trends and the political dynamic in Washington point to a Republican takeover of Congress next year, the thwarting of much of Biden’s agenda, and a failing, one-term presidency. This gloomy scenario may change. Hopefully it will. But the democratic world can only watch America’s unfolding Lear-like drama and, fearing a recurring nightmare in 2024, mutter all-a-tremble: “Please, not Trump again!”


    #157Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 27 Sep. 21, 11:24

    I really miss both Obama and Merkel

    Merkel ist ja noch im Amt; gestern Abend stand sie auch mit Laschet und anderen auf der Bühne.

    #158VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 27 Sep. 21, 12:23
    Okay okay, I should have said I really miss Obama and I'm really going to miss Merkel.

    But even if the coalition talks drag on, she's a lame duck, isn't she? Is there any chance now that she will still accomplish anything else significant, like action against Hungary and Poland, or a firmer stand against Russia and China, or even managing to influence the coalition-forming negotiations?

    Surely there's not even a remote chance that she could advise Biden on how to salvage the rest of his term? Because it really doesn't look like he's getting very good advice from his official advisers ...


    Jake Sullivan: the Biden insider at the center of the Afghanistan crisis
    Critics say Biden’s national security adviser should have considered the worst case scenario


    #159Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 27 Sep. 21, 12:44

    Vielen Dank für die Artikel aus #157!

    Ich verstehe zu wenig von Politik und stehe auch von hier aus viel zu weit abseits, aber rein von meinem Gefühl wie ich Biden und Harris beurteile, stimmt das ganz gut überein. Harrsi steht ja noch nicht einmal wie eine Schaufensterpuppe hinter ihrem Präsidenten so wie Pence immer, sie ist komplett unsichtbar.

    Eigentlich schade, ich hatte bei Biden auf einen echten Obama-Nachfolger gehofft, aber das war wohl nichts. Kann gut sein, dass Merkel im Ausland auch sehr vermisst wird.

    #160Verfasserzacki (1263445) 27 Sep. 21, 12:47

    Nun lasst die deutschen Parteien doch erstmal verhandeln und wenn sie sich dann geeinigt haben, dann soll die neue Regierung zeigen, was sie kann. Es wird zumindest eine interessante Koalition und auch wenn ich nicht alle Beteiligten mag, glaube ich nicht, dass es langweilig wird. "Du mögest in interessanten Zeiten leben" soll ein chinesischer Fluch sein (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6gest_du_... ), aber interessante Zeiten müssen nicht negativ sein. Ohne Kompromisse wird es kaum gehen und darin liegt sicherlich nicht nur eine Chance, sondern auch eine Gefahr, aber wie lautet eine andere viel zitierte Weisheit:


    Hat jemand das Phrasenschwein gesehen? (-;

    #161Verfasserharambee (91833) 27 Sep. 21, 12:51

    @160, Harris steht ja noch nicht einmal wie eine Schaufensterpuppe hinter ihrem Präsidenten so wie Pence immer, sie ist komplett unsichtbar.

    Nanu, wie kommst du darauf? Sie war schon bei vielen Biden-Auftritten dabei, und eine News-Suche


    ergibt haufenweise Treffer aus der letzten Woche.

    #162VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  27 Sep. 21, 12:54

    Ich schaue keine amreikanischen News, ich denke nur an die vielen, vielen Bilder die wir sehen mussten wenn Trump irgend etwas unterschrieb. Da standen immer ganz viele hinter ihm und ständig dabei sein braver Pence. Solche Fotos habe ich von Biden noch nicht gesehen. ich vermisse sie auch nicht, fiel mir nur so auf.

    #163Verfasserzacki (1263445) 27 Sep. 21, 12:59

    So, Germany isn't the only country that's completely stuck and making zero progress, with a glaring lack of charismatic inspiration, or even competent leadership, ahead.

    Also sorry, hm--us, auch mir erscheint das etwas seehr vorschnell geurteilt, am Morgen nach der Wahl....

    #164VerfasserGoldammer (428405) 27 Sep. 21, 17:46

    America’s unfolding Lear-like drama

    So the question arises who Kamala Harris will be, Goneril, Regan or Cordelia? What's your take, hm--us?

    And concerning Angela Merkel: She did earn my respect in spite of different political colors for her cool, calm, collected pragmatism, not for any charismatic inspiration, and I'm quite sure Olaf Scholz would be an acceptable Mr. Merkel in the fulness of time given to mature.

    #165Verfasserpppatholog (771904) 27 Sep. 21, 21:25
    I don't know what the Guardian writer meant by 'Lear-like drama,' so I shouldn't even have copied that paragraph, since the end is really just silly. Yes, one of Biden's problems is his age, but no, he's not doddering or crazy or narcissistic; he's just not as broadly competent and fast-thinking as someone needed to have been for that massive job.

    And no, Harris is clearly not a viable candidate for 2024, which as I've said before might even be why he chose her as VP. She has accomplished nothing in the office so far -- glaringly not on immigration, in particular -- and doesn't even seem to have any input into his decision-making, which is not to say that she would have been any better than his other advisers, since she too has zero foreign-policy experience and would not have had the foggiest idea about Afghanistan. She made several speaking appearances in California leading up to their Sept. 14 recall election, but I haven't seen her in the news anywhere else, and particularly not speaking up for Haitians at the Texas border. I also don't get the impression that she's able to do anything to bring the moderate and progressive factions of the Democratic party together to pass legislation, much less the moderate factions of the two major parties.

    In comparing the 'stuckness' of Germany, the US, or any other western democracy, I was just expressing my sense that public opinion is still so scattered and divided, and there is such a lack of charisma in political leadership and a lack of hope among voters, that nothing very much is likely to change for the better, at a time when progress on issues like human rights, data privacy, climate change, journalism vs. propaganda, etc. is still desperately needed. I too think the SDP is closer to my values than the CDU, and that Scholz is likely better than Laschet. But another razor-thin margin, essentially bringing gridlock when it comes to legislation, is not likely to bring significant progress, is it? Indeed, that gridlock might be exactly what the enemies of democracy would most prefer, to make their own authoritarianism look less dysfunctional.

    I don't follow German politics closely, but from what I can gather, Scholz will be hampered not only by the FDP's unwillingness to raise taxes on corporations or the rich, but also by the German constitutional ban on deficit spending. So to me, the voices saying (wtte) 'Let the parties keep negotiating, they'll work something out,' whether in Germany or in the US, are probably indulging in wishful thinking. Whatever is 'worked out' under such severely limiting conditions is likely to be much the same as the status quo; and in the meantime, the clock is ticking down to the 2022 US midterm elections, when the brief respite from the threat of Republican fascism may well end.

    #166Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 27 Sep. 21, 22:49

    Ich hoffe inständig, daß Herr Schulz nicht den Mr. Merkel sondern den Herrn Schulz gibt.

    Wahlkampf kann er, regieren kann er, Politchef sein kann er, wird schon werden.

    #167Verfasserjo-SR (238182) 28 Sep. 21, 07:26

    jo, Du hast wohl ein paar Jahre verschlafen. Martin Schulz spielt in der SPD keine Rolle mehr. Der aktuelle Kanzlerkandidat der SPD heißt Olaf Scholz und er ist trotz des ähnlichen Namens ein ganz anderer Politikertyp.

    Ich finde, dass die jetzt für eine Koalition in Frage kommenden Parteien hinreichend interessante Persönlichkeiten haben, die auch mehr oder weniger wissen, was sie wollen, so dass ich dabei bleibe, dass man ihnen eine Chance geben soll. Allerdings bleibt das Problem, dass die Konzepte von Grünen und FDP insbesondere bei der Klimapolitik schon sehr verschieden sind, so dass es nicht einfach wird, einen gemeinsamen Plan zu finden.

    #168Verfasserharambee (91833) 28 Sep. 21, 07:37

    Hmmm, ich schiebs mal auf die Tageszeit.

    Laschet uns beten

    O Laf vergib mir meine Schuld...

    #169Verfasserjo-SR (238182) 28 Sep. 21, 08:11

     #159 hm--us

    (OT) But even if the coalition talks drag on, she's a lame duck, isn't she? Is there any chance now that she will still accomplish anything else significant, like action against Hungary and Poland, or a firmer stand against Russia and China, or even managing to influence the coalition-forming negotiations?

    Well, there won't be too much done until a new Bundeskanzler is elected. It's unlikely that the new Bundestag will deal with any major legislation before then. But on the other side, Merkel had enough time at the helm to deal with anything she thought important and doable, so her legacy is what it is.

    I'd be surprised if she'd take any initiative in coalition negotiations, and cannot see any of the parties (even CDU/CSU, if it comes to that) asking for her help or opinion. She'd made clear she wants to step down, and so be it.

    Action against Hungary and Poland needs to come from the EU within the framework provided by the treaties, not the German government. Any unilateral action here would cause more harm than it would do good.

    TO be honest, I rather have the parties take until Christmas, or even into January, to form a solid coalition with clear, achievable goals and strategies. Once there is such an agreement, and the leader (likely Scholz) manages the work wisely, there will be 3 years for getting things done (and yes, it will be a compromise for everybody involved) until the election campaigns start again.


    I don't follow German politics closely, but from what I can gather, Scholz will be hampered not only by the FDP's unwillingness to raise taxes on corporations or the rich, but also by the German constitutional ban on deficit spending. So to me, the voices saying (wtte) 'Let the parties keep negotiating, they'll work something out,' whether in Germany or in the US, are probably indulging in wishful thinking. Whatever is 'worked out' under such severely limiting conditions is likely to be much the same as the status quo; and in the meantime, the clock is ticking down to the 2022 US midterm elections, when the brief respite from the threat of Republican fascism may well end.

    Well, compromising and limitations are not necessarily a bad thing in politics, are they? I rather have a good compromise giving me 50% of my dreams and 20% of thinks I dislike than somebody else pushing their agenda (which I might not like) to 100%.

    #170VerfasserWik (237414)  28 Sep. 21, 11:28


    Völlige Zustimmung, Politik ist und bleibt die Kunst des Möglichen. Und was Erwartungen von außen an uns betrifft: Vielleicht haben wir Nachkriegsdeutschen unsere Lektion besser als gedacht gelernt. Ich jedenfalls bin dankbar, dass sich die Sehnsucht nach einem charismatischen Führer in Grenzen hält, dass Visionären der Gang zum Arzt empfohlen wird und dass nicht erneut die Welt am deutschen Wesen genesen soll. Als Evolutionist hoffe ich durchaus auf mögliche grün-gelbe Fortschritte im Klein-Klein des zähen Interessenausgleichs, auch wenn's naiv sein sollte.

    #171Verfasserpppatholog (771904) 28 Sep. 21, 13:17

    Ich teile ebenfalls Wiks Einschätzung in #170. Die Politik der Parteien in Deutschland hat sich in der Vergangenheit bei Koalitionsverhandlungen meistens als (bis zu einem gewissen Maß) flexibel erwiesen, und merkwürdigerweise habe ich diesmal auch bzgl. der Grünen und der FDP ein eher gutes Gefühl. Die Ruhe, die Politiker*innen beider Parteien nach der Wahl ausgestrahlt haben, lässt hoffen. Und insofern halte ich die deutsche Politik auch insgesamt für deutlich beweglicher als die amerikanische. Die Impulse, die von einer Dreier-Koalition ausgehen, sind in meinen Augen gerade im Moment durchaus angemessen: Keine der Parteien hat ein Rezept für alle anstehenden Probleme, jede setzt andere Schwerpunkte. Aber sofern eine Einigung gelingt, könnten doch tatsächlich einige drängende Fragen eher angegangen werden als mit einer Koalition aus zwei Parteien, die sich über den Weg weitgehend einig sind, dafür wichtige Abzweigungen völlig aus den Augen verlieren. (Der Himmel bewahre uns vor einer weiteren großen Koalition!)

    Der Vergleich zwischen der amerikanischen und der deutschen Politik gehört ja eigentlich nicht unbedingt in den Biden-Faden, aber in den Ausführungen von hm--us lese ich die Forderung, dass die deutsche Politik sich vordringlich internationalen Problemen stellen sollte. Zwar kann man nationale und internationale Politik nie trennen, aber der Fokus der neuen Bundesregierung wird sicherlich zuerst einmal im innerdeutschen "Problemfeld" liegen und sich erst dann über den Tellerrand in den europäischen/globalen Bereich bewegen.

    #172VerfasserfehlerTeufel (1317098)  28 Sep. 21, 13:36

    But another razor-thin margin, essentially bringing gridlock when it comes to legislation, is not likely to bring significant progress, is it?

    Just to repeat/add to what others have said: The German political system is very different from the US system. A razor-thin margin between the first- and second-placed parties may slow down the process of forming a government, but it does not equate to gridlock when it comes to legislation.

    If there is gridlock in terms of legislation, it will be a result of insufficient overlap between the governing parties on specific issues. In that sense, of course, consensus-building is more tricky in a three-way coalition than in a two-way coalition. But coalitions are pretty much a given under the German system, so any party that wants to govern will always have to compromise – that is not considered a failure in and of itself.

    In terms of policy, the most obvious tensions are between the FDP and the Greens, who are fairly far apart on many* issues. These tensions will play out differently depending on whether they end up governing with the SPD or with the CDU/CSU (or not at all, although the only alternative is another grand coalition, which no one wants). Personally, I am hopeful that the Greens will wrest significant concessions on climate action from whoever they end up governing with.

    *But there are also issues on which they largely agree. For example, if we end up with a traffic-light coalition, there won’t be anyone standing in the way of progress on reproductive rights (not that this is anywhere near as big a political issue in Germany as it is in the US, but just to give an example that I believe is close to your heart and mine). On other issues, I actually consider the CDU to be a useful moderating force and would therefore not be too disappointed if we ended up with a Jamaica coalition.

    #173Verfasserdulcinea (238640) 28 Sep. 21, 15:52

    Das ist zwar der Biden-Faden, aber wenn wir schon dabei sind: Die CDU unter einem Kanzler Laschet hätte das ewige Problem der Querschüsse aus Bayern. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das einfach so aufhört. Gerade eben kam in den Nachrichten, dass Söder dezidiert und medienwirksam Olaf Scholz gratuliert hat - gerade weil Laschet das noch nicht getan hat. Das hat Söder nicht getan, weil er Scholz gratulieren wollte, sondern um Laschet den nächsten Nierenschwinger mitzugeben. Laschet bekommt jetzt aber auch ordentlich aus anderen Landesverbänden eingeschenkt (Sachsen, Hessen u.a.). Der ist inzwischen schon maximal beschädigt. Ich kann mir schwer vorstellen, dass Laschet da überhaupt noch die Ruhe und den Rückhalt für schwierige Verhandlungen hat. Wenn Laschet aber abtritt als potentieller Kanzler und CDU-Vorsitzender, müssen sie erst einmal einen neuen Vorsitzenden wählen. Soll der dann der Kanzlerkandidat durch die Hintertür werden?

    #174VerfasserSelima (107)  28 Sep. 21, 16:22

    So interessant der Ausflug in die deutsche Politik war, nun zurück in die USA: es ist mal wieder Zeit für das (beinahe) alljährliche Gezerre um das Anheben der Schuldengrenze in Washington.

    was sagen denn unsere Leftpondians zu diesem Spiel? Biden will eine Menge Geld ausgeben in den kommenden Jahren, auch bei den Demokraten scheint es da unterschiedliche Meinungen zu geben. Aber erstmal müssen die laufenden Kosten der kommenden Wochen gedeckt werden. Ich erinnere mich gut an die Shut-Downs der vergangenen Jahre.

    Kurzer Artikel aus einer irischen Zeitung verlinkt, aber mich würde echt interessieren, wie die US-Bürger von diesem Spektakel und Bidens Investitionsplänen halten https://m.independent.ie/world-news/north-ame...

    #175VerfasserWik (237414) 29 Sep. 21, 13:13
    Apparently the issue of the debt ceiling is just another opportunity for the Republicans to be obstructive, preventing any other legislative action and threatening a federal shutdown (including things like national parks and government salaries) in the meantime, even though many legislators and economists agree that there shouldn't even be an arbitrary debt ceiling.

    That's not the same thing as agreeing that there should be unlimited deficit spending, though. Moderates in both parties (or better, former leaders who were too moderate to be re-elected in the recent climate) are concerned to see the populists in both parties, and the career politicians beholden to the military-industrial complex in both parties, just continuing to spend without any attempt to cut waste and increase revenue. This recent film on PBS was very critical of a three-part cycle in which deficit spending, corporate lobbying, and campaign finance all simply keep increasing and feeding each other in both parties, largely unchecked by any form of regulation or oversight.


    As for the Democrats' internal problems, it seemed incredibly hubristic in the first place for them to try to pass the most ambitious, expensive spending bill in recent memory with the tiniest, most fragile majority in recent memory. The elephant in the room is that it will all probably be turned around in 2022 anyway, unless they can persuade a lot more voters in places where it matters, like the suburbs and the rural states. Reality, in the form of Sinema and Manchin, seems likely to come back and bite them sooner rather than later.

    It's theoretically still possible that a certain proportion of the outraged intransigence is just an act for public consumption, and they really are willing to compromise behind the scenes. The moderate Democrats could claim they managed to cut some fat out of the original proposal, and the progressive Democrats could claim to be satisfied with a modest amount of actual progress in the short term, instead of just being obstructive.

    But I don't really know if that can happen. Wishful reporters are hinting at the possibility, but at the moment, rational compromise doesn't actually look very likely to me.


    This analysis by David Leonhardt and another NYT writer might help illustrate the extent of the reality check needed.


    Why are Democrats talking about scrapping some of the most popular parts of their agenda? ...
    Congressional Democrats have been conducting an unusual kind of negotiation over the central piece of President Biden’s agenda. As they try to write a bill that can pass both the House and the Senate, they are talking about removing some of the plan’s most popular provisions.
    An overwhelming majority of Americans favor government action to reduce drug prices, but that policy may not be included in the final bill. Tax increases on the wealthy are also very popular, but it is unclear how many of them will make it, either. The same goes for a proposed expansion of Medicare to include dental, hearing and vision coverage.
    It is even possible that the entire bill — which would expand pre-K, community college, Medicare, Medicaid, paid family leave, child tax credits, clean-energy programs and more, while significantly increasing taxes on people making more than $400,000 — will fail. Yet polls have consistently showed it to be popular, more so than some past Democratic priorities, like Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s health care bills. And if this bill fails, Democrats are likely to enter next year’s midterm congressional elections looking divided and unable to govern. ...
    ... the Democratic tensions are real. ... [There are] two big reasons that the party is struggling to pass a bill that most voters favor.
    The power of lobbying
    The first reason is classic interest-group politics: Well-financed, well-organized lobbying groups strongly oppose some of the bill’s major provisions.
    Most Americans favor lower drug prices, but there is no powerful grass-roots group devoted to the issue. And there is a major lobbying group on the other side — PhRMA, which represents the drug industry. It has helped persuade a few Democrats to oppose a reduction in drug prices, as our colleague Margot Sanger-Katz has explained.
    Another example of interest-group politics are the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. Tax rates on the affluent are near their lowest levels in decades. To keep them there, groups representing the interests of the wealthy have enlisted some of most effective lobbyists in Washington: former members of Congress.
    These lobbyists — including Heidi Heitkamp, a former North Dakota senator, and Nick Rahall, a former West Virginia congressman — have been trying to persuade other Democrats to water down or remove the tax increases, as Jonathan Chait of New York magazine has noted. Fewer tax increases in the bill leave less money for health care, schools and clean energy, which in turn has led to contentious intraparty debates over which parts of the plan should be cut. So far, Democrats have not resolved those questions. ...
    The real median voter
    In elite circles, including Capitol Hill, people often misunderstand American public opinion in a specific way. They imagine that the median voter resembles a type of political moderate who is quite common in those elite circles — somebody who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
    Michael Bloomberg is an archetype, as are some Republican mayors and governors in blue states. Many people in professional Washington, at think tanks and elsewhere, also fall into the category.
    In the rest of the country, however, this ideological combination is not so common, polls show. If anything, more Americans can accurately be described as the opposite — socially conservative and economically liberal. That’s true across racial groups, including among Black and Hispanic voters.
    Most Americans are religious, for example. Most favor restrictions on both abortion and immigration. Most oppose reductions in police funding. At the same time, most Americans favor higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, as well as government actions to reduce drug prices, expand health care and create [well]-paying jobs.


    #176Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  29 Sep. 21, 22:09

    It's not up to me to comment on American affairs but I can feel and share your sadness thinking of my nieces over there. Rational compromise does seem to be in short supply nearly everywhere and even more so in a deeply engrained system of implacable political, not to say tribal, feud. I don't envy you and still I hope against hope for the best, a wishful thinker, too.

    #177Verfasserpppatholog (771904) 30 Sep. 21, 00:08

    I too would like to hope for the best, and occasionally there are a few encouraging signs that people are at least talking about issues that used to be kept largely out of sight. The Washington Post article about the role of prisons in gerrymandering was eye-opening to me.

    It's also entertaining to see that someone with a bit of personality and charisma is willing to try to run against the evil Texas lieutenant governor, the ex-talk radio host 'Dan Patrick' who moved to Texas and changed his name. Matt Dowd is a longtime political campaign manager and analyst who seems like a decent guy and is at least articulate, funny, and a quick-thinking debater. I doubt he would have much chance at winning, even if he could get the nomination, but maybe he would at least have more chance than most of the other hapless, faceless candidates the Democratic party in Texas has put up in the past.


    As redistricting begins, states tackle the issue of ‘prison gerrymandering’ ...

    The pitched battle over the landscape of American democracy for the next decade is underway in state capitals across the country, as lawmakers begin drawing lines for congressional and state legislative districts based on the 2020 Census. And there is a key question facing these drafters: How will they count the 2.3 million people housed in the nation’s jails and prisons.

    While inmates aren’t allowed to vote in 48 states, they count for the purposes of representation. Since at least the 1850 Census, the Census Bureau has counted inmates as residents of the communities where they are imprisoned, instead of the communities where they hail from and probably will return to after they serve their sentences. That’s because of the bureau’s centuries-old “usual residence rule,” which defines a person’s residence as the place where they usually eat and sleep.

    For most of American history, counting inmates where they were imprisoned did not have a huge impact on political power and representation. But that changed when states began adopting tough-on-crime laws in the 1980s, leading to an era of mass incarcerations. The United States locks up more of its residents than any country in the world, according to data from the Pew Research Center.

    As the number of people being incarcerated skyrocketed, states built prisons mostly in rural areas, communities that typically were much Whiter than those the prisoners were coming from.

    Continuing to count inmates where they are imprisoned, voting-rights advocates say, unfairly shifts political power from Black and Latino communities, which are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, to rural White communities, where many of the nation’s state and federal prisons are located. It is a practice that has become known as “prison gerrymandering.” Almost 40 states still use the practice, including politically important ones with high incarceration rates like Texas and Florida. But in recent months, there has been growing momentum to end the practice.

    Brianna Remster, an associate professor in Villanova University’s Department of Sociology and Criminology, ... and her Villanova colleague Rory Kramer studied the effects of prison gerrymandering on political power in the Pennsylvania Capitol, which has been under solid Republican control since the party redrew district lines in 2012. Republicans have held onto a healthy majority in the House even after elections in which Democrats won more votes statewide. The researchers studied what would happen if inmates were counted in their home communities instead of where they were imprisoned. ...

    Kramer and Remster found that more than a quarter-million Pennsylvanians were living in districts that would be unconstitutionally too large if prisoners were added back into those communities. Over 100,000 of that total were Black residents of Philadelphia. Kramer estimated Philadelphia would have two additional majority-minority districts to represent them in Harrisburg if prison gerrymandering were ended.

    State Rep. Joanna McClinton (D), who represents portions of Philadelphia and nearby Delaware County, ... introduced bills to end prison gerrymandering in the state, but she failed to gain support from Republican colleagues who control the legislature. This year, however, as a member of the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, which will draw the boundaries for legislative districts, she was able to push through an overhaul. The commission recently voted 3 to 2, with an independent appointee siding with McClinton and the other Democrat on the committee, to end the practice.

    With Pennsylvania’s decision, there are 12 states that now count inmates as residents of their home communities for the purposes of political representation, reports the Prison Gerrymandering Project, part of the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative. Advocates hope Montana will soon join the list but say the Census Bureau must change how it counts inmates, just as it has for college students and military personnel stationed abroad, to ensure that the practice is ended nationwide. ...

    The Texas Civil Rights Project recently released a study of how prison gerrymandering has affected the balance of power in that state. Researchers found that one rural district would lose 21,112 residents if inmates were counted in their home communities. The biggest gainers would be Harris County, home to Houston, and Dallas County. According to the report, two majority-Black and -Latino districts in the Houston area had to be merged in 2011 due to prison gerrymandering. ...

    While research suggests ending prison gerrymandering would have the biggest effect in local and state races, Republicans tried to flood a congressional district with prisons to try to oust a Black Democratic congresswoman in Florida. In 2015, audio from a closed-door Republican caucus meeting surfaced where a GOP state lawmaker told a crowd of party activists that she and her colleagues were seeking to pack a congressional district with Black inmates in an effort to oust longtime Rep. Corrine Brown (D).

    The courts had ordered lawmakers to create a majority-Black district in north Florida, and they were looking for a way to do that while still crafting a district that would favor a Republican candidate. To accomplish that goal, they included 18 jails and prisons in Brown’s district, flooding it with Black residents who could not vote. That way, the district would be majority-Black on paper, but in reality, a large number of those residents would have no electoral power. After court challenges, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the district to be redrawn.


    Commentator Matthew Dowd seeks to oust ‘craven’ Dan Patrick as Texas lieutenant governor

    Dowd has worked for both Democrat Bob Bullock and Republican George W. Bush. He’ll run as a Democrat trying to deny a third term to Patrick, a conservative with total command of the Texas Senate.






    #178Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  30 Sep. 21, 22:55

    Thank you. I'd never heard of prison gerrymandering.

    #179VerfasserGibson (418762) 01 Okt. 21, 13:05

    Yes, these are really interesting and sobering insights into an ever more war-like competition between two parties - vae victis!

    The practice of gerrymandering, perhaps without the finesses, isn't unheard of in Germany. Yet, on the other hand, I would be grateful if the “usual residence rule” were applied here in the, as far as I know, largest miltary community outside the US. Regarding population numbers, these 50.000 members of the KMC are extraterritorial, not included in the each about 100.000 people of district and town, but their Covid case numbers are counted within the weekly incidences. The result is a nice see-saw effect in on and off lockdowns.

    #180Verfasserpppatholog (771904) 01 Okt. 21, 17:41

    Noch ein bisschen mehr war-like scheint die Situation bei der Feuerwehr zu sein. In Portland bekommen sie schusssichere Westen. Im August gab es im Schnitt 27 Schiessereien pro Tag. First responders leben dort offenbar gefährlich.

    Portland firefighters to get bulletproof vests as risks increase

    Portland firefighters will soon have access to bulletproof vests while on the job.

    The decision was spurred by a “changing landscape” and more calls that increase the possibility of firefighters being involved with aggressive patients and bystanders, according to Portland Fire & Rescue spokesperson Terry Foster.

    Purchasing the vests was discussed by the agency’s safety committee and supported by Fire Chief Sara Boone, Foster said.

    Many specifics still need to be worked out, such as when the vests will be worn, how many will be purchased and when they will be implemented.

    However, the decision is fully supported by the firefighters union, said Isaac McLennan, vice president of the Portland Fire Fighters’ Association.

    “We always will do anything and everything to keep firefighters safe because that’s what keeps people in Portland safe,” McLennan said.

    Firefighters have been more concerned for their safety because of responders being attacked or stabbed in Oregon and other parts of the country, McLennan said.

    McLennan referenced a 2018 fire in Springfield where a man started shooting at firefighters responding to a house fire. Police said authorities believed the man intentionally set the 4 a.m. blaze to ambush emergency responders.

    No one was seriously injured, but the attack left fire truck windshields riddled with bullet holes.

    The purchase of the bulletproof vests doesn’t mean firefighters will be sent into more dangerous situations, however.

    A scenario for their use would be responders going in to rescue an injured person while police worked to secure an area with an active shooter, McLennan said.

    The decision to provide first responders with bulletproof vests comes during a year of record-breaking violence in Portland. The Portland Police Bureau reported 837 shootings through August, with the largest year-over-year increase in the North Precinct, where 383 shootings were reported by Aug. 31 — a more than 100% increase from the same period in 2020.

    However, acquiring bulletproof vests has been discussed for a while, McLennan said.

    “This is just another tool … to keep firefighters safe,” he said.

    Dementsprechend gibt es im firestore ballistic vests für firefighting professionals.

    #181Verfassermordnilap (835133) 01 Okt. 21, 18:43

    Beides erschreckende Anzeichen, nein, kann man schon gar nicht mehr sagen, Symptome für den gesellschaftlichen Klimawandel zu Aggression, Vandalismus, kollektiver Paranoia. Im gleichen Sinn die 4.400 randalierenden Fluggäste nur bei internal fllghts in den USA, die jetzt endlich auf eine gemeinsame schwarze Liste sollen. Und jeder kneift vor der NRA.

    #182Verfasserpppatholog (771904) 01 Okt. 21, 20:36

    Die Tendenz, dass Feuerwehrleute angepöbelt und angegriffen werden, gibt es leider auch in Deutschland. Vermutlich ist das noch eine andere Stufe, aber schön ist das auch nicht. Ich selbst habe zwar mit der Feuerwehr nicht viel zu tun, bin aber familiär "vorbelastet" und kenne deshalb einige Erzählungen.

    #183Verfasserharambee (91833) 01 Okt. 21, 20:39

    Re #176: As for the Democrats' internal problems, it seemed incredibly hubristic in the first place for them to try to pass the most ambitious, expensive spending bill in recent memory with the tiniest, most fragile majority in recent memory.

    Couldn't agree more. Instead of getting worked up about this as Ms. Pelosi pushes out the vote on this on an almost daily basis, I have decided to simply avoid news reports on it. That's better for my blood pressure.

    #184VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  01 Okt. 21, 22:40
    Norbert, I too find the delay frustrating, but I don't know what Pelosi or for that matter Schumer can do about it, any more than you or I could, as long as they can't convince or control their rogue representatives on the left and their rogue senators on the right.

    They seem to have been trying their best, but it's even harder for them to make any headway with supposed Republican moderate senators, not to speak of entrenched obstructors like McConnell. If we are to put the blame where it really belongs, I have to say it seems ridiculously ostrich-like to me for the entire Republican senate, plus Manchin, to simply refuse to acknowledge that things like child care, health care, and elder care are an essential part of the social infrastructure in the modern world, if we want some women to be able to do other work, without which the economy can't fully function.

    However, David Brooks, on the PBS NewsHour tonight, has pointed out that some of Manchin's criticisms seem valid, like means-testing for some of the things like child tax credits, which don't need to be going indiscriminately to middle-class people making over $100,000. They also discussed things like cutting out specific programs, like expanding Medicaid or adding vision and dental to Medicare, vs. shrinking the length of time the funding is meant to cover, from 10 years down to maybe five. All that seems reasonable, and in fact, it seems to me that they should have already figured all that out months ago, just as Biden should have had his nominees in place the day he took office and not six to eight months later. I can't say it gives me any more confident in his insider aides like Ron Klein or whoever, who all surely should have known enough better to have a plan B, C, and D also in place, just as the generals should have for Afghanistan.

    As for the Democrats, the oldest and most experienced in the dissenting group is Bernie Sanders, but if I recall correctly, despite his long tenure, he doesn't really even have a good record of successfully passing legislation, perhaps precisely because he's generally so reluctant to compromise. I haven't heard a single constructive comment from him, or from Elizabeth Warren, who seems determined to fuss about Jerome Powell at the Fed instead. In fact, the entire rest of the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, seems to be sitting back and just hoping Biden will do their negotiating job for them, which is a lot to ask of a president, who by definition needs to attend to a lot of other work as well. (In fact, how much legislation did Biden himself help pass in his Senate career? Apart from deals to attract credit card companies to Delaware, that is.)

    So it seems misleading to me to drop Pelosi's name as if she were somehow personally to blame.

    In fact, it even seems like a typical tired Fox News tactic -- much like dropping the name of Portland over and over, even though gun violence and murder and assault rates have been up in most American cities, regardless of the politics of their local governments, ever since the beginning of the pandemic. We just saw an interview with a local police chief who pointed out that when they look at their data, a lot of the recent crime surge has actually involved teenage boys, and young men aged 18-24, many of whom would normally have been in school or at work, but who were left to their own devices more during the pandemic. The AP also reports a sharp increase in military suicides, which might affect a similar albeit older demographic group of blue-collar men.

    The only upside: rates of rape and sexual assault have evidently gone down, which might be partly from fewer men being in bars and nightclubs; though it might also be from more women being trapped at home with abusive partners and unable to report.

    #185Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  02 Okt. 21, 01:18

    Re #185: So it seems misleading to me to drop Pelosi's name as if she were somehow personally to blame.

    I am not blaming Pelosi at all. She wields as much power as a very senior and savvy politician can and I am convinced she's using all that power to twist arms as strongly as she is able to. Rather, Pelosi's almost daily pronouncements that a deal will be achievable Real Soon Now™ are merely a symptom of the current process. A symptom I don't enjoy watching. Just get on with the work and come back to report on the results when its all done, a week or a month from now. My expectation at this point is that no deal will happen and no legislation will be passed.

    I am a pragmatist. Given the shaky majorities Democrats currently enjoy, I would be satisfied with any cut-down legislation that can be achieved now. Democrats could then focus on achieving bigger majorities. As far as I am concerned, if blame has to be assigned for the current deadlock within the Democratic party, I would place it with the so-called progressive wing, who seem to have adopted an all-or-nothing approach.

    I am not paying attention to the Trumpists at all. To cast themselves as fiscal conservatives now after all that has transpired in recent years is the apex of hypocrisy.

    #186VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 02 Okt. 21, 01:59

    #185 —> gives me any more confidence in his insider aides

    Sorry, sometimes the spell check does things I don't notice.

    One progressive Democrat who does seem to be apparently open to negotiating the details of specific issues, despite having her own position to defend, is Pramila Jayapal. She made a pretty good impression on me at least this week, keeping her tone friendly and reasonable, seemingly not indulging in angry grandstanding as much as, say, AOC or Bernie.

    Maybe they could get a small group of people like that in a small room together with some moderates, and get Sinema and Manchin to at least put some numbers on paper and debate specific issues, instead of everyone just making vague pronouncements about the absolute top line or the absolute bottom line. Though again, I can't imagine why their aides weren't already having those detailed talks months ago, when it should already have been obvious to everyone that the Democrats didn't have the votes for their entire wish list. To me that just speaks to the competence / organization / planning / reality check issue, again. Also frustrating to watch day after day. /-:

    Speaking of violence and police and fire departments, and issues being brought out into the open after decades, here's another article I found eye-opening.


    More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study Says

    Researchers comparing information from death certificates with data from organizations that track police killings in the United States identified a startling discrepancy. ...

    Police killings in America have been undercounted by more than half over the past four decades, according to a new study that raises pointed questions about racial bias among medical examiners and highlights the lack of reliable national record keeping on what has become a major public health and civil rights issue.

    The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Washington and published on Thursday in [t]he Lancet, a major British medical journal,

    ( https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/art... )

    amounts to one of the most comprehensive looks at the scope of police violence in America, and the disproportionate impact on Black people.

    Researchers compared information from a federal database known as the National Vital Statistics System, which collects death certificates, with recent data from three organizations that track police killings through news reports and public records requests. When extrapolating and modeling that data back decades, they identified a startling discrepancy: About 55 percent of fatal encounters with the police between 1980 and 2018 were listed as another cause of death.

    The findings reflect both the contentious role of medical examiners and coroners in obscuring the real extent of police violence, and the lack of centralized national data on an issue that has caused enormous upheaval. Private nonprofits and journalists have filled the gap by mining news reports and social media. ...

    Researchers estimated that over the time period they studied, which roughly tracks the era of the war on drugs and the rise of mass incarceration, nearly 31,000 Americans were killed by the police, with more than 17,000 of them going unaccounted for in the official statistics. The study also documented a stark racial gap: Black Americans were 3.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as white Americans were. Data on Asian Americans was not included in the study, but Latinos and Native Americans also suffered higher rates of fatal police violence than white people.

    The annual number of deaths in police custody has generally gone upward since 1980, even as crime — notwithstanding a rise in homicides last year amid the dislocations of the coronavirus pandemic — has declined from its peak in the early 1990s. ...

    Researchers estimated that about 20 times as many men as women were killed by the police over the past several decades; more American men died in 2019 during police encounters than from Hodgkin['s] lymphoma or testicular cancer. ...

    A federal law passed in 2014 requiring law enforcement agencies to report deaths in custody has yet to produce any public data.


    #187Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  02 Okt. 21, 04:08

    One progressive Democrat who does seem to be apparently open to negotiating the details of specific issues, despite having her own position to defend, is Pramila Jayapal. She made a pretty good impression on me at least this week, keeping her tone friendly and reasonable, seemingly not indulging in angry grandstanding as much as, say, AOC or Bernie.

    Funny how perceptions can differ. The way I perceived it, Ms. Jayapal is singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Mr. Sanders. That she is doing so with a smile doesn't make any difference to me. As for Ms. Sinema, there was an interesting sidebar on a local public radio program the other day whether she is just a Manchin follower or has ideas of her own to contribute. Two Democratic politicians from the Bay Area provided opposing viewpoints on that.

    I don't care to observe how the Democrats make their sausage: I am assuming it is a pretty unappetizing process. I am just interested in seeing a sausage of some kind materialize, even if, owing to present circumstances, it turns out to be an ordinary hotdog.

    #188VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 02 Okt. 21, 04:59

    It just seems to me that one important reason for a serious progressive agenda is the very need to expose the ugliness of the sausage-making, because how else can it ever be cleaned up?

    To take one example, Bianna Golodryga had an interview tonight with a former Sanders campaign director, Faiz Shakir, and the former senator and now lobbyist Heidi Heitkamp. (It's unfortunately not available today on video, which is perhaps not a surprising choice because Golodryga didn't handle the content issues as well as she usually does, but there's a transcript, excerpted below.)

    Heitkamp's assignment seemed to be to defend Joe Manchin, another moderate Democrat elected in a Trump state, and she spoke well about his plight, especially about the party's essentially owing him their current 51-50 majority. I absolutely think the young urban progressive caucus likely has not the remotest conception of how to campaign in West Virginia, or rural Texas for that matter, which is partly why they can seem so lacking in humility and respect for older colleagues like Manchin.

    On the issue of not closing tax loopholes, though, Heitkamp claimed to be defending family farms, but the details looked more like defending large corporate agriculture with large stock portfolios, which is what so many small farms seem to have been bought out by. I took her point that that may be necessary to some extent to get elected in some rural states like her North Dakota, just as Manchin may feel he has to defend corporate coal mining in West Virginia. (Though I couldn't tell what to think about the story that Schumer or Biden or someone had been keeping Manchin's $1.5 trillion figure secret from Pelosi since July? Hmm ...)

    Even so, I also took Shakir's point that even in farming and mining states, there are polls showing a majority of voters would support tax reform that would close loopholes used mainly by the wealthy, and would support policies benefiting workers and families rather than owners and corporations. So maybe the progressives like Sanders do know a thing or two about rural talking points, and maybe getting more of their points into the bill would benefit the party. Biden himself did campaign on some of these progressive issues, and will in any case be judged on how much progress he is able to make. I guess we'll find out if a smallish hot dog is enough to win again.

    BTW, I realized that in #176 I failed to copy a couple of the links that touched on lobbying on behalf of the wealthy, and mentioned Heitkamp briefly, so below is a revised excerpt on that as well. The New York Magazine article (next to last link below) was especially interesting; it's essentially a rebuttal of Heitkamp's claims in the CNN interview today, though I would probably tax everyone's patience too far if I added any more text.


    G.: In terms of what he focuses on and what other moderates are focusing on is how to pay for this bill. ... your group is lobbying to campaign to preserve something called the stepped-up basis loophole, which allows people to avoid paying capital gains taxes on inherited investments.

    President Biden and other congressional Democrats are saying, by closing this loophole, they can raise over $100 billion over the course of 10 years. And just a few months ago, you called the thing that you were fighting for now one of the biggest scams in the history of forever.

    I'm quoting you. What has changed? How do you square that now? ...

    H.: ... this is why it is so incredibly frustrating for moderates, because the positions are always skewed and always turned around. I do not oppose reform of stepped-up basis. What I have said is that we should not be taxing unrealized capital gains and taxation at death.


    I have spent the better part of my time since leaving the Senate trying to build a Democratic base in rural America. Let me tell you, when 300 -- over 300 farm groups oppose the provision of taxation at death, maybe we ought to listen and realize that, as Nate Silver has pointed out this week, that you are not going to control the Senate unless you figure out a way to make inroads in the United States rural America.

    And so I still believe we need a stepped-up basis reform, especially as it relates to equities. I just do not think that we should provide for taxation at death when it's not realized. I think that will lead to incredible disruption in rural America and disruption in family businesses. ...

    G.: ... a lot of criticism that was leveled against him for the past few months is that he wasn't putting out a dollar figure, a top-line amount; $1.5 trillion that we just heard about this week was apparently sent over to Senator Schumer back in July.

    And I just want to read for you what one of our reporters, Melanie Zanona, just reported. And that is that Congresswoman Debbie Dingell said that Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi, didn't know two weeks ago about the document that Manchin signed about wanting that $1.5 trillion price tag.

    So ... what is going on within the party in the sense of communication?

    S.: Amazing. I mean, look at that document. It was signed, apparently, at the end of July. In August, there were floor votes on the infrastructure bill and on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution bill.

    And that document was never made public, right? It never got out. It was a closed-door secret agreement that, had it come out before the Senate voted, I think that we would have been talking a different kind of Senate vote. And this is the problem, right?

    You are having a backroom, closed-deal conversation that isn't transparent, that isn't public. So I'm all for it. Hey, senators have different positions. Great. Let's have it out. But what I'm concerned about is the influence of corporate lobbyists.

    I'm concerned about the influence of Senator Heitkamp and her group, right? The problem here is that we're talking about popular policies that people want, and they are good with taxation of the wealthy to make them pay their fair share. And we are talking about issues that, if you go to West Virginia, you go to Montana, you go to North Dakota, and you talk about these issues, people are on our side.

    So we're not fighting over, oh, hey, we're asking you to take a tough vote. We're asking you to deliver for the American public on the pledges that you made. And it is the influence and corporate lobbyists that are cutting this proposal down, that are cutting the president down. ...

    I have no problem -- I'm taking in good faith that she believes in what she is saying. And, obviously, she's being funded to say it.

    However, the results of what she's trying to do is advocate for cutting down on corporate taxation. We have a problem of dynastic wealth in this country.


    Another example of interest-group politics are the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. Tax rates on the affluent are near their lowest levels in decades.

    ( https://twitter.com/dleonhardt/status/1181004... )

    To keep them there, groups representing the interests of the wealthy have enlisted some of most effective lobbyists in Washington: former members of Congress.

    These lobbyists — including Heidi Heitkamp, a former North Dakota senator, and Nick Rahall, a former West Virginia congressman — have been trying to persuade other Democrats to water down or remove the tax increases, as Jonathan Chait of New York magazine has noted.

    ( https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/wealt... )


    #189Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  02 Okt. 21, 07:44

    It just seems to me that one important reason for a serious progressive agenda is the very need to expose the ugliness of the sausage-making, because how else can it ever be cleaned up?

    I am not under the impression that progressive sausage making is any less of an ugly process than conservative sausage making. Corruption and pandering to special interests seems to be particularly rampant in places where the same party has been in control for a long time, be that Texas or California. Backroom deal making has been an important part of American politics from the beginning, and I am not aware of any new ideas to introduce more sunshine into the process.

    Some people thought term limits would result in an improvement, but the result of that seems to be mostly (1) the recycling of the same political candidates through various different political offices (allowing them to build vast networks), and (2) a rapidly revolving door between politics, industry, and government agencies (putting foxes in charge of hen houses).

    I wouldn't pretend to know what it takes to win elections in a farming or mining state.

    #190VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 02 Okt. 21, 08:29

    OT/ Sausage making actually is far from being an "ugly process", if done properly. And in most cases, the finished product shows pretty clearly whether somebody has tried to use ugly ingredients to cut costs. /OT

    Thank you both, this exchange is really interesting. It's very easy for me to "forget" how fundamental the divisions between the different groups of Democrats (or, for that matter, Republicans) are, and how much work actually needs to be done within the parties to utilize any majority the party might have on paper.

    #191VerfasserWik (237414) 02 Okt. 21, 15:22

    Kamala Harris is basically Obama-Clinton 2.0, but worse: She fails by trying to please both sides.

    #192VerfasserBubo bubo (830116) 08 Okt. 21, 09:03

    Wik, thanks for your feedback, and I apologize for harping on the tired metaphor of sausage. It is indeed a great food, precisely because of how it makes a tasty whole that's so much more than the sum of its less appetizing parts. I only wish that were true of legislation.

    Re Kamala Harris, she does seem to be trying to either choose issues that are blandly apolitical, or just stay out of the spotlight. Not unlike a First Lady, actually, which is more than a little sad. Like Michelle Obama suppressing her intelligence and talents for eight years. I think Harris's latest photo op was at a preschool. O-kay.

    But maybe that's the safest approach, to at least try not to turn any more people off. I'm more and more worried that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by not managing to come together in support of anything at all positive.

    The latest piece of incompetence is all the rehashing of the January 6 'insurrection,' which clearly does not interest anyone at all outside the Beltway -- except if, like a neighbor of ours, they listen to conservative talk radio and think the federal government has jailed innocent people who were only there and not acting violent.

    Surely some of the party insiders must know that all their messages are currently failing? Including, obviously, with Sinema and Manchin. /-:


    David Shor Is Telling Democrats What They Don’t Want to Hear

    By Ezra Klein ...

    President Biden’s agenda is in peril. Democrats hold a bare 50 seats in the Senate, which gives any member of their caucus the power to block anything he or she chooses, at least in the absence of Republican support. And Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are wielding that leverage ruthlessly.

    But here’s the truly frightening thought for frustrated Democrats: This might be the high-water mark of power they’ll have for the next decade.

    Democrats are on the precipice of an era without any hope of a governing majority. The coming year, while they still control the House, the Senate and the White House, is their last, best chance to alter course. To pass a package of democracy reforms that makes voting fairer and easier. To offer statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. To overhaul how the party talks and acts and thinks to win back the working-class voters — white and nonwhite — who have left them behind the electoral eight ball. If they fail, they will not get another chance. Not anytime soon.

    That, at least, is what David Shor thinks. Shor started modeling elections in 2008, when he was a 16-year-old blogger, and he proved good at it. By 2012, he was deep inside President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, putting together the fabled “Golden Report,” which modeled the election daily. The forecast proved spookily accurate: It ultimately predicted every swing state but Ohio within a percentage point and called the national popular vote within one-tenth of a percentage point. Math-geek data analysts became a hot item for Democratic Party campaigns, and Shor was one of the field’s young stars, pioneering ways to survey huge numbers of Americans and experimentally test their reactions to messages and ads.

    But it was a tweet that changed his career. During the protests after the killing of George Floyd, Shor, who had few followers at the time, tweeted, “Post-MLK-assassination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2 percent, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon.” Nonviolent protests, he noted, tended to help Democrats electorally. The numbers came from Omar Wasow, a political scientist who now teaches at Pomona College. But online activists responded with fury to Shor’s interjection of electoral strategy into a moment of grief and rage, and he was summarily fired by his employer, Civis Analytics, a progressive data science firm.

    For Shor, cancellation, traumatic though it was, turned him into a star. His personal story became proof of his political theory: The Democratic Party was trapped in an echo chamber of Twitter activists and woke staff members. It had lost touch with the working-class voters of all races that it needs to win elections, and even progressive institutions dedicated to data analysis were refusing to face the hard facts of public opinion and electoral geography. ...

    At the heart of Shor’s frenzied work is the fear that Democrats are sleepwalking into catastrophe. Since 2019, he’s been building something he calls “the power simulator.” It’s a model that predicts every House and Senate and presidential race between now and 2032 to try to map out the likeliest future for American politics. He’s been obsessively running and refining these simulations over the past two years. And they keep telling him the same thing.

    We’re screwed in the Senate, he said. Only he didn’t say “screwed.”

    In 2022, if Senate Democrats buck history and beat Republicans by four percentage points in the midterms, which would be a startling performance, they have about a 50-50 chance of holding the majority. If they win only 51 percent of the vote, they’ll likely lose a seat — and the Senate.

    But it’s 2024 when Shor’s projected Senate Götterdämmerung really strikes. ... If 2024 is simply a normal year, in which Democrats win 51 percent of the two-party vote, Shor’s model projects a seven-seat loss, compared with where they are now. ...

    Senate Democrats could win 51 percent of the two-party vote in the next two elections and end up with only 43 seats in the Senate. ...

    The Senate’s design has long disadvantaged Democrats. That’s in part because the Senate overweights rural states and Democrats are a disproportionately urban coalition ... But that’s been true for decades, and Democrats have held their own in the Senate. What’s changed the equation, Shor believes, are several interlocking forces.

    First, educational polarization has risen sharply in recent years, particularly among white voters. Democrats are winning more college-educated white voters and fewer non-college white voters ... There was a time when Democrats told themselves that this was a byproduct of becoming a more diverse party, as non-college white voters tend to be more racially reactionary. Then, in 2020, Democrats lost ground among Black and Latino voters, with the sharpest drops coming among non-college voters. ...

    I believe, as does Shor, that educational polarization is serving here as a crude measure of class polarization. ...

    Either way, the sorting ... puts Democrats at a particular disadvantage in the Senate, as college-educated voters cluster in and around cities while non-college voters are heavily rural. This is why Shor believes Trump was good for the Republican Party, despite its losing the popular vote in 2016, the House in 2018 and the Senate and the presidency in 2020. ... As he put it, “Donald Trump enabled Republicans to win with a minority of the vote.”

    The second problem Democrats face is the sharp decline in ticket splitting — a byproduct of the nationalization of politics. As recently as 2008, the correlation between how a state voted for president and how it voted in Senate elections was about 71 percent. Close, but plenty of room for candidates to outperform their party. In 2020, it was 95.6 percent.

    The days when, say, North Dakota’s Republicans would cheerfully vote for a Democrat for the Senate are long past. Just ask Heidi Heitkamp, the defeated North Dakota Democrat who’s now lobbying her former colleagues to protect the rich from paying higher taxes on inheritances. There remain exceptions to this rule — Joe Manchin being the most prominent — but they loom so large in politics because they are now so rare. From 1960 to 1990, about half of senators represented a state that voted for the other party’s nominee for president, the political scientist Lee Drutman noted. Today, there are six. ...

    The chain of logic is this: Democrats are on the edge of an electoral abyss. To avoid it, they need to win states that lean Republican. To do that, they need to internalize that they are not like and do not understand the voters they need to win over. Swing voters in these states are not liberals, are not woke and do not see the world in the way that the people who staff and donate to Democratic campaigns do.

    All this comes down to a simple prescription: Democrats should do a lot of polling to figure out which of their views are popular and which are not popular, and then they should talk about the popular stuff and shut up about the unpopular stuff. ...

    Popularism isn’t mere moderation. One of the highest-polling policies in Shor’s research is letting Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices, but it’s so-called moderates, like Sinema, who are trying to strike that from the reconciliation bill. To Shor, this is lunacy. ...

    The Democratic strategists and analysts who Shor said are causing the party’s problems seethe at his criticism and the influence he has commanded over the past few years. Among them, a few counterarguments dominate.

    The first is that Shor doesn’t really show his work. ... He sometimes refers to polling he conducted but doesn’t release the underlying numbers and cross-tabs. To be fair, that’s often because he can’t: He conducts much of his polling on behalf of clients, and they own the results. ...

    ... Michael Podhorzer, the longtime political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., who’s something of a godfather in Democratic data circles ... “I feel like he’s found this weird sweet spot with the media where he never actually shows anyone the evidence for his claims. He just does interviews with reporters.” ...

    The second level of disagreement is more fundamental: Many in the Democratic data world simply disagree that policy communication holds the power Shor believes it does or that the popularity of a message is as important as he thinks it is. ...

    “It’s almost laughable to me the notion that what people think about Democrats is made out of what Democrats say,” said Anat Shenker-Osorio, the founder of the progressive firm ASO Communications and a principal on the Race-Class Narrative Project. ...

    Our world, Shenker-Osorio argued, is one in which the voters Democrats most need to reach are the ones paying the least attention. ... “A message is like a baton. It needs to be handed from person to person to person,” she said. “If it gets dropped, it’s not persuasive. Unless you’re testing for what the base — what I think of as the choir — is willing to sing, then you’re going to be hard-pressed to get the middle to hear that song, to get the congregation to hear that song.” ...

    Shor’s critics argue that he’s too focused on the popularity of what Democrats say, rather than the enthusiasm it can unleash. When pressed, Podhorzer called this theory “viralism” and pointed to Trump as an example of what it can see that popularism cannot. “A lot of things Trump did were grossly unpopular but got him enormous turnout and support from the evangelical community,” Podhorzer said. “Polling is blind to that. Politics ... [is] about creating energy. Policy positions don’t create energy.” ...

    What does create energy, Podhorzer thinks, is fear of the other side. His view is that Democrats’ best chance, even now, is to mobilize their base against Trump and everything he represents. ...

    Shor ... agrees that enthusiasm matters, but it has to be enthusiasm for a message that doesn’t alienate the undecided. ... You should sort your ideas, he said, by popularity. “Start at the top, and work your way down to find something that excites people. But I think that what actually happens is people sort by excitement first. And the problem is the things that are most exciting to activists and journalists are politically toxic.”

    Shor showed me, as an example, a set of environmental talking points he’d tested, in which the ones that mentioned climate change performed worst. “Very liberal white people care way more about climate change than anyone else,” he said. “So when you talk about climate change, you sound like a weird, very liberal white person.” ...

    I should say that the polling differences here struck me as modest: The best environmental message on Shor’s list increased Biden’s approval rating by 1.7 percentage points, while the worst-performing message cut it by 0.4 points. On the other hand, a percentage point here, a percentage point there can be the difference between winning the White House and losing it. ...

    The real disagreements come on the ideas that don’t poll so well. There are a lot of issues that Democrats want to talk about that Shor thinks they’d be better off not talking about.

    Hillary Clinton “lost because she raised the salience of immigration, when lots of voters in the Midwest disagreed with us on immigration,” Shor said. This is where popularism poses its most bitter choices: He and those who agree with him argue that Democrats need to try to avoid talking about race and immigration. He often brandishes a table showing that among voters who supported universal health care but opposed amnesty for unauthorized immigrants, 60 percent voted for Obama in 2012 but 41 percent voted for Clinton in 2016. That difference, he noted, was more than enough to cost her the election.

    This can read as an affront to those who want to use politics to change Americans’ positions on those issues. “The job of a good message isn’t to say what’s popular but to make popular what needs to be said,” Shenker-Osorio told me. ...

    Shor’s rejoinder to this is that the best way to make progress on race and immigration policy is for Democrats to win elections. ...

    ... Shor ... is right to insist that the Democratic Party is an institution that is composed, at the top, of a narrow group of people and that is afflicted by many of their blind spots. ... For the Democratic Party to chart any course out of the peril it faces, it must first accept that in the minds of most Americans, it is a party, a singular entity. And before that party can shape what voters think, it must find a way to see itself clearly and act collectively.



    Transforming America With a One-Vote Majority

    Joe Biden’s economic plan is stalled in Congress because the warring wings of his party aren’t yet desperate enough to compromise. They could be soon. ...

    Competing demands by Manchin and Sinema illustrate just how difficult the Democratic leadership’s task is. Manchin, who won his seat after airing an ad

    ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM )

    in which he literally shot a hole through Obama’s 2010 climate bill, opposes several of the Democratic proposals to combat climate change. He wants the party to base its reconciliation bill on reversing the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Sinema, however, reportedly opposes raising corporate and individual tax rates but wants to prioritize the climate provisions. Democrats need both to vote for the final bill, and they need the support of 218 members of the House who have wish lists of their own.


    #193Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  09 Okt. 21, 05:13

    Habt ihr schon mal was vom "Havanna-Syndrom" gehört? Mir war es neu, fiel mir aber in den letzten Tagen verstärkt in den Nachrichten auf:

    US-Diplomaten betroffen "Havanna-Syndrom" nun auch in Kolumbien

    Stand: 13.10.2021 11:43 Uhr

    2016 tauchte es erstmals in Kuba auf - seither werden immer mehr Fälle des mysteriösen "Havanna-Syndroms" bei US-Diplomaten bekannt. Nun sind auch im Umfeld der US-Botschaft in Kolumbiens Hauptstadt Bogotá Menschen erkrankt.


    Hat jemand irgendwelche weiteren Infos? (Ich weiß nicht, aber ich finde das regelrecht unheimlich ...)

    #194VerfasserfehlerTeufel (1317098) 14 Okt. 21, 10:44

    Ich persönlich glaube ja, dass diese Krankheit Folge einer Zwangsimpfung von amerikanischem Botschaftspersonal ist.

    Das war natürlich ein übler Scherz, aber ganz im Ernst glaube ich, dass wir Normalmenschen keine Chance haben, dieses Syndrom, das ja schon seit einiger Zeit durch die Medien geht, einzuschätzen. Da gibt es soviel Spekulation, Geheimhaltung, Desinformation ...

    #195Verfasserharambee (91833) 14 Okt. 21, 10:56

    „Havanna-Syndrom“: Wiener CIA-Leiter abgesetzt - news.ORF.at

    Für Wien glaub ich ja, daß sie den Kaffee nicht gewohnt waren.

    #196Verfasserjo-SR (238182) 14 Okt. 21, 11:07

    Da war doch sogar die Botschaft in Berlin betroffen. Das kam in den Nachrichten, irgendwann im Sommer. Sie vermuten eine Schallkanone, aber so ganz sicher ist das nicht, es spricht auch einiges dagegen.

    "Havanna-Syndrom" bei US-Diplomaten in Berlin - Tagesschau

    Mehrere Beschäftigte der US-Botschaft in Berlin zeigen offenbar Symptome des "Havanna-Syndroms". 


    Havanna-Syndrom bei US-Vertretern in Berlin - DW

    Die ersten Fälle des Havanna-Syndroms waren vor fünf Jahren bei Diplomaten in der kubanischen Hauptstadt festgestellt worden.


    Mysteriöse "Diplomaten-Krankheit" in Berlin aufgetaucht - RTL

     Am Havana-Syndrom sollen nun zwei US-Diplomaten in Deutschland erkrankt sein. 


    Rätselhaftes Havanna-Syndrom tritt in Berlin auf - Deutsches-Spionagemuseum.de

    Bei Mitarbeitern von US-Botschaften in europäischen Ländern wurden Symptome des sogenannten Havanna-Syndroms festgestellt. Auch in Berlin.


    #197Verfasserzacki (1263445)  14 Okt. 21, 11:25
    It evidently is indeed real, but I'm not sure it has much to do with US domestic issues, except as one more thing that Biden needs to deal with. It's probably not even particularly aimed at Biden, since it started well before he took office.

    So I put a link to a story in English in the thread on world topics; hope that's okay.

    Siehe auch: Neuigkeiten vom Rest der Welt 5 - #86
    #198Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  15 Okt. 21, 03:06
    #199VerfasserfehlerTeufel (1317098)  15 Okt. 21, 09:07

    I've been collecting these, so here are a few more.


    The Decision That Could Doom Democrats for a Decade
    They predicted that nonpartisan redistricting commissions would make elections more fair, but Republicans might reap the benefits. ...
    Democrats wanted to play fair, and they tried to lead by example. In the decade-long battle over who gets to draw the districts that determine control of Congress, the party even relinquished some of its power in the name of good government. Now Democrats are discovering the potential cost of that attempt at high-mindedness: their House majority and, perhaps, the presidency.
    To rid the country of partisan gerrymandering, Democrats for years joined with election reformers to take the responsibility for redistricting away from politicians and hand it to independent, nonpartisan commissions. The effort did not begin as an entirely altruistic project; both parties gerrymandered where they could, but Democrats had more to gain by scrapping the practice. They won the argument in a number of places: Voters in states including California, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, and Virginia have approved redistricting commissions over the past 15 years, protecting more than one in five congressional seats from the threat of extreme gerrymandering.
    Republicans, to a large degree, declined to go along. They refused to cede control of the redistricting process in the biggest red states (such as Texas) and fought commissions that could have cost them seats (Arizona) all the way to the Supreme Court. In Congress this year, they blocked legislation that would have created nonpartisan commissions across the country. The GOP’s reward for its defense of gerrymandering is a national map tilted further in its favor than it would have been if the Democratic push for independent commissions had flopped on its face.


    After Del Rio, Calls for Fairer Treatment of Black Migrants
    The treatment of Haitians apprehended in Del Rio, Texas, has galvanized civil rights groups and others to press for change.


    Democrats’ problem is not focusing on issues most vital to independents, 2 prominent pollsters say ...
    Joel Benenson has a feeling of deja vu watching President Biden’s agenda grind into a long, drawn-out negotiation as middle-of-the-road voters recoil at the process taking place in Congress.
    “History doesn’t really often repeat itself, but it often rhymes,” said Benenson, who served as Barack Obama’s pollster in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.
    Benenson has teamed up with Neil Newhouse, a co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a GOP polling firm, on a research project warning that Democrats are heading into next year’s midterm elections amid echoes of Obama’s first two years in office that resulted in a resounding defeat in the 2010 midterms that cost the party its House majority. ...
    At the heart of the Benenson-Newhouse research is something Democrats worried about a dozen years ago, when those messy negotiations took up so much bandwidth yet were also out of sync with what many swing voters prioritized. In late 2009 and early 2010, with unemployment hovering around 10 percent, key swing voters cared most about jobs and not [about] expanding access to health insurance. Today’s voters appear to be most concerned about the ongoing global pandemic and are not deeply invested in the haggling over proposals such as expanding Medicare coverage to include dental, hearing and vision benefits. ...
    The two pollsters squared off in 2008 and 2012, as Newhouse worked for John McCain and Mitt Romney, but now they do surveys together for Center Forward, a centrist think tank with ties to moderate Democrats and Republicans and establishment institutions in Washington.
    It has become fashionable to talk about how few undecided voters exist in this polarized era, but both pollsters view this small bloc as the difference between a sweeping GOP victory and Democrats’ narrowly retaining their already narrow majority, especially after the 2018 and 2020 elections realigned centrist suburban voters solidly into the Democratic coalition. ...
    Benenson gives Biden huge credit for winning independents by a net gain of 12 percentage points more than Hillary Clinton in 2016.
    Now they are turning away from Biden and his agenda: 70 percent of independent voters said the country was headed in the wrong direction, according to the seven-page memo the pollsters wrote for Center Forward.
    In their survey of more than 2,600 likely voters, the pollsters asked respondents to cite their three most important issues. Democratic voters chose climate change, pandemic recovery and “raising taxes on the rich” as their most important issues, closely followed by “health insurance coverage/costs.” ...
    But that menu does not quite match the interests of independent voters, who chose “economy/inflation/jobs” as their top concern, with “immigration and border security” close behind and then “covid-19 pandemic recovery.” ...
    These voters also are keenly afraid of inflation and are concerned about whether massive federal spending — Congress approved more than $5 trillion of pandemic emergency spending from March 2020 to March 2021, with trillions more proposed by Biden for infrastructure and social programs — has fueled rising costs. ...
    Republican candidates will note that 71 percent of independent voters agreed with this statement: “People will continue to pay more money on everyday expenses unless the government becomes more fiscally responsible.” ...
    The conundrum Biden faces is familiar: The individual pieces of this massive agenda are popular, but the package is either too big for voters to comprehend or the price is so high that it sounds scary. ...
    Democrats need a narrow sales pitch that focuses on just a couple of the most popular proposals that are easily understood, Benenson said. “You have to talk about these things in ways that connect with people’s lives,” he said.


    Manchinism can help the Democrats. Sinema’s politics are a dead end.
    Both Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin irritate progressives. But their agendas have little in common. ...
    Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) are mentioned in the same sentence so frequently that there’s a raging battle on Twitter over whether Manchinema or Sinemanchin is the correct portmanteau. But despite the obvious similarities between the two most conservative members of the Democrats’ Senate caucus — notably their opposition to the size of President Biden’s major domestic-spending bill, as originally introduced, and willingness to buck their party’s leadership — Manchin and Sinema represent very distinct political visions.
    A reputation for independence, by itself, can have some electoral allure. But Manchin’s departure from the Democratic mainstream — however much it infuriates progressives — offers something of a road map for appealing to less-educated and rural voters, especially White ones, whom the party badly needs to win if it wants to hold future Senate majorities. Sinema, by contrast, offers little beyond vague fiscal conservatism. She chooses politically perverse topics on which to make a stand, blocking some of Biden’s most popular ideas, and offers nothing for the party to build on. ...
    ... Manchin’s insistence that climate policy should focus on maximizing clean-energy production rather than penalizing fossil fuel use is perfectly in line with public opinion, where ballot initiatives to tax emissions keep failing even in blue states.
    Manchin is a proud gun owner, a supporter of the Hyde Amendment — which bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortion — and someone who talks exclusively about brass-tacks economic issues rather than racial politics or other social and cultural matters. ... it’s proved to be a winning formula in the very red state of West Virginia, where Manchin massively overperforms national Democrats.
    Sinema, by contrast, has all the personal style cues of a stereotypical urban educated liberal, and breaks with her party primarily to defend unpopular business interests. ...
    ... going halfway to where he is could put states like Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina within striking distance. Resurrecting a Manchin-style wing of the party could be a godsend for the Democrats in large swaths of the country. It wasn’t so long ago, after all, that Democrats held 60 Senate seats, including from Arkansas, South Dakota and Alaska. That achievement required ideological compromise, but having enough votes to overcome the filibuster also put bigger policy changes on the table like the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul.


    How 'Let's Go Brandon' became code for insulting Joe Biden
    South Carolina Republican Jeff Duncan wore a “Let’s Go Brandon” face mask at the Capitol last week. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz posed with a “Let’s Go Brandon” sign at the World Series. Sen. Mitch McConnell’s press secretary retweeted a photo of the phrase on a construction sign in Virginia.
    The line has become conservative code for something far more vulgar: “F—- Joe Biden.” It’s all the rage among Republicans wanting to prove their conservative credentials, a not-so-secret handshake that signals they’re in sync with the party’s base. ...
    It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- Joe Biden.”
    NASCAR and NBC have since taken steps to limit “ambient crowd noise” during interviews, but it was too late — the phrase already had taken off. ...
    Trump hasn’t missed the moment. His Save America PAC now sells a $45 T-shirt featuring “Let’s go Brandon” above an American flag. One message to supporters reads, “#FJB or LET’S GO BRANDON? Either way, President Trump wants YOU to have our ICONIC new shirt.”

    #200Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 05 Nov. 21, 10:47
    The situation continues to look bleak, not to say dire, for Democrats.


    Democrats Shouldn’t Panic. They Should Go into Shock.
    By Thomas B. Edsall
    The rise of inflation, supply chain shortages, a surge in illegal border crossings, the persistence of Covid, mayhem in Afghanistan and the uproar over “critical race theory” — all of these developments, individually and collectively, have taken their toll on President Biden and Democratic candidates, so much so that Democrats are now the underdogs going into 2022 and possibly 2024.
    Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, put it this way in an essay published on the network’s website:

    As things stand, if the midterm elections were today, 51 percent of registered voters say they’d support the Republican candidate in their congressional district, 41 percent say the Democrat. That’s the biggest lead for Republicans in the 110 ABC/Post polls that have asked this question since November 1981.
    These and other trends have provoked a deepening pessimism about Democratic prospects in 2022 and anxiety about the 2024 presidential election.
    Robert Y. Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia, holds similar views, but suggests that the flood tide of political trouble may be beyond Democratic control:

    Biden and the Democrats have had almost all bad news: the pandemic is still going; the economy has not picked up in terms of perceptions of the expected increases in employment and economic growth not on fire; perceptions of what happened in Afghanistan; what has happened on the southern border; high crime rates, all amplified in news reports. It is all perception, and the latest is the increase in inflation and gas prices that people see/feel. The critical race theory controversy and perceptions of Democrats being too woke and extreme. The bad news is overwhelming.
    Bill McInturff, a founding partner of Public Opinion Strategies, provided me with data from the October WSJ/NBC poll asking voters which party can better manage a wide range of issues. On three key issues — controlling inflation (45 R-21D), dealing with crime (43 R-21D) and dealing with the economy (45R-27D) — the Republican advantage was the highest in surveys dating back to the 1990s. ...
    The numbers are even worse for Democrats in the eight states expected to have the closest Senate elections, according to Langer — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Not only is Biden’s overall job approval rating in those states 33 percent, 10 points lower than it is in the rest of the country, but registered voters in these eight states say they are more likely to vote for Republican House candidates than for Democrats by 23 points (at 58 to 35 percent).
    On Nov. 3, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball updated the ratings for three incumbent Democratic Senators — Mark Kelly of Arizona, Raphael Warnock of Georgia and C. Cortez Masto of Nevada — from “lean Democratic” to “tossup.”
    An examination of Gallup survey results on the question “As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?” reflects the damage suffered by the Democratic Party. From January through August, Democrats held a substantial 7.9 point advantage (48.2 to 41.3 percent). In September, however, Gallup reported a 2-point (47-45) Republican edge that grew to a 5-point (47-42) edge by October.
    In terms of election outcomes, Republican are once again capitalizing on their domination of the congressional redistricting process to disenfranchise Democratic voters despite strong public support for reforms designed to eliminate or constrain partisan gerrymandering. On Monday, the The Times reported that the Republican Party “has added enough safe House districts to capture control of the chamber based on its redistricting edge alone.” The current partisan split in the House is 221 Democratic seats and 213 Republican seats, with one vacancy.
    There is perhaps one potential political opportunity for Democrats — should the Supreme Court overturn or undermine Roe v. Wade, mobilizing supporters of reproductive rights across the country. ...
    I asked a range of political scientists for their projections on how the 2022 elections for control of the House are likely to turn out. Their views were preponderantly negative for Democratic prospects. ...
    A surprising number of those I contacted made the case that the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan did more lasting damage to Biden than might have been expected. ...
    In January 2021, the month Biden took office, the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index stood at 79. By Nov. 1, the index had fallen to 66.8, the lowest it has been since November 2011. Richard Curtin, director of the consumer sentiment survey, wrote in a commentary accompanying the report: “Consumer sentiment fell in early November to its lowest level in a decade due to an escalating inflation rate and the growing belief among consumers that no effective policies have yet been developed to reduce the damage from surging inflation.”
    Similarly, when Biden took office in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the inflation rate was 1.4 percent; as of October this year, the rate had risen to 6.2 percent.
    Perhaps nothing better encapsulates the problems Democrats face than the price of gas at the pump, which has risen, in the nearly 10 months Biden has been in the White House, to as high as $4.21 a gallon in California, $3.94 in Nevada, and upward of $3.60 across the Mountain West.


    How a Cure for Gerrymandering Left U.S. Politics Ailing in New Ways
    Independent commissions to oversee the redrawing of electoral maps were thought to be the solution to an age-old problem. Instead, they have become bogged down in political trench warfare. ...
    Partisan gerrymandering is as old as the republic, but good-government experts thought they had hit on a solution with independent commissions, advisory groups and outside panels. Taking the map-drawing process out of the hands of lawmakers under pressure to win elections, the thinking went, would make American democracy [fairer].
    But as this year’s once-in-a-decade redistricting process descends into trench warfare, both Republicans and Democrats have been throwing grenades at the independent experts caught in the middle.
    In state after state, the parties have largely abdicated their commitments to representative maps. Each side recognizes the enormous stakes: Redistricting alone could determine which party controls Congress for the next decade. ...
    In some states, commissions with poorly designed structures have fallen victim to entrenched political divisions, leading the process to be punted to courts. In others, the panels’ authority has been subverted by state lawmakers, who have either forced the commissioners to draft new maps or chosen to make their own.
    New York Democratic state legislators, who can override the state’s independent redistricting commission with a supermajority vote, have disregarded the draft proposal that the commission made public in September. In Wisconsin, where a court battle over redistricting is already unfolding between Republicans who control the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, the State Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, dismissed the governor’s People’s Maps Commission.


    ‘Woke’ Went the Way of ‘P.C.’ and ‘Liberal’ ...
    By John McWhorter
    In 2018, the NPR correspondent Sam Sanders made this modest proposal: “It’s time to put woke to sleep” — arguing that the term had passed its sell-by date. But “woke,” which has a longer etymological history, has only become increasingly common in recent years. What was once a popular adjective among left-leaning social media cognoscenti as part of the colloquial admonition to “stay woke” to various forms of systemic racism first morphed into a general shorthand denoting today’s left-leaning orthodoxy and then a slur that underscored the overweening, obsessive nature of said orthodoxy.
    Last week, the Times columnist Bret Stephens argued that wokeness has been “clobbered” politically. That came on the heels of the Times columnist Maureen Dowd arguing that wokeness “derails” the Democratic Party. In the aftermath of Democrats’ loss in the recent Virginia governor’s race, the veteran Democratic consultant James Carville identified “stupid wokeness” as the proximate cause. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, herself an avatar of wokeness, tweet-dismissed that assessment by saying “the average audience for people seriously using the word ‘woke’ in a 2021 political discussion are James Carville and Fox News pundits so that should tell you all you need to know.” A couple of days later, she tweeted: “‘Woke’ is a term pundits are now using as a derogatory euphemism for civil rights & justice.”
    Having arrived, then, at an intramural Democratic skirmish over the meaning of “woke” — and how much blame it should be assigned for the party’s woes — there should be little doubt remaining that progressives have lost this latest terminological battle. “Woke” is broke. The question is what will replace it.

    #201Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 18 Nov. 21, 13:24

    The question is what will replace it.

    I fear that whatever term is used next will also be clobbered - after all, it's the content, not the word, that Fox & Co object to.

    #202VerfasserGibson (418762) 18 Nov. 21, 14:10

    The situation continues to look bleak, not to say dire, for Democrats.

    Könnte damit zusammen hängen, dass Kamala H. unfair kritisiert wird:

    Psaki says Harris faces more criticism because she is a woman and woman of color

    The White House press secretary defended the vice president during POLITICO’s inaugural Women Rule Exchange.

    Psaki says Harris faces more criticism because she is a woman and woman of color



    11/17/2021 06:03 PM EST

    White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday didn’t hesitate to say “yes” when asked whether Vice President Kamala Harris was receiving more criticism because she is the first woman and woman of color to hold the office.

    “I think there’s no question that the type of attacks — the attacks on her that certainly, being the first she is many times over, is part of that,” Psaki said in an interview with POLITICO’s senior editor for standards and ethics, Anita Kumar, as part of its inaugural Women Rule Exchange.


    Psaki says Harris faces more criticism because she is a woman and woman of color - POLITICO

    Mir scheint auch, dass zum Beispiel Trump nie so harsch kritisiert wurde wie Harris, sicherlich, weil er ein weisser Mann ist.

    #203Verfassermordnilap (835133) 18 Nov. 21, 14:11

    Entdecke ich da einen Hauch Ironie? ;-)

    #204VerfasserGibson (418762) 18 Nov. 21, 14:14

    @mordnilap: Bitte schau Dir nochmal an, wofür Herr Trump kritisiert wurde und wofür Frau Harris kritisiert wird.

    Es ist in vielen Bereichen das klassische:

    Ein Mann hat Durchsetzungsvermögen; eine Frau ist herrschsüchtig.

    #205VerfasserAGB (236120) 18 Nov. 21, 15:14

    Aber mordnilap hat natürlich damit recht, dass gerade Trump angegangen wurde wie noch nie jemand vor ihm. Das war schon schockierend, bis man sich daran gewöhnt hatte - und dass man sich daran gewöhnt, dass über ein demokratisch gewähltes Staatsoberhaupt so geredet wird, ist eigentlich auch schockierend.

    #206VerfasserGibson (418762) 18 Nov. 21, 18:00

    #206, ...dass gerade Trump angegangen wurde wie noch nie jemand vor ihm.

    Es wird sicher ein Leichtes sein, zu zeigen, dass das stimmt, trotzdem möchte ich an "Birne" Helmut Kohl erinnern.

    Kein anderer Bundeskanzler wurde von ihnen [Karikaturisten] dabei derart massiv mit einer Mischung aus mitleidigem Spott und boshafter Häme überzogen - und doch so oft so grandios unterschätzt. [...]

    Der Kanzler sei in den Augen seiner Gegner "die Verkörperung des Peinlichen und Banalen" gewesen, schrieb die "Zeit" im Jahr 2010. Zu Recht beklagte sie die Überheblichkeit der Deutschen, die den Kanzler stets nur als bloße Karikatur begriffen hätten. "Kohl wurde nicht gehasst, er wurde verachtet. Man sah in ihm nicht den gerissenen Schurken, sondern den fatalen Tölpel."


    #207VerfasserMattes (236368) 18 Nov. 21, 18:16

    #205 Das ist immer das typische Argument: Frauen sind zickig, Männer durchsetzungsstark. Aber ist das die Kritik, die Harris bekommt? In dem in #203 zitierten Politico-Artikel wird die aktuelle Kritik wie folgt wiedergegeben:

    Harris has received unflattering coverage in recent months and weeks, with a CNN story over the weekend reporting that the vice president is “struggling with a rocky relationship with some parts of the White House,” and that there’s “entrenched dysfunction and lack of focus” in her office. There was negative press during her third foreign trip, to Paris, with a Los Angeles Times column over the weekend calling her “the incredible disappearing vice president” — criticizing her absence from Washington as Congress passed the administration's infrastructure bill.

    Allerdings ist die Schlagzeile von Politico auch verkürzend: Psaki hat auf konkrete Nachfrage, ob Harris mehr Kritik wegen ihrer vielen firsts ausgesetzt ist, zugestimmt, dass das zweifellos einen Teil der Kritik ausmache.

    #208VerfasserMattes (236368)  18 Nov. 21, 18:25

    #207: Ich kann zu Kohl nicht viel sagen - ich fand den großflächig doof, war aber zu jung, den öffentlichen Umgang mit ihm zu reflektieren. Aber viel Respekt war da wohl nicht.

    #209VerfasserGibson (418762) 18 Nov. 21, 20:15

    Vielleicht konsumiere ich die falschen Medien (also z.B. nicht Faux News), aber das Frau Harris für einen Vizepräsidenten ungewöhnlich heftig oder ungewöhnlich häufig kritisiert wird, war mir noch nicht aufgefallen. Ich erinnere mich z.B. noch an den ständigen Spott bezüglich Herrn Quayle.

    In den letzten paar Wochen war die Vizepräsidentin allerdings etwas mehr in den negativen Schagzeilen. Und was ich da vernahm, bestätigte mich in der Meinung, man hätte den Posten besser mit einer Person mit mehr Erfahrung in Washington besetzt. Jemand, der kaum erst im Senat Boden unter die Füße bekommen hatte, gleich weiterzubefördern, war fragwürdig, in diesem Fall für die Demokraten aber politisch opportun.

    #210VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  18 Nov. 21, 21:04

    Und was ich da vernahm, bestätigte mich in der Meinung, man hätte den Posten besser mit einer Person mit mehr Erfahrung in Washington besetzt.

    Genau. irgendeine Person mit Kenntnis und Erfahrung. Einfach nur Hauptsache Frau, alles andere ist zweitrangig, halte ich für völlig falsch. Ganz krasses Beispiel, die Grünen-Bundestagskandidatin Gaydukova letzten Sommer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcb7PEYfPDY

    Bei der kam ja noch ein Faktor dazu, sie war Frau und Immigrantin, also doppelt "geeignet"

    #211Verfasserzacki (1263445) 18 Nov. 21, 22:38

    Re #211: War das die saarländische Listenkandidatin? Wenn ja, so sind das zwei sehr verschieden gelagerte Fälle.

    Frau Harris ist eine ausgezeichnete Juristin, die ihre Leistungsfähigkeit als attorney general (Generalstaatsanwältin / Justizministerin) in Kalifornien eindeutig unter Beweis gestellt hat. Ihr Übergang zur Senatorin zeigte aber deutliche Reibungsverluste, und ihre Erfahrung im Umgang mit der Washingtoner Szene war noch nicht gefestigt, als sie zur Vizepräsidentin gekürt wurde. Eine längere Reifezeit im Senat wäre definitiv vorzuziehen gewesen, so wie das z.B. bei Herrn Biden der Fall war, bevor er Vize wurde.

    Dass die Demokraten sich in eine Ecke geritten haben, ist unbestritten. Erst hat man sich auf das Kriterium "Frau" festgelegt, und die Kombination von Zeitereignissen und traditioneller Wählerklientel führte dann fast zwingend zum zweiten Kriterium "nichtweiße Person". Damit war das Feld stark eingeschränkt und die Nominierung von Frau Harris wenig überraschend.

    Ein Problem scheint mir zu sein, das einige Leute zu viele Erwartungen an die Position des Vizepräsidenten knüpfen. John McCain hat das mal, etwas überspitzt, so zusammengefasst: "The vice president has two duties. One is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators".

    #212VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  18 Nov. 21, 22:51

    As I said above (#139),

    Siehe auch: Biden-Ära II - #139

    I've sometimes wondered if Biden chose Harris partly because he saw her as competent enough but not too competent, too threatening to his own influence, too likely to undermine him or outshine him. Stacey Abrams seems more Iike the rising star as a black woman in the party, though at this point, it may be another decade before she runs for office again, if she ever does and isn't just appointed as a judge. I bet she's discouraged right now, too.

    But Harris certainly is a smart person, definitely not as incompetent as someone like Quayle, or for that matter as small-minded as Pence. Despite her inexperience in Washington, I don't really see what exactly she could have been doing more than she is, since the problems now all seem to be so intractable, whether on foreign policy, trying to stand up to the greatest concerted wave of worldwide authoritarianism since the 1930s, or on domestic issues, where I doubt that she personally could persuade either Sinemanchin or 10 'moderate' Republicans to budge, any more than anyone else can.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that she was recently given the task of doing something about the elections in Libya, of all places that have doomed Democrats in the past. After immigration, that really sounded like yet another poison pill to her from the Biden team, who continue to leave me very doubtful that they are giving Biden good advice or benefiting the party as a whole. Spiteful leaks casting her in a bad light would be even worse behavior on their part, but looking for scapegoats isn't atypical in a crisis.

    It's true in any case that the office of vice president seems to have few inherent responsibilities, and that many vice presidents haven't looked particularly impressive in the job, even if they later turned out to have been accomplishing something behind the scenes.


    How George H.W. Bush made modern Europe
    Germany, above all, was lucky to have this American president in power in 1989. ...
    Bush even turned the vice presidency into a training camp. “You die, we fly,” became the VP’s unofficial motto as he was deputized to represent the president at a series of state funerals during his eight years under Reagan, including three in the Soviet Union. These events were solemn, but they were also human. The networks of contacts built by a vice president always willing to take on a new mission served Bush and his country well in the dramatic days that lay ahead.


    #213Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 19 Nov. 21, 03:47

    *Edit* unnötig rotzig. Vom Autor gelöscht

    #214VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  19 Nov. 21, 16:51

    Für 85 Minuten war Harris heute Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten, als erste Frau. Das kam daher, weil Biden eine Routineuntersuchung im Krankenhaus hatte und eine Vollnarkose. Aber immerhin, die 85 Minuten kann ihr keiner mehr nehmen.

    #215Verfasserzacki (1263445)  20 Nov. 21, 00:21

    Biden hat heute Geburtstag; herzlichen Glückwunsch von meiner Seite ;-)  -- Er ist 79, bei der Wahl dann 82. Schon jetzt macht man sich bei manchen Auftritten Sorgen um ihn. Auch wenn alte Leute oft unterschätzt werden -- umsichtig (man möchte fast sagen: anständig) wäre es gewesen, auf eine erneute Kandidatur beizeiten zu verzichten und jemand Jüngeres zu unterstützen.

    Für diese offensichtliche Vorstellung von der eigenen Unentbehrlichkeit (nicht nur bei Biden) fehlt mir jedes Verständnis.

    #216VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  20 Nov. 21, 10:32

    In dem Augenblick, wo er auf die Kandidatur verzichtet, wird er zum lame duck. Quasi ein menschlich-politischer Osborne effect.

    #217VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  20 Nov. 21, 10:49

    Dann wäre das Mindeste gewesen, dass er es offenlässt.

    #218VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 20 Nov. 21, 10:51

    Es gehört einfach zum ersten Präsidenten-term dazu, dass man sagt "Natürlich trete ich zur zweiten Runde an". Alles andere verunsichert, da out of the ordinary. Und die Verschwörungstheoretiker rechts im Spektrum behaupten doch schon seit Januar, dass es der sinistre Plan von linksextremen Demokraten ist, Kamala Harris ins Amt zu hieven, und Biden nur der temporär vorgeschobene Strohmann ist. Die will man doch nicht noch befeuern.

    Dass die Führung der Demokraten von der Generation meiner Eltern gestellt wird, fand ich schon vor der Wahl äußerst bedauerlich. Und die Kandidaten Biden/Harris haben mich gar nicht begeistert, waren in diesem Fall aber alternativlos. Ich muss aber ehrlich sagen, dass Herr Biden mich mit seiner Amtsführung überzeugt hat (natürlich nicht in jedem Detail) und jetzt einiges besser gefällt als vor der Wahl. Ich hoffe, ich werde jetzt nicht von den progressives hier angesprungen 🙂

    #219VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  20 Nov. 21, 11:04

    Die will man doch nicht noch befeuern

    Das hat niemand im Griff. Verschwörungstheorien gedeihen unabhängig von der Realität. Die Befeuerung kann sogar paradox erfolgen: "Jaa, natürlich wollen sie, dass wir XY glauben, daran sieht man doch gerade, dass Z zutrifft."

    #220VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  20 Nov. 21, 11:13

    Biden hat sehr viel Erfahrung in Washington und weiß ganz genau, was er machen muss, um mit einer hauchdünnen, brüchigen, parlamentarischen Mehrheit etwas vorwärts zu kommen. Und wenn er Pelosi, mit ebensoviel Erfahrung, nicht dabei hätte, sähe er jetzt schon alt (im übertragenen Sinne) aus. Er weiß auch, dass diese Mehrheit in einem Jahr futsch sein wird. Es sei denn, es geschieht irgendein Wunder.

    Ja, ich drücke auch manchmal beide Daumen, wenn ich ihn in Richtung Rednerpult schwanken sehe.

    #221VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  20 Nov. 21, 11:24

    Es war natürlich richtig, dass er letztes Jahr kandidiert hat; vielleicht war er der einzige Konsens-Kandidat, mit dem man den abgründigen Amtsinhaber loswerden konnte. Aber dass er jetzt keinen Nachfolger und keine Nachfolgerin aufbaut, sondern zumindest vorgibt, es selbst noch einmal versuchen zu wollen, das finde ich höchst riskant, trotz Norberts sicher berechtigter Einwände.

    #222VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  22 Nov. 21, 10:04
    Not only has Biden failed to foster a charismatic successor, he now also seems likely to preside over the rollback of abortion rights, starting with the Supreme Court case being heard Wednesday.

    In the longer term, some are predicting an even larger and longer-lasting defeat in the cultural wars. The last article, by mildly conservative centrist David Brooks, is so bizarre that you would think it was sci-fi, dystopia, even black humor. But it isn't.


    The Judge Who Told the Truth About the Mississippi Abortion Ban
    The ban that comes before the Supreme Court tomorrow is “pure gaslighting,” says the controversial judge who struck it down. ...
    Of all the arguments that animate the anti-abortion cause, two stand out as particularly far-fetched: that banning abortion protects women’s health and shields African Americans from genocide. Yet for years, these arguments have driven debates over state laws, served as justifications for court decisions upholding those laws, and even appeared on billboards warning women in predominantly Black communities not to kill their babies. Three years ago, Mississippi lawmakers prohibited almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy to save women, they said, from serious “medical, emotional, and psychological” damage.
    It has taken a federal judge to call out these claims for what they surely are: “pure gaslighting.”
    Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in
    Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, likely the most consequential abortion case in three decades. The case began as a challenge to the Mississippi abortion ban, and in 2018 landed before Carlton Reeves, an African American judge whose legal opinions—especially this one—are rich in history and disarmingly honest. Reeves struck down the law, as precedents like the 1973 landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, compelled him to do, but then lambasted the Mississippi legislature for trying to justify the ban with reasons that he believed were transparently dishonest.
    “Its leaders are proud to challenge
    Roe,” he wrote, “but choose not to lift a finger to address the tragedies lurking on the other side of the delivery room.” ...
    ( https://casetext.com/case/jackson-womens-heal... )
    Under current law,
    Dobbs is an easy case. In Roe and, almost two decades later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court ruled that states cannot ban abortions before “viability” of the fetus—about 23 to 24 weeks—making Mississippi’s 15-week cutoff clearly unconstitutional. Reeves ruled as much and then asked an obvious question: “So, why are we here?”
    Rejecting sophistry from the state’s legislators that the ban wasn’t really a “ban,” Reeves revealed the truth as he saw it: The state passed a law “it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign … to ask the Supreme Court to overturn
    Roe v. Wade.” He then scolded the lawmakers for pretending to care about women’s health and the well-being of the unborn and people of color while having the nation’s highest infant-mortality rate, tolerating “alarming” poverty and maternal-death rates, and curtailing health-care programs such as Medicaid. He accused legislators of perpetuating “the old Mississippi,” the one that didn’t allow women to serve on juries until 1968, the one that systematically sterilized Black women—getting a “Mississippi appendectomy,” it was called—and the one that, in 1984, became the last state to guarantee women the right to vote. He recounted Mississippi’s long history of denying its citizens’ constitutional rights with segregated schools, prohibitions on same-sex marriage, and a “secret intelligence arm” that enforced racial discrimination. Far from helping women and minorities, Reeves wrote, the state still seemed “bent on controlling” them.
    Few federal judges, if any, have ever said such things, not in an opinion and not with that kind of scathing bluntness. That Reeves said them—that he drew on Mississippi’s heartbreaking history to call out its hypocrisy—is at once remarkable and unsurprising. He has done it time and again, in striking down Mississippi’s gay-marriage ban, in explaining why a Black man could not sue cops over a horrific traffic stop, in sentencing white teenagers who drove their pickup over a gay African American until he was dead. He does it because of who he is and where he is from.
    Born in 1964, Reeves grew up in Yazoo City, Mississippi, a Delta town where the cops were called on his father for objecting when a white grocer insulted his mother. To see a Saturday-afternoon movie, he had to mount urine-scented balcony stairs, because only white kids could afford the extra 50 cents for the cushioned seats below. ... As a student in the first integrated public-school class in Mississippi, Reeves did well by any measure, but nonetheless suffered what he sees as racial abuse, including being whacked with a paddle 25 times by the white school administrator, who Reeves says falsely accused him of giving a white girl the finger. “That man beat hell out of me,” Reeves said, adding that the memory still brings tears to his eyes, “and I have never come to forgive him for that.
    With three sisters—one now a banker, another a correctional officer, a third an executive assistant—and a mother who washed and folded laundry at the Yazoo Motel to support her seven children, Reeves developed deep respect for the strength of women and all that they endure. In 2010, he became the second African American appointed a federal judge in Mississippi, taking the seat once held by Harold Cox, who referred to Black people in his courtroom as “baboons” and “chimpanzees.” Reeves told me he felt an obligation to the people accustomed to seeing court as a “hostile place, foreign soil,” and, with him, expected a very different face of justice. ...
    The pro-women argument began as a public-relations ploy. Escalating attacks on abortion clinics in the 1980s and early 1990s earned abortion opponents a reputation as violently hostile to women at a time of rising gender equality. As the Yale law professor Reva Siegel explains in a recent article,
    ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstr... )
    the 1992
    Casey decision, much more than Roe, stressed protecting women as equal citizens, a perspective reinforced by Bill Clinton’s election several months later as the first clearly pro-choice president. The anti-abortion movement’s (uniformly male) leaders saw the problem, did some market research, and concluded, “We’ve got to go out and sing from the housetops about what we’re doing—how compassionate we are to women, how we are helping women—not just babies, but also women,” the anti-abortion activist Jack Willke wrote in 1997. What followed, according to Siegel, was a raft of studies, books, and talking points about how abortion supposedly led to trauma, sterility, and cancer and why the health, welfare, and happiness of women and the unborn are inextricably linked. Amid intense lobbying, many conservative lawmakers got the message, using pro-women claims to justify enacting laws like Mississippi’s. ...
    The history of abortions and eugenics is a bit more complicated. Tracing it back to the nation’s earliest days, Melissa Murray, a law professor at NYU, recounts in a 2021 article
    ( https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploa... )
    how both sides of the abortion debate have at some point used race to support their positions. ...
    The Supreme Court said it will focus on one issue: Can states ban abortions before viability? The betting among many experts is that the Court will decide they can—maybe drawing a clear but somewhat arbitrary line (as many European countries have done) at, say, Mississippi’s 15 weeks—but otherwise technically preserving
    Casey and Roe. That would probably mean a state could regulate abortions after 15 weeks, as long as it did not put an “undue burden” on women’s ability to end their pregnancies. But how to determine when a burden is undue? ...
    A 2016 Supreme Court decision,
    Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, said judges must examine and balance the actual benefits of an abortion regulation—not just take the state’s word for it—against the obstacles it creates for women. An unjustifiable regulation would never fly, nor would one that essentially blocked abortion. In a 2020 decision, the Court struck down a regulation almost identical to the one considered in Hellerstedt. But in a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts joined dissenting justices in saying that judges should essentially take a state’s word for it—or risk wading into politics, the realm of legislatures. So even a bogus rule might pass muster if it didn’t ban abortions. But Reeves’s opinion raises the counterargument, highlighting the dangers to democracy if judges stand aside while legislators deceive voters and make law on the basis of nonsense. Don’t be surprised if the issue comes up in oral arguments.
    There’s also a chance that the Supreme Court will overturn
    Roe—as Mississippi has asked it to do—if not in Dobbs, then in another case soon. As Murray argues, one way to do it would be through the eugenics argument championed by Thomas. The Court doesn’t erase time-honored precedents just because most justices think they’re improper ... The Court needs what Murray calls a “special justification,” and for the right to abortion, that could be racial discrimination. Race provided a reason for overruling precedent in landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and, just last year, Ramos v. Louisiana, which declared non-unanimous juries in criminal cases unconstitutional. The argument that abortion is rooted in racist eugenics has been cited in several briefs filed in the Dobbs case, and might sway this Court, with its 6–3 conservative majority. Thomas could well air it during tomorrow’s arguments.
    If Reeves is right, though—if phony justifications should not carry the day in challenges to state laws—surely the same holds true for attempts to overturn constitutional rights.


    How Mississippi ended up with one abortion clinic and why it matters
    The story of abortion access in the state helps explain why some legal experts believe the U.S. may be on the brink of overturning Roe v. Wade


    What the Supreme Court justices have said about abortion and Roe v. Wade
    The Supreme Court on Dec. 1 will consider the most serious challenge in decades to its 1973 decision in
    Roe v. Wade that there is a constitutional right to abortion, and a 1992 reaffirmation of the right in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    The court will consider a Mississippi law that bans almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It has not gone into effect because lower courts said it violated the court’s precedents that states may not ban the procedure pre-viability. That refers to when a fetus may survive outside the womb, which happens usually between 22 and 24 weeks.
    In accepting the case, the court said it would decide whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional. But Mississippi and abortion opponents have asked the court to use the case to undo its precedents in
    Roe and Casey.
    All nine of the justices declined during their confirmation hearings to opine on whether
    Roe v. Wade was properly decided, but past court rulings, public appearances and other public comments give insight into their thinking on abortion and court precedents.

    The Terrifying Future of the American Right
    What I saw at the National Conservatism Conference

    David Brooks is a contributing writer at the Atlantic and a columnist for the New York Times. He is the author of The Road to Character and The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life.
    Rachel Bovard is one of the thousands of smart young Americans who flock to Washington each year to make a difference. She’s worked in the House and Senate for Republicans Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Mike Lee, was listed among the “Most Influential Women in Washington Under 35” by National Journal, did a stint at the Heritage Foundation, and is now policy director of the Conservative Partnership Institute, whose mission is to train, equip, and unify the conservative movement. She’s bright, cheerful, and funny, and has a side hustle as a sommelier. And, like most young people, she has absorbed the dominant ideas of her peer group.
    One of the ideas she’s absorbed is that the conservatives who came before her were insufferably naive. They thought liberals and conservatives both want what’s best for America, disagreeing only on how to get there. But that’s not true, she believes. “Woke elites—increasingly the mainstream left of this country—do not want what we want,” she told the National Conservatism Conference, which was held earlier this month in a bland hotel alongside theme parks in Orlando. “What they want is to destroy us,” she said. “Not only will they use every power at their disposal to achieve their goal,” but they’ve already been doing it for years “by dominating every cultural, intellectual, and political institution.”
    As she says this, the dozens of young people in her breakout session begin to vibrate in their seats. Ripples of head nodding are visible from where I sit in the back. These are the rising talents of the right—the Heritage Foundation junior staff, the Ivy League grads, the intellectual Catholics and the Orthodox Jews who have been studying Hobbes and de Tocqueville at the various young conservative fellowship programs that stretch along Acela-land. In the hallway before watching Bovard’s speech, I bumped into one of my former Yale students, who is now at McKinsey.
    Bovard has the place rocking, training her sights on the true enemies, the left-wing elite: a “totalitarian cult of billionaires and bureaucrats, of privilege perpetuated by bullying, empowered by the most sophisticated surveillance and communications technologies in history, and limited only by the scruples of people who arrest rape victims’ fathers, declare math to be white supremacist, finance ethnic cleansing in western China, and who partied, a mile high, on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express.”
    The atmosphere is electric. She’s giving the best synopsis of national conservatism I’ve heard at the conference we’re attending—and with flair! Progressives pretend to be the oppressed ones, she tells the crowd, “but in reality, it’s just an old boys’ club, another frat house for entitled rich kids contrived to perpetuate their unearned privilege. It’s Skull and Bones for gender-studies majors!” She finishes to a rousing ovation. People leap to their feet.
    I have the sinking sensation that the thunderous sound I’m hearing is the future of the Republican Party.
    When I came down to Florida for the National Conservatism Conference, I was a little concerned I’d get heckled in the hallways, or be subjected to the verbal abuse I occasionally get from Trump supporters. Judging by their rhetoric, after all, these are the fire-breathers, the hard-liners, the intellectual sharp edge of the American right.
    But everyone was charming! I hung around the bar watching football each night, saw old conservative friends, and met lots of new ones, and I enjoyed them all. This is the intellectual wing of the emerging right. Many of them have spent their lives at progressive places like Princeton, New York, Hollywood, and D.C. Their bodies and careers are in the Republican coastal megalopolis—but their minds and mouths are in Trumpland. As one young man told me late one night, “We’d like to dislike Bill Kristol, but he got us all jobs.”
    The movement has three distinctive strains. First, the people over 50 who have been hanging around conservative circles for decades but who have recently been radicalized by the current left. Chris Demuth, 75, was for many years president of the American Enterprise Institute, which used to be the Church of England of American conservatism, but now he’s gone populist. “NatCons are conservatives who have been mugged by reality,” he told the conference. Seventy-three-year-old Glenn Loury, a Brown University economist, was a conservative, then a progressive, and now he’s back on the right: “What has happened to public discourse about race has radicalized me.”
    The second strain is made up of mid-career politicians and operatives who are learning to adapt to the age of populist rage: people like Ted Cruz (Princeton, Harvard), J. D. Vance (Yale Law), and Josh Hawley (Stanford and Yale).
    The third and largest strain is the young. They grew up in the era of Facebook and MSNBC and identity politics. They went to colleges smothered by progressive sermonizing. And they reacted by running in the other direction. I disagreed with two-thirds of what I heard at this conference, but I couldn’t quite suppress the disturbing voice in my head saying, “If you were 22, maybe you’d be here too.” ...
    Over the past few decades there have been various efforts to replace the Reagan Paradigm: the national-greatness conservatism of John McCain; the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush; the Reformicon conservatism of the D.C. think tanks in the 21st century. But the Trumpian onslaught succeeded where these movements have so far fizzled because Trump understood better than they did the coalescence of the new American cultural/corporate elite and the potency of populist anger against it. Thus the display of Ivy League populism I witnessed in Orlando might well represent the alarming future of the American right: the fusing of the culture war and the class war into one epic Marxist Götterdämmerung.

    #223Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 01 Dez. 21, 06:30

    Jill Biden shares a picture of the Whitehouse Christmas tree on Twitter.

    Fox News: "Shameless! Jill Biden murders innocent tree and displays its rotting corpse in her living room!"

    #224VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 02 Dez. 21, 13:44

    @223: "Thus the display of Ivy League populism I witnessed in Orlando might well represent the alarming future of the American right: the fusing of the culture war and the class war into one epic Marxist Götterdämmerung."

    Ich bin nicht sicher, was der Autor damit sagen will. Dass die Rechten marxistische Methoden anwenden und einen Kultur- und Klassenkampf anzetteln und dass das furchtbar sei? So wie der das schreibt, scheint er diese Methoden aber bei den Marxisten selbst nicht schlimm zu finden, oder?

    Im Moment sehe ich eher bei den Linken Kultur- und Klassenkampf: Feminismus, BLM und Intersektionalismus.

    #225Verfassermordnilap (835133) 02 Dez. 21, 17:32

    Was ist denn gleich wieder Intersektionalismus?

    #226VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 03 Dez. 21, 17:39

    Das ist das Postulat, dass persönliche Benachteiligungen durch Merkmale wie Herkunftsland, Religion, Hautfarbe, Geschlecht, Sexualität, Behinderung etc ausreichend erklärt werden und sich additiv verhalten, wobei jede Abweichung vom nichtbehinderten, heterosexuellen, westlichen, weissen, christlichen Mann eine zusätzliche Benachteiligung bedeutet (und dieser definitionsgemäss nicht benachteiligt sein kann). Dementsprechend muss man dann die benachteiligten Gruppen fördern und unterstützen (Identitätspolitik).

    #227Verfassermordnilap (835133) 03 Dez. 21, 17:59

    Danke, mordnilap, das verstehe ich ungefähr. Der entsprechende Wikipedia-Eintrag ging deutlich über meinen Horizont :-)

    #228VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758) 03 Dez. 21, 18:08
    I think the word is 'intersectionality,' and the point is not about excluding those in the majority, but about acknowledging that people may be members of more than one minority / disadvantaged group.

    For those on the Kamila Harris watch, the Washington Post seems to be keeping an ear to the ground about her management style.

    I'm not sure it's actually good that Biden's own staff continues to feature so many longtime insiders whose views may never have been seriously challenged in practice. But if the question is which younger Democrat is charismatic enough to attract and retain followers, then, again, I might bet on Stacey Abrams. Which is not to say I think she can necessarily win the race for governor of Georgia, but I appreciate her willingness to try.


    A Kamala Harris staff exodus reignites questions about her leadership style — and her future ambitions ...
    The rumors started circulating in July: Vice President Harris’s staff was wilting in a dysfunctional and frustrated office, burned out just a few months after her historic swearing-in and pondering exit strategies. A few days later, Harris hosted an all-staff party at her official residence, where most of her office bit into hamburgers and posted pictures of smiling, congenial co-workers on Twitter ...
    ... the quartet of soon-to-be-empty desks reignited questions about why Harris churns through top-level Democratic staff, an issue that has colored her nearly 18 years in public service, including her historic but uneven first year as vice president. ...
    Critics scattered over two decades point to an inconsistent and at times degrading principal who burns through seasoned staff members who have succeeded in other demanding, high-profile positions. People used to putting aside missteps, sacrificing sleep and enduring the occasional tirade from an irate boss say doing so under Harris can be particularly difficult, as she has struggled to make progress on her vice-presidential portfolio ...
    The Washington Post spoke with 18 people connected to Harris for this story, including former and current staffers, West Wing officials and other supporters and critics. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity ...
    Her defenders say the criticism against her is often steeped in the same racism and sexism that have followed a woman who has been a first in every job she’s done over the past two decades. Her selection as President Biden’s vice president, they say, makes her a bigger target because many see her as the heir apparent to the oldest president in the nation’s history. They also say Harris faces the brunt of a double standard for women who are ambitious, powerful or simply unafraid to appear strong in public. ...
    Staffers who worked for Harris before she was vice president said one consistent problem was that Harris would refuse to wade into briefing materials prepared by staff members, then berate employees when she appeared unprepared. ...
    By contrast, President Biden remains surrounded by staff who have been allied with him for large swaths of his five-decade career. The three men who served as chief of staff when he was vice president — Ron Klain, Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti — all work in the West Wing in senior roles.


    #229Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 05 Dez. 21, 11:14

    Re #225: So wie der das schreibt, scheint er diese Methoden aber bei den Marxisten selbst nicht schlimm zu finden, oder?

    Ich kenne David Brooks lediglich als freitäglichen Kommentator in der PBS Newshour. Wie hm-us bereits schrieb, kommentiert er von einer Position etwas rechts der politischen Mitte bzw. moderat konservativ. Soweit es aus seinen Kommentaren zu erkennen ist, lehnt er sowohl Kultur- als auch Klassenkampf ab. Seine Betrachungsweise ist intellektuell-nuanciert, mit Extremen jedweder Art hat er nichts am Hut. Was er mit dem zitierten Satz jetzt aber genau sagen wollte, erschließt sich mir auch nicht.

    #230VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 05 Dez. 21, 12:10

    Nicht zuletzt kann er traumhaft gut schreiben. Nachzuprüfen etwa in einem neuen Beitrag für den Atlantic,


    in dem er den Konservatismus, der ihn geprägt hat, mit ungebrochener und etwas nostalgischer Zustimmung schildert, aber auch der Frage nachgeht, wie die einst konservative Republikanische Partei zum hysterischen Trump-Wahlverein mutieren konnte.

    #231VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  09 Dez. 21, 18:18

    Danke für den Hinweis. Eher ein melancholischer Rückblick als ein call to action. Man merkte schon an David Brooks Kommentaren in der PBS Newshour, dass die Verwandlung der Republikanischen Partei in den Personenkult des Trumpismus ihn zutiefst getroffen hat. Anfänglich hatte er noch Hoffnung, dass die Begeisterung für DJT eine vorübergehene Phase ist. Dann kam seine Resignation zum Ausdruck, wie sie auch am Ende dieses Artikel ausgesprochen wird.

    Die politischen Analysen von Brooks in der PBS Newshour sind von tiefen Einsichten und realistischer Wahrnehmung der politischen Landschaft Amerikas geprägt, dabei kurz und prägnant. Der Mann ist kein Laberkopf. Ich höre immer genau hin.

    #232VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  09 Dez. 21, 20:06
    I like David Brooks too, moderately. Not so much because of his writing or thinking, which don't seem all that special to me, but just because he seems like a decent guy, and it has become apparent that there's zero future for nice guys in the Republican party.

    The Atlantic has evidently put out its entire Jan./Feb. issue very early online,


    and one Barton Gellman has already been making the rounds doing interviews about his gloom-and-doom article. Republican state legislatures are planning to override actual election results in numerous ways. Super.

    As a writer, I actually prefer George Packer. And if you're looking for yet more doom, there are always fake rumors about child trafficking fueled by QAnon.

    Historians will surely not be impressed by our era. Oh, and it's not looking good for the courts either.


    Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun
    January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election


    Are We Doomed?
    To head off the next insurrection, we’ll need to practice envisioning the worst.


    The Great (Fake) Child-Sex-Trafficking Epidemic
    Dispatches from a moral panic


    After Success in Seating Federal Judges, Biden Hits Resistance
    Senate Democrats vow to keep pressing forward with nominees, but they may face obstacles in states represented by Republicans....
    After early success in nominating and confirming federal judges, President Biden and Senate Democrats have begun to encounter stiffer Republican resistance to their efforts to reshape the courts. ...
    The obstacles threaten to slow or halt a little-noticed winning streak for the Biden administration on Capitol Hill, where the White House has set a rapid pace in filling vacancies on the federal bench, even surpassing the rate of the Trump era, when Republicans were focused almost single-mindedly on confirming judges.
    ...Democrats say they intend to aggressively press forward to counter the Trump judicial juggernaut of the previous four years, and they may have limited time to do so, given the possibility of losing control of the Senate in next year’s midterm elections. ...
    Mr. Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman with deep expertise on the confirmation process, has sent the Senate 64 judicial nominations, including 16 appeals court picks and 46 district court nominees. That is the most at this point of any recent presidential term dating to Ronald Reagan. Twenty-eight nominees have been confirmed — nine appeals court judges and 19 district court judges. ...
    The vast majority of the Biden nominees so far have been put forward for appeals and district court seats in states represented by two Democratic senators, in close consultation with those lawmakers, smoothing the way to confirmation. They are replacing mainly judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
    “He is picking the low-hanging fruit,” said Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a longtime expert in tracking judicial nominations. ...
    While Republicans can slow the process and try to put up other roadblocks, changes in Senate rules mean that Democrats can advance and confirm judges with a simple majority vote. But doing so requires Democrats, who control the 50-50 Senate through Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking power, to hold together and be willing to devote floor time to a nominee.

    #233Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 11 Dez. 21, 09:52

    Das finde ich unglaublich: Biden soll angeblich so unbeliebt sein, dass sich viele Amerikaner Trump zurücksehnen. Gibt es denn in Trumps Partei keinen einzigen, der ihn als Kandidat überholen könnte?

    Biden wird doch sicher 2024 nicht noch einmal antreten. Aber das ist auch egal, er oder Harris gegen Trump, ich fürchte ich weiß schon wer dann gewinnt.

    #234Verfasserzacki (1263445) 23 Dez. 21, 12:45
    I don't think that's a minor question at all. Obviously, Biden should not run again, and should say so promptly.

    But equally obviously, it's not at all clear whether Harris could win any significant number of votes. Indeed, she seems destined to be sidelined eventually.


    Heir Apparent or Afterthought? The Frustrations of Kamala Harris.
    The vice president’s allies are increasingly concerned that President Biden relied on her to win but does not need her to govern. ...
    The president needed the senator from West Virginia on his side, but he wasn’t sure he needed his vice president to get him there.
    It was summertime, and President Biden was under immense pressure to win the support of Senator Joe Manchin III, whose decisive vote in a 50-50 chamber made him the president’s most delicate negotiating partner. Mr. Biden had invited Mr. Manchin to the Oval Office to privately make the case for his marquee domestic policy legislation. Just before Mr. Manchin arrived, he turned to Vice President Kamala Harris.
    What he needed from her was not strategy or advice. He needed her to only say a quick hello, which she did before turning on her heel and leaving the room for another meeting.
    The moment, described as an exchange of “brief pleasantries” by a senior White House official and confirmed by two other people who were briefed on it, was a vivid reminder of the complexity of the job held by Ms. Harris: While most presidents promise their vice presidents access and influence, at the end of the day, power and responsibility are not shared equally, and Mr. Biden does not always feel a need for input from Ms. Harris as he navigates some of his most important relationships.
    In Ms. Harris’s case, she came to the job without strong ties to key senators; one person briefed on the Oval Office meeting said it would be more productive if the discussion between Mr. Biden and Mr. Manchin remained private. It is unclear that the president had much sway on his own, either, given the senator’s decision this week to break with the White House over the domestic policy bill.
    But without a headlining role in some of the most critical decisions facing the White House, the vice president is caught between criticism that she is falling short and resentment among supporters who feel she is being undercut by the administration she serves. And her allies increasingly are concerned that while Mr. Biden relied on her to help him win the White House, he does not need her to govern. ...
    The urgency surrounding her position is tied to whether the president, who at 79 is the oldest person to hold the office, will run for re-election in 2024. He told ABC News on Wednesday that he would run again if he was in good health. But questions about Ms. Harris’s readiness for the top job are starting far earlier than is usual for an administration in its first year. ...
    Representative Henry Cuellar, a moderate from Texas and one of the more prominent voices on border issues in the Democratic Party, said his experiences with Ms. Harris’s team had been disappointing. When Mr. Cuellar heard Ms. Harris was traveling to the border in June, he had his staff call her office to offer help and advice for her visit. He never received a call back.
    “I say this very respectfully to her: I moved on,” Mr. Cuellar said. “She was tasked with that job, it doesn’t look like she’s very interested in this, so we are going to move on to other folks that work on this issue.”
    In the future, Mr. Cuellar said he would go straight to the West Wing with his concerns on migration rather than the vice president’s office.
    Of the White House, Mr. Cuellar said, “at least they talk to you.” ...
    By all accounts, she and the president have a warm relationship. In meetings, the two often play off each other, with Mr. Biden allowing her to jump in and ask questions that go beyond what he has asked for; one adviser likened it to them playing “good cop, bad cop.” Alongside the president, Ms. Harris, a former prosecutor, has quizzed economic experts and immigration officials, at times asking them to better explain their reasoning.
    Still, her allies are concerned that she is sometimes treated as an afterthought.


    #235Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 24 Dez. 21, 09:46

    Gibt es denn in Trumps Partei keinen einzigen, der ihn als Kandidat überholen könnte? (#234)

    Ich versuche gelassen zu bleiben. Die Gunst der Wähler ist kurzlebig, die Eilfertigkeit der Medien auch und die Loyalität der Parteifreunde sowieso. Niemand weiß, ob nicht bald ein neuer Stern am republikanischen Himmel aufsteigt, auch wenn jetzt noch nicht klar ist, wer das sein soll.

    Neulich haben sie Trump bei einer Veranstaltung ausgebuht, weil er sich -- Verrat!! -- als Booster-Geimpfter zu erkennen gab. Er muss aufpassen, niemand sitzt für immer fest im Sattel.

    #236VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  24 Dez. 21, 17:09

    But equally obviously, it's not at all clear whether Harris could win any significant number of votes. Indeed, she seems destined to be sidelined eventually.

    I concur. It's not like she was wildly popular with Democratic voters in the run-up to the last primaries. If I recall correctly (but my memory is hazy!) her poll numbers maxed out at around 15%. Historically, serving as vice president has not been the best path to being elected president subsequently (emphasis mine):


    Eighteen of the 49 vice presidents of the United States have attempted a run for the presidency after being elected vice president. Six have been elected to the presidency [...]

    #237VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  25 Dez. 21, 00:08

    #237: Historically, serving as vice president has not been the best path to being elected president subsequently (emphasis mine):

    "Eighteen of the 49 vice presidents of the United States have attempted a run for the presidency after being elected vice president. Six have been elected to the presidency [...]"

    But how many people who had not been vice president but attempted a run for the presidency were successful? Answer: 40 (?). What does one conclude from this? (It all depends on how many non VPs have ever attempted to run - I would guess that the number would be very many more than 49, so the odds of success for VPs being 1 in 3 doesn't look too bad.)

    #238VerfasserEcgberht (469528)  25 Dez. 21, 22:50

    Good point, I should have studied the statistics in a more comprehensive fashion. Intuitively, I would have guessed that the most promising path is becoming a senator, but apparently just 16 former senators went on to become presidents. Given that Ms. Harris, just like Mr. Biden, checks both the VP and senator boxes, her chances of becoming president by election might actually be quite good?

    But at this time I just do not see the necessary mass-market appeal, and Ms. Harris' case looks more like the Peter Principle at work.

    #239VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 26 Dez. 21, 00:45
    A softball update from the Guardian, and an equally rose-colored interview with ...


    ... a person from a think tank, aka lobbying group.

    Boys and girls, can we say 'in-ef-fec-tu-al'?


    Harris charts her own course as vice-president amid intense scrutiny
    Harris is navigating a position that comes with great influence but few formal responsibilities – and the stakes are even higher for her compared to past vice-presidents ...
    Harris’s difficult portfolio has caused angst among supporters and allies who hope to see her rise to the presidency. Some have argued that tasking the vice president with politically sensitive – and potentially intractable – policy issues positions her poorly for future endeavors. Others have argued she is being sidelined in her current role, left to handle matters that are either unpleasant or peripheral to the administration’s priorities. ...
    Despite her time on Capitol Hill, she has not served as the administration’s lead negotiator on its legislative agenda, a role Biden relished as Barack Obama’s vice-president. Harris, who spent a large part of her nearly four years in the Senate running for president, lacks the deep bonds Biden forged with lawmakers over his decades in Congress.


    ‘Radically optimistic’: the thinktank chief who believes the US can ‘self-correct’
    Patrick Gaspard discusses his Haitian dissident parents, meeting Mandela and protecting democracy ...
    The 53-year-old has a unique perspective on the men who became the US’s and South Africa’s first Black presidents. As a trade unionist and community activist, he first met Mandela a few months after his release from prison. Later he became close to Obama, serving in his White House and as his diplomat in South Africa.
    Now Gaspard is the new president and chief executive of the Center for American Progress (CAP), described by the Politico website as “the most influential think tank of the Biden era”. He succeeds Neera Tanden, who left to become a senior adviser to the president.
    In a wide-ranging interview in his corner office, Gaspard offered lessons learned from Mandela and Obama, his verdict on Biden’s first year in office and what his global perspective tells him about the survival of American democracy.
    He was born near Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Zaire), to Haitian parents. The family moved to New York when he was four. “All of my interest in politics comes from the origin story of my family,” he says. ...
    After leadership roles at the Service Employees International Union, one of the biggest unions in the US, Gaspard served as national political director of Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign, which culminated in the once unthinkable fall of a racial barrier. ...
    What do Americans get wrong about South Africa, and Africa generally? “Everything,” Gaspard says. “In general, Americans writ large know very little about the continent and what they know falls into a space of negative information and, until that changes, I think they will continue to get bad policy and I think we’ll continue to have our lunch eaten by China, for instance, in those spaces. The flight ban against South Africa is a perfect example of how very little we understand about the continent.” ...
    Trump infamously referred to Haiti, El Salvador and parts of Africa as “shithole countries” and never travelled to Africa. He eventually filled the diplomatic vacancy created by Gaspard’s departure from Pretoria with Lana Marks, a luxury handbag designer from Palm Beach, Florida.
    Gaspard, meanwhile, returned to the US and became president of the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros and one of the biggest private philanthropies in the world. He oversaw a $1.4bn budget and staff of 1,600, grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic and rise of authoritarian regimes around the world.
    Then came the CAP which, founded in 2003 by John Podesta, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, is accustomed to having the ear of Democratic presidents. Gaspard says he is in regular contact with the Biden administration, key agencies and “the progressive ecosystem that’s helping to stand up the agenda”.

    #240Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 26 Dez. 21, 14:26

    I think they will continue to get bad policy and I think we’ll continue to have our lunch eaten by China, for instance, in those spaces.

    Not sure what exactly is meant by eating our lunch. The Chinese government certainly seems to be interested in negotiating more military bases in Africa after establishing one in Djibouti. I think a couple of years down the line various African countries might find that (1) China is primarily interested in their raw materials or strategic location (2) They are now indebted to Chinese creditors up to their ears (3) Key infrastructure is now under the control of Chinese state-owned companies. One might call that a neocolonialist scenario. Is that going to give China a solid foothold on the continent or just a headache?

    In my perception the US hasn't had a coherent foreign policy regarding the African continent throughout its existence, not even something as blunt as the Monroe Doctrine. I see Biden as a foreign policy traditionalist, so I am not expecting any new impulses in this regard during his administration.

    #241VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 26 Dez. 21, 21:20

    Hi, Norbert, merry Christmas.

    >>One might call that a neocolonialist scenario.

    No kidding. Which means that China is likely to further encourage corrupt, authoritarian, and worst, seriously environmentally polluting practices by the nominal local governments, and conversely, discourage the kind of humanities education or religious practice that emphasizes economic and social justice, sustainability, and individual human rights. Just because western governments did much the same in past centuries doesn't make it right. If the US, UK, and EU are going to be able to compete for those scarce mineral resources, especially the rare earths, we need to be able to offer people in developing countries something better, but so far, only scattered minorities even seem aware of the issue.

    That whole topic made me think of a 2013 film series, 'Standing on Sacred Ground,' that recently began re-airing on the PBS World Channel. The episode we found very striking, about Chinese and also Canadian mining companies dumping waste and harming indigenous communities, was called 'Profit and Loss.'


    I agree that it would help if the US government had a more coherent plan on how to help smaller developing countries, and a bigger budget for it, rather than essentially leaving all the decisions to for-profit global megacorporations. But it just seems that we will never have the political will as long as business interests control our domestic politics. )-:

    >>Is that going to give China a solid foothold on the continent or just a headache?

    Well ... the former, no? Or do you have some reason to think they will actually be bothered by just extracting resources and ignoring the rest?

    I don't picture them necessarily wanting political control in the sense of installing openly one-party communist governments, since capitalist free trade largely serves their purposes beyond their own borders anyway. (Perhaps in the shorter term unlike, say, Russia, which seems to just want its whole empire back as puppet one-party states, or as good as.)

    But wouldn't their seizing control of key resources alone be a political and economic headache -- for us?

    Sorry, that's all probably much too gloomy in the big picture, when in reality the smaller details are more variable and have more hope for incremental progress. At least, it would be nice to hope so.
    #242Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 27 Dez. 21, 04:47

    As far as I can see, the colonial empires of Britain and France (1) did not provide as much economic benefit to the colonizers as they had hoped (2) created a military and political mess that has outlived the existence of said colonies for several decades. That's what I meant by headache.

    It will be interesting to see how China handles situations like the one in Montenegro, where China provided a $1B loan to build a highway traversing the country that is under construction by a Chinese company, and where it is becoming clear that Montenegro has only slim chances to pay back the loan on time (the GDP of Montenegro is $4.8B)

    #243VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 27 Dez. 21, 10:47

    Ein südamerikanischre Ökonom, den ich kenne, meinte kürzlich, dass es für sog. Drittweltstaaten und Schwellenländer kaum möglich sei, dem chinesischen Geld zu entkommen. Ich denke nicht, dass es China darum geht, das Geld von Montenegro und ähnlichen Ländern jemals zurückzubekommen. Die Investition wird sich auf andere Weise lohnen.

    #244VerfasserSelima (107) 27 Dez. 21, 10:56
    I assume they see the debt itself as a means of influence, and therefore an indirect claim of ownership on the country's natural resources, as well as more prosaically a source of whatever long-term income they can wring out of poor countries. They can do the math -- as long as the loan isn't paid off, the interest just keeps getting higher and higher. It's like usurious loan sharks who prey on the poor through title loans and pawnshops, or like slum landlords. Anything they actually do get paid up front is candy, and meanwhile they build up a case for foreclosure and ownership, and once they own the property they can charge even higher rates.

    I don't suppose that either the Chinese or the Americans would ever even consider the Judeo-Christian concept of jubilee, as a release of debts and obligations that comes only once in a human lifetime. And the Muslim world technically forbids usury, but seems to allow de facto wage theft and slavery in its place, which achieves the same perpetual hold on power by the rich.

    Sorry, I meant to try not to be so gloomy.

    #245Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 27 Dez. 21, 11:14

    Re #244: Ich plane auf jeden Fall, mir mal den Dokumentarfilm "Empire of Dust" von 2011 anzuschauen, über ein chinesisches $2B Infrastrukturprojekt im Kongo für das sich China im Gegenzug Zugang zu Mineralien sichert. In den Ausschnitten davon bei YouTube kommt die Frustation des chinesischen Projektleiters ("Kopfschmerzen") schon deutlich zum Ausdruck. Aus einer Filmbeschreibung: "Following the construction work, Bram Van Paesschen captures with impish virtuosity the sometimes cruel comedy of relations between new colonizers and former colonized."

    #246VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  27 Dez. 21, 11:20
    So, I've been catching up on newspapers again, and the prospects are mostly not looking any better. Maybe that's why even Tom Friedman's rose-colored idea about a unity government makes me wish it could actually happen.


    Hundreds of Biden Nominees Stuck in Senate Limbo Amid G.O.P. Blockade
    A year into his term, only 41 percent of the president’s nominees for Senate-confirmed posts have been approved, a new analysis finds, the worst rate in decades. ...
    The problem appears to be the worst it has ever been. A year after Mr. Biden’s inauguration, only 41 percent of his nominees for Senate-confirmed posts have been approved, according to a new analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that seeks to make the federal government more effective.
    Mr. Biden, for his part, has issued nominations at a faster pace than President Donald J. Trump did, but slower than Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, according to the analysis. Regardless, it has taken an average of 103 days for the Senate to confirm Mr. Biden’s nominees — about a month longer than in the Obama administration, about twice as long as in the Clinton administration and nearly three times as long as during the Reagan era.


    Biden-Cheney 2024?
    by Thomas L. Friedman
    As I’ve noted before, one reason I pay very close attention to the Israeli-Palestinian arena is that a lot of trends get perfected there first and then go global — airline hijacking, suicide bombing, building a wall, the challenges of pluralism and lots more. It’s Off Broadway to Broadway, so what’s playing there these days that might be a harbinger for politics in the U.S.?
    Answer: It’s the most diverse national unity government in Israel’s history, one that stretches from Jewish settlers on the right all the way to an Israeli-Arab Islamist party and super-liberals on the left. Most important, it’s holding together, getting stuff done and muting the hyperpolarization that was making Israel ungovernable.
    Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination ...
    As Israeli leaders treat each other — and Israeli and Palestinians leaders treat each other — with a little more respect, and a little less contempt, because they are out of Facebook and into face-to-face relations again, stuff is getting done. Unity has not meant paralysis. This coalition in November passed Israel’s first national budget since 2018! So far, every attempt to topple it has failed.
    Mansour Abbas, the Islamist party’s leader, even recently stunned many Israeli Arabs and Jews when he publicly declared, “Israel was born a Jewish state, that was the decision of the people.” He continued: “It was born this way and it will remain this way. The question is, what is the status of the Arab citizen in the Jewish State of Israel?’’
    Could this play come to Broadway? I asked Steven Levitsky, a political scientist and co-author of “How Democracies Die,”
    ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/books/revi... )
    after he presented some similar ideas last week to my colleague David Leonhardt.
    ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/briefing/r... )
    America is facing an existential moment, Levitsky told me, noting that the Republican Party has shown that it isn’t committed any longer to playing by democratic rules, leaving the United States uniquely threatened among Western democracies.
    That all means two things, he continued. First, this Trump-cult version of the G.O.P. must never be able to retake the White House. Since Trump has made embracing the Big Lie — that the 2020 election was a fraud — a prerequisite for being in the Trump G.O.P., his entire cabinet most likely would be people who denied, or worked to overturn, Biden’s election victory. There is no reason to believe they would cede power the next time. ...
    That brings us to the second point. Saving a democratic system requires huge political sacrifice, added Levitsky. “It means A.O.C. campaigning for Liz Cheney” and it means Liz Cheney “putting on the shelf” many policy goals she and other Republicans cherish. “But that is what it takes, and if you don’t do it, just look back and see why democracy collapsed in countries like Germany, Spain and Chile. The democratic forces there should have done it, but they didn’t.”
    To put it differently, this Trump-cult version of the G.O.P. is trying to gain power through an election, but it’s trying to increase its odds of winning by gaming the system in battleground states. America’s small-d democrats need to counter those moves and increase their odds of winning. The best way to do that is by creating a broad national unity vehicle that enables more Republicans to leave the Trump cult — without having to just become big-D Democrats. We all have to be small-d democrats now, or we won’t have a system to be big-D or big-R anythings.
    That is what civic-minded Israeli elites did when they created a broad national unity coalition whose main mission was to make the basic functions of government work again and safeguard the integrity of Israel’s democracy.
    Such a vehicle in America, said Levitsky, should “be able to shave a small but decisive fraction of Republican votes away from Trump.” In a tight race, it would take only 5 or 10 percent of Republicans leaving Trump to assure victory. And that is what matters.


    What if Republicans become a majority party? ...
    What happens if Democrats lose in 2024?
    I don’t mean “What if Republican-controlled legislatures override the results of the presidential election?” or even a less noxious “What if a Republican wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote?” I mean, what if Democrats just … lose?
    The question is admittedly speculative, but ... the more the left assumes it can’t happen, the more likely it becomes.
    Democrats have gotten out of the habit of thinking of the Republican Party as a normal opposition that sometimes beats them by the simple expedient of winning more votes. ...
    It’s understandable that they’d think so, since our current system gives such outsize influence to low-population states where Republicans outperform. And frankly, often, Republicans act like losers who can’t win elections fairly — the brazen gerrymanders, the craven coddling of Donald Trump’s “stop the steal” twaddle.
    Yet the belief in an “emerging Democratic majority” predates any Trumpian alarm bells. It goes back to a 2002 book by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira that outlined how demographic change could give Democrats a durable advantage. Over time, the left elevated the authors’ modest hypothesis into a prophecy; in 2016, one heard repeated suggestions that Republicans might never win another presidential election.
    That belief helped shift left-wing politics further leftward — less need to worry about wooing moderates when you can instead just turn out your growing base. Yet that leftward shift alienated a chunk of White working-class voters whom Judis and Teixeira had counted on keeping in the Democratic camp. Now, Teixeira is warning that Democrats risk losing many Hispanic and Asian voters, too.
    Those are demographics they can’t afford even to win much less decisively. Election analyst Sean Trende recently told me that, all else equal, if Trump had won roughly half of Hispanics in 2020, he would have won the popular vote.
    In reality, Trump got only about a third of them. But that was up from around 28 percent in 2016 — and now, a recent Wall Street Journal poll shows Hispanic voters evenly split between the parties. Democrats haven’t slipped as far with Asian voters, but Teixeira documents troubling signs for the party in New York’s mayoral race and Virginia’s gubernatorial election. ...
    ... what sort of political positions should the left adopt, if Republicans start to outpoll them? The belief in a frustrated Democratic majority has made the left increasingly critical of the anti-majoritarian features of American democracy. How well will those criticisms read if Democrats take their turn as the party that can’t quite win a popular majority? Might their future selves come to appreciate the filibuster, celebrate the electoral college or regret their endorsement of various court-packing schemes?


    Covid 3.0, Biden 2.0 and Trump Number …
    ... if [Biden] means for congressional Democrats to make “Remember Jan. 6” the organizing principle of their election campaigns, it’s political malpractice. It politicizes the event in a way that will diminish its significance and turn off wavering voters who feel they’re being talked down to. And it’s a distraction from the job Democrats should be doing, which is convincing the public that they’ve got their interests and concerns in mind. Elections are always about “What have you done for me lately?” Democrats aren’t going to win on the promise of safeguarding abstract principles, important as that may be. ...
    The smart play is to let the Jan. 6 committee do its work and let the public draw its conclusions. In the meantime, fix the supply-chain bottlenecks. Pick a quarrel with any teachers’ union that tries to keep schools closed. Propose an immigration bill that funds border security in exchange for citizenship for Dreamers. Break Build Back Better into bite-size components and get its most popular parts passed with votes from Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema and even a Republican or two, like Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins.
    To keep Trump and his epigones away from high office, it isn’t enough to have the moral high ground. It’s like something Adlai Stevenson supposedly said once when a voter told him that every thinking person was on his side. “I’m afraid that won’t do,” he replied. “I need a majority.” Democracy needs a majority.

    #247Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 12 Jan. 22, 10:07
    For some reason I'm still occasionally collecting articles on this topic, just in case. Not that it's very cheering.


    Biden’s chief of staff had the perfect résumé. His first year shows his limits.
    As Joe Biden closed in on the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, top advisers approached him with a careful process for choosing and vetting a potential White House chief of staff. Biden cut them short, pointing to one man whose experience in government outstripped anyone else: “I want Ron.”
    But throughout his first year on the job, Ron Klain and his sterling credentials have repeatedly bumped against the unusual challenges of governing in today’s Washington.
    He drew the ire of two key Democrats in Congress, antagonizing Sen. Joe Manchin III (D–W. Va.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) amid disputes over legislative strategy and policy.
    On the single biggest challenge facing the White House — battling the pandemic — Klain at times irked the administration’s top official in charge of the coronavirus response, pushing Jeff Zients and his team to move faster in ways they found counterproductive. ...
    Along the way, Klain has drawn criticism that he is overly concerned with elite opinion, as reflected in his active Twitter presence, and that he is aligned too closely with Democrats’ left wing.


    Democrats have lost confidence that Biden can do what he promised — or much else
    New polling shows particularly large drops over Biden’s pandemic response and his ability to unify the country ...
    There’s a relatively simple formula these days for having a presidential approval rating that is in line with your immediate predecessor’s: leverage partisan polarity and keep independents relatively happy. Barack Obama’s approval rating was generally around or under 50 percent because Democrats loved him, Republicans hated him, and independents generally liked him. Donald Trump’s was in the low 40s because Republicans loved him, Democrats hated him, and independents weren’t very enthusiastic.
    In new polling from the Pew Research Center, President Biden’s approval rating is at a remarkably low 41 percent. That’s in part because independents view him fairly negatively, as they have for a while. But it’s also because Democrats don’t love him as much as they used to.


    ‘The Lowest Point in My Lifetime’: How 14 Independent Voters Feel About America ...
    How do independent voters feel about President Biden and America after his first year in office? Let’s put it this way: His weak approval ratings might go up if he pulled a Trump and just declared that America was moving on from the pandemic and he was going all in against inflation and high gas prices. Never mind about voting rights or avoiding another Jan. 6. It’s the economy, Joe.
    So it seemed listening to a new Times Opinion focus group with 14 independent voters, who are far more worried about their finances than about Covid’s impact, as the transcript of the conversation below shows. Asked what they held Mr. Biden responsible for and what they would tell him if they had the chance, the independents emphasized energy prices, the economy and the importance of being a moderate, as well as a desire to avoid Covid mandates and lockdowns. The virus might not be done with America, but several of these independents are done with the virus.
    The focus group was made up of people who had voted at least once for President Barack Obama and at least once for President Donald Trump. They were less furious about the state of the country than pessimistic about the future and dismissive about whether Mr. Biden and either party could improve things. “They are resigned rejecters,” Frank Luntz, a longtime strategist for Republican candidates, who led the discussion, said afterward. Senator Joe Manchin came in for some praise, Anthony Fauci came in for some criticism, and most were lukewarm on both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump running again. ...
    Independent voters were decisive in the 2020 election, favoring Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump by a 13-point margin, according to exit polls; these voters are now souring on Mr. Biden more than any other group, according to a new Gallup poll.
    ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/389033/biden-yea... )

    Sen. Ben Ray Luján’s stroke shows the fragility of Democrats’ Senate majority
    Luján’s stroke appears relatively minor, but information about his condition has been closely held, fueling speculation about potential challenges for Democrats.


    The White House’s new press briefing seat chart says a lot about where each reporter stands ...
    The White House Correspondents’ Association has laid out new seating assignments for reporters who attend daily briefings and news conferences. It’s the first time since 2017 that the journalists’ organization, which controls the 49 press seats in the cramped James S. Brady Briefing Room, has rejiggered who sits where, or doesn’t sit anywhere at all. ...
    Traditional front-row denizens remain in place — the leading TV networks, and the Associated Press and Reuters news services. So does the second-row lineup of major print publications (The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today). ...
    Notably, the WHCA has expanded the number of news organizations with assigned positions to a record 65 — and 14 of them are first-timers. It did so by splitting up seats in the middle and back rows among 30 news outlets. Reporters from the BBC and Newsweek, for example, will take turns occupying a spot in the last row, as will correspondents from the Daily Caller and EWTN. ...
    ... seats have now been set aside for religious broadcasters (Salem Radio Networks, EWTN, the Christian Broadcasting Network); for news outlets aimed at Black audiences (the Grio, American Urban Radio Networks); for those that broadcast in Spanish (Telemundo and Univisión); and for a cadre of conservative news sites (the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Daily Caller and Newsmax). The Washington Blade is the first LGBTQ-oriented publication with an official seat. Outfits that didn’t exist a few years ago, like the streaming network Cheddar Inc., are in the mix, too. ...
    The new setup accommodates several news organizations based abroad, such as Al Jazeera, Agence France-Presse and the BBC, and reserves one spot in the third row for a rotating “foreign” correspondent. But some international outlets that wanted in didn’t make the cut, such as Tass and Turkish news organizations.

    #248Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 03 Feb. 22, 10:29

    A lot of the people who are being polled seem to be out of touch with reality. In the exact circumstances that Mr. Biden finds himself in now, who among the other presidential candidates would have achieved more, and how? What does "unsatisfied with his pandemic response" mean? Are these people expecting more checks from the government? Debt to GDP is already at 130%.

    Interestingly no article on the Supreme Court justice selection. I was surprised to learn that Biden had promised to nominate a Black woman, I must have missed this campaign promise. If the intention is to align SCOTUS more closely with the proportions in the American populace, he should have preselected a Protestant Latina, seeing how Catholics are currently massively overrepresented on the court but Hispanics (19% of the population) are significantly underrepresented.

    #249VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  03 Feb. 22, 10:58
    Würde das Verbot von "Maus" eigentlich schon erwähnt?


    Angeblich, weil da einige Schimpfwörter vorkommen ... Man fasst sich an den Kopf.
    #250VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 05 Feb. 22, 08:20

    Es steht in Bubbs FR-Artikel, aber man sollte trotzdem darauf hinweisen, dass es sich um die Entscheidung eines einzelnen school board in Tennessee handelt. (Weitere sind anscheinend in Vorbereitung.) Nicht dass jemand denkt, "Maus" wäre generell und landesweit verboten worden.

    #251VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  05 Feb. 22, 08:31

    Ich hatte zwar mitbekommen, dass "Maus" irgendwo aus Schulen verbannt werden soll (oder wurde), aber nicht genau aufgepasst, was für Gründe angeführt wurden. Irgendwie hatte ich im Kopf, dass vorgetragen wurde, die armen Kleinen könnten sich bei der Lektüre unwohl fühlen. Äh, dass ist doch der Sinn der Sache, oder?

    Laut diesem Bericht war wohl eine Mischung von Schimpfwörtern und leserlichem Unwohlsein schuld an der Entfernung aus dem Lehrplan:


    Banned by Tennessee School Board, ‘Maus’ Soars to the Top of Bestseller Charts

    In early January, a ten-member school board in McMinn County, Tennessee, voted unanimously to ban Maus, a graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its eighth-grade curriculum. The move followed a debate over the book’s content, its age appropriateness and the best way to teach children about the Nazis’ persecution of European Jews during World War II, reports Mel Fronczek for the Tennessean.


    As David Corn of Mother Jones reports, the McMinn County school board deemed Maus inappropriate for 13-year-olds based in part on its inclusion of swear words and drawings of nude figures. One board member stated that he had not “seen the book [or] read the whole book,” instead admitting that he’d only “read the reviews.” Another member, Tony Allman, argued, “[W]e don’t need to enable or somewhat promote this stuff.” Per the January 10 meeting minutes, he added, “It shows people hanging, it shows them killing kids. Why does the educational system promote this kind of stuff? It is not wise or healthy.”


    “This is disturbing imagery,” Spiegelman tells Jenny Gross of the New York Times. “But you know what? It’s disturbing history.”

    #252VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  05 Feb. 22, 08:38

    Dem Buch hat's übrigens genützt; es war -- dreißig Jahre nach seinem Erscheinen -- plötzlich unter den Top 20 auf Amazon und zeitweise ausverkauft.


    *Edit* Bitte um Entschuldigung, das stand ja schon in der Überschrift in Nr. 252. Wer lesen kann, ist klar im Vorteil :-)

    #253VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  05 Feb. 22, 08:41
    I apologize for overlooking the Supreme Court, but really, isn't it a non-issue? Yes, Breyer is right to step aside for a younger person, and yes, it's good if that person is a black woman; but no, that's not going to be a significant positive change, just another last-ditch fortification trying to stave off the worst.

    As for Art Spiegelman, he put forth a strong defense on Christiane Amanpour's show (CNN/PBS), though they don't seem to have found it important enough to put a video clip on the website.

    I have to say that I understand the voters who feel an overriding sense of gloom.



    The Politics of Gloom
    Some voters aren’t sold on the idea that an election will save them from their anguish. ...
    Earlier this week, 10 women from across the country met on Zoom and talked for two hours as part of a focus group on politics. All of the women were white, lived in the suburbs and had been identified as swing voters. One was a mother from Iowa who owns a small business. Another teaches special education in Florida. And there was a school bus driver from Pennsylvania.
    The session was sponsored by several liberal groups who invited us to tune in but asked us not to identify the participants or the organizations. They cited a need to protect the participants’ privacy and to separate the views of the focus group from the views of the sponsoring organizations.
    The women first responded to a question about how things were going in the country. The most optimistic answer might have been “uncertain.” The others shared that they were “nervous,” “concerned,” “frustrated” and “irritated.”
    The teacher from Florida spoke about struggling to keep up with medical bills for her cancer treatment. “I thought I was ahead but I keep falling behind,” she said. One recently split up with her spouse over how seriously to take Covid. One devotes an entire day every weekend to running her errands, so she can save money on gas. ...
    This focus group of 10 women is a grain of sand on the beach that is the American electorate. But they open a window into a widespread gloom that helps explain why some voters doubt that the Biden administration can fulfill its promise to restore their lives to normal. These women are consumed by the problems that the federal government has said it’s trying to solve, but they seem to believe that the government lacks the power to fix them. ...
    Focus groups can provide anecdotes to explain trends in polling, and the organizers tend to group voters by their demographics. The organizer of this focus group is conducting sessions with multiple demographic groups; the one we were invited to this week happened to center on the views of white women. The participants were identified as swing voters because they had expressed misgivings about their past votes — some of the women had voted for Donald Trump, while others had voted for President Biden.
    Democrats need support from suburban women if they want to keep their House and Senate majorities in November. The women in the focus group didn’t necessarily dislike Biden. They supported the infrastructure law and opposed measures that restrict voting access. They applauded Biden for his hot-mic moment — the one when he muttered a disparaging remark about a Fox News reporter. They disliked Trump, and they were disgusted with those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.
    Despite all of that, they weren’t eager to vote for Democrats in the midterm elections in November. ...
    When they were asked how they saw their role in the midterm elections, they laughed. “The suckers,” an Arizona mother answered. “We’re that automated laugh reel,” joked a woman in Utah.
    They saw Washington more as a playground than as a place where problems get solved.
    “At the end of the day you need to learn how to play in the sandbox together,” an interior designer from Georgia said, lamenting about bickering politicians.
    When it came to the infrastructure law, some of the women agreed that Democrats had included nonessential items that had nothing to do with roads or bridges. But they also thought Republicans should have voted to pass it anyway. ...
    They generally agreed that Biden stood out from other politicians for being “empathetic.” But even if they believed that Biden had wanted to make a difference, they didn’t think he was an exception to the rule. They seemed to doubt that any politician could solve the country’s biggest problems.
    The women expressed that corporations and the wealthiest Americans wielded the most power, not politicians. But they didn’t think there was anything the government could do to make corporations pay their fair share — these companies always find loopholes, they argued.

    #254Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 05 Feb. 22, 11:16

    it's good if that person is a black woman

    Actually, I am not satisfied with this pre-selection criterion. Biden's move does not seem to be about properly diversifying SCOTUS. That would suggest a Latina candidate, ideally a Protestant Latina, as I pointed out.

    Rather, this seems to be simply a campaign promise designed to attract Black votes. Per 2020 census, African-Americans account for 12.4% of the US population. This would suggest .124 * 9 = 1.116 Black justices. Currently, there is one, which is close enough.

    The 2020 census also tells us that 18.7% of the US population is Hispanic, which equates to 0.187 * 9 = 1.683 Latinx justices. As justice Sotomayor is the first and so far only Latinx justice in the entire history of SCOTUS, clearly this turn should have gone to a Latina candidate if diversification based on proportional representation were the goal.

    #255VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  06 Feb. 22, 03:40
    The catch, though, is of course Clarence Thomas.


    I'm sure you know, though readers outside the US may be less aware, that although Thomas is physically black, he doesn't represent the interests of the large majority of black voters, whose rights have been denied by the courts over the centuries because they weren't explicitly written into the constitution when they were not considered to be equal human beings. He believes the literal wording of the constitution is more important, more sacred, than the lives and rights of real people. So he's essentially useless, and indeed actually voted against hard-won, long-held precedents like the Voting Rights Act. Which is one reason that voting rights are once again under direct assault, in a step backward that great black jurists like Thurgood Marshall would have been shocked to think could happen more than a half century after the original civil rights struggle.

    The other terrible point that will go down in history as a black mark against his name forever is of course Thomas's sleazy behavior, his sexual harassment of the black woman lawyer Anita Hill. That's partly also a stain on Biden's reputation, because he served on the Senate committee that chose not to believe Hill and thus to confirm Thomas. So the choice now by Biden seems to be almost a kind of penance, a confession that his weakness at that time, his trust of the good old boys and naive belief in collegiality, was in fact a sin. A black woman justice will in a sense be justice personified, to confront Thomas face to face.

    I don't disagree that it's high time, indeed past time, for a Protestant. However, trying to pair that with a Latina comes up against the demographics of older Hispanic generations, who were largely Catholic. Ironically, now that many Spanish speakers are moving to evangelical churches, the next Latina or Latino on the Supreme Court may well be another conservative. /-:
    #256Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 06 Feb. 22, 06:12

    The way I understand liberal leftist identity politics is that {skin color | race} matters beyond any other personal attributes including opinions held by the individual. Reason: "You have to see it to be it." From that perspective, there should be no objections to justice Thomas as a proper representative of Black Americans on the court. I find it a bit disingenuous to focus intensely on external attributes like race and gender and then suddenly have concerns about inner values. "Well, yeah, OK, he's a Scotsman, but he is not a true Scotsman ..."

    Surely a SCOTUS stuffed with (justice Sotomayor excepting) conservative Catholics does not strike the proper representational balance. Last I checked, American Catholics were split into conservatives and progressives pretty evenly, which makes this high concentration even more peculiar.


    Is the Supreme Court Too Catholic?

    Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, would join five other Catholic justices (clockwise from top right): Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.


    What accounts, then, for the recent preponderance of Catholic justices? All but Justice Sotomayor have been appointed by Republican presidents, and their Catholicism has often been seen as a proxy for their presumed or hoped-for willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has been the poison pill of our constitutional politics since 1973. It’s easy to forget that Anthony Kennedy’s Catholicism was supposed to reassure pro-life Republicans following the defeat of Robert Bork (a critic of Roe who years later converted to Catholicism), though the hope that Justice Kennedy would vote against Roe proved to be very wrong.

    Judicial diversity seems to be a significant challenge. California's Supreme Court is generally very diverse (two Blacks, two Asians, two Whites; three women), but curiously there is currently no Latinx justice on the court after justice Cuellar left last fall, although Hispanics are the single largest population group in California (39.4%). I expect governor Newsom to nominate a Latinx justice to fill the vacancy.

    #257VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  06 Feb. 22, 07:07
    >>there should be no objections to [J]ustice Thomas as a proper representative of Black Americans on the court

    Norbert, you can't be serious.

    A black Republican who votes against every law benefiting black voters? You must be familiar with the term 'Oreo.' The man is evil, a menace, a traitor to his race. His wife is a partisan activist who violates his supposed impartiality. Are you defending them?

    The whole point is that his skin color means nothing if he is not willing to stand up for the rights of minorities such as black voters. Believe me, liberal voters are well able to distinguish between judges who support civil rights, white or black, and those who completely fail to.

    Stop being coy and be serious!

    #258Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  06 Feb. 22, 13:38
    Sorry, I seem to have gotten testy. I apologize; what I should have said was simply that that doesn't appear to me to be a serious argument.

    In the meantime, the news for Dems continues to be bad, and they continue to seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room, so to speak.

    I was all hopeful for a minute to see a rare Washington Post article with a headline about GOP governors losing support -- until I read it, only to find that the writer only mentioned two. One was supposedly Youngkin in Virginia, who was only just elected and thus is in no danger at all; and the other was supposedly Abbott in Texas, who is likely cruising to a primary win despite some challenges from the even farther right.

    The writer seemed naively hopeful because Abbott's lead in surveys over O'Rourke had shrunk from 11 points to 7 points! Given that Texas voters consistently vote 3 to 4 points more Republican than surveys predict, I would say that's still a 10-point lead and Abbott has nothing to worry about, except his loony ultra-right-wing lieutenant governor who now wants to abolish tenure at state universities. Aaaaarrrrggghhhh ...

    And did I mention that I still haven't received my mail-in ballot? Any finger-crossing appreciated ...

    *s i g h*


    Thanks to new congressional maps, most Americans’ votes won’t matter
    As many as 94% of representatives may be running in safe districts, fueling polarization as candidates play to their bases


    This Poll Shows Just How Much Trouble Democrats Are In
    New Gallup numbers may portend a political earthquake. ...
    According to the Gallup organization, 47 percent of Americans now identify with the Republican Party and 42 percent with the Democrats.
    ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political... )
    That sounds ho-hum: one party doing a tad better than the other. But the Gallup numbers may portend a political earthquake.
    Republicans seldom lead on measures of party identification, even when they are doing spectacularly well in other respects. Since Gallup began tallying party identification in 1991, Democrats have averaged a four-point lead. Republicans did lead in the first year the poll was taken — the year of the first Iraq war. But since then, even when Republicans rack up midterm wins at the voting booth — the year after 9/11, for instance, or in the aftermath of the unpopular Obamacare bill eight years later — they tend to run roughly even with or behind Democrats.
    Between 2016 and 2020 the Democratic advantage swelled to between five and six points. When Joe Biden took over from Donald Trump a year ago, Democrats held a 49-to-40 advantage. From nine points up to five points down in less than a year — it is one of the most drastic reversals of party fortune that Gallup has ever recorded.
    The data analysis site FiveThirtyEight shows a parallel collapse in Mr. Biden’s own popularity.
    ( https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-ap... )
    He entered office with higher approval (55 percent) than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did, but has since tumbled to 42 percent, lower than any president at this stage in his tenure except his immediate predecessor, according to data that go back to World War II.
    How did Democrats get into so much trouble so quick[ly]? Inherited trends, including Covid-19, deficits and geostrategic overreach, are partly to blame. So is poor policymaking on issues like the economic stimulus. But the heart of the problem lies elsewhere. Democrats are telling a story about America — about the depth and pervasiveness of racism, and about the existential dangers of Mr. Trump — that a great many Americans, even a great many would-be Democrats, do not buy. ...
    Democrats have been led astray by their Trump obsession. They have misunderstood what the former president represented to voting Americans. Mr. Trump tapped into smoldering grievances against various information-economy elites and managers. There is no reason that ethnic-minority voters wouldn’t share some of those grievances. ...
    Perhaps sympathy with populist discontent was actually tamped down by the public’s repugnance for Mr. Trump as a person. We may yet underestimate the discontent itself.


    Signs of Progressive Overreach Abound
    Why are liberal candidates losing in liberal cities? ...
    Many Americans, even in liberal places, seem frustrated by what they consider a leftward lurch from parts of the Democratic Party and its allies. This frustration spans several issues, including education, crime and Covid-19.
    Consider these election results from last year, all in politically blue places:
    * In Minneapolis, voters rejected a ballot measure to replace the city’s Police Department with an agency that would have focused less on law enforcement.
    * In Seattle, voters elected Ann Davison — a lawyer who had recently quit the Democratic Party because she thought it had moved “so far left” — as the city’s top prosecutor. Davison beat a candidate who wanted to abolish the police.
    * In New York, voters elected as their mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat who revels in defying liberal orthodoxy. As a candidate, Adams promised to crack down on crime. Since taking office, he has signaled his frustration with Covid restrictions.
    * In the Democratic-leaning suburbs of both New Jersey and Virginia, Republican candidates for governor did surprisingly well. Several postelection analyses — including one by aides to Phil Murphy, New Jersey’s Democratic governor, who narrowly survived — concluded that anger over Covid policies played a central role.


    Democrats are engaged in a ‘new politics of evasion’ that could cost them in 2024, new study says
    Trump and the GOP represent a danger to democracy, the study says. Democrats must win in 2024, but first they have to reorient on cultural issues and question whether there really is a progressive majority emerging in the country. ...
    Three decades ago, Democratic policy analysts William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck published a bracing critique of their party, warning against a “politics of evasion” that they said ignored electoral reality and hindered changes needed to reverse the results of three losing presidential races in which the party had won a combined total of just 173 electoral votes.
    Now the authors are back, with a fresh analysis of their party.
    ( https://www.progressivepolicy.org/publication... )
    This time it comes in the wake of President Biden’s victory over former president Donald Trump in 2020, but it is an even starker warning about the future than the one they issued in 1989 after Michael Dukakis’s landslide electoral college loss to George H. W. Bush. ...
    The Democrats’ first duty, they argue, should be to protect democracy by winning in 2024; everything else should be subordinated to that objective.
    But they argue that the Democrats are not positioned to achieve that objective, that, instead, the party is “in the grip of myths that block progress toward victory” and that too many Democrats are engaged in a “new politics of evasion, the refusal to confront the unyielding arithmetic of electoral success.”
    “Too many Democrats have evaded this truth and its implications for the party’s agenda and strategy,” the authors add. “They have been led astray by three persistent myths: that ‘people of color’ think and act in the same way; that economics always trumps culture; and that a progressive majority is emerging.

    #259Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 22 Feb. 22, 12:47

    Ich frage mal hier, auch wenn andere Fäden ebenso in Frage gekommen wären. Bei den Diskussionen über Nordstream 2 kommt immer mal wieder das Argument auf, dass die Amerikaner scheinheilig wären, weil sie in den letzten Jahren ihre Ölimporte aus Russland deutlich erhöht haben. Grund dafür ist wohl, dass amerikanische Raffinerien wegen eines Embargos kein Öl mehr aus Venezuela beziehen und dass russisches Schweröl ähnliche Eigenschaften hat wie das venezoelanische. Es ist ja bekannt, dass die USA beim Öl gar kein Nettoimporteur mehr sind, so dass man sich wundern kann, dass die USA überhaupt an russischem Öl interessiert sind. Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, müsste es in den Raffinerien, die jetzt russisches Rohöl verwerten, recht teure Umbaumaßnahmen geben, um auf amerikanisches Leichtöl umzustellen. Ich verstehe da inhaltlich zu wenig von, aber mir scheinen die Quellen, die das schreiben, glaubwürdig.

    Nun sind derartige Ölimporte natürlich nicht vergleichbar mit den europäischen Gasimporten aus Russland. Während Europa bei den Gasimporten zu abhängig von Russland ist, gibt es eine derartige Abhängigkeit der USA beim Thema Rohöl sicher nicht. Dieses Argument kann man aber in zwei Richtungen interpretieren:

    a) Ein europäischer Verzicht auf russisches Erdgas würde Russland stark treffen, während ein amerikanischer Verzicht auf russisches Rohöl eher ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein wäre. Also wäre ein europäisches Embargo wirksam, ein amerikanisches Embargo gegen russisches Schweröl hingegen nicht mehr als Symbolpolitik.

    b) Wenn die Amerikaner nicht mal russisches Schweröl boykottieren wollen oder können, dann sollen sie nicht mit dem Finger auf die Europäer zeigen, wenn diese nicht auf Gas aus Russland verzichten können/wollen.

    Meine Frage: Spielt das Thema der russischen Schwerölexporte in die USA in amerikanischen Medien irgendeine Rolle? Gibt es Überlegungen, auf dieses Öl zu verzichten?

    Da ich nicht ganz ausschließen kann, dass meine Frage in die falsche Ecke geschoben wird: Ich finde, dass die Amerikaner Recht haben, wenn sie die zu starke Abhängigkeit Europas von Russland kritisieren.

    #260Verfasserharambee (91833) 22 Feb. 22, 13:47

    It's a strong interdependence. Russia is desperately dependent on foreign exchange for its raw materials; otherwise they have nothing desirable to offer apart from weapons technology.

    #261VerfasserBubo bubo (830116) 22 Feb. 22, 16:14

    Re #260:

    Grund dafür ist wohl, dass amerikanische Raffinerien wegen eines Embargos kein Öl mehr aus Venezuela beziehen und dass russisches Schweröl ähnliche Eigenschaften hat wie das venezoelanische. Es ist ja bekannt, dass die USA beim Öl gar kein Nettoimporteur mehr sind, so dass man sich wundern kann, dass die USA überhaupt an russischem Öl interessiert sind. Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, müsste es in den Raffinerien, die jetzt russisches Rohöl verwerten, recht teure Umbaumaßnahmen geben, um auf amerikanisches Leichtöl umzustellen.

    Meines Wissens ist das kein echtes Rohöl, sondern eine leicht vorverarbeitetes Schwerölprodukt. Das russische Produkt aus dem Ural (?) ist dem vorher verwendeten Produkt aus dem venezolanischen Tiefland am ähnlichsten. Raffinerien sind stark spezialisiert, was ihr Rohmaterial angeht, und eine Umrüstung teuer und zeitaufwendig. Aus dem gleichen Grund beziehen die USA immer noch Öl aus Saudi-Arabien (die Tatsache, dass die größte Raffinierie der USA dessen staatlicher Ölgesellschaft Saudi-Aramco gehört, trägt wohl auch dazu bei ...).

    2020 haben die USA zirka 28 Millionen Tonnen Öl aus Russland bezogen (das waren ca. 7% der amerikanischen Ölimporte) [1]. Das ist ziemlich genau die gleiche Menge Öl, die Deutschland im gleichen Zeitraum aus Russland bezogen hat (das waren zirka 33% der deutschen Ölimporte) [2].

    [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

    Russia   0.54 (7%) million barrels per day (~= 7 barrel/Tonne; NJ)

    [2] https://www.bafa.de/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/...

    Einfuhr nach Ursprungsländern (in 1.000 Tonnen) - vorläufige Zahlen


    Russische Föderation   28.159

    Meine Frage: Spielt das Thema der russischen Schwerölexporte in die USA in amerikanischen Medien irgendeine Rolle? Gibt es Überlegungen, auf dieses Öl zu verzichten?

    Ich höre zu russischen Öllieferungen in die USA in den US-Massenmedien eigentlich nichts. In auf den Öl&Gas-Sektor spezialisierten Publikationen kann man dazu lesen. Von einem angedachten Boykott russischen Öls lese ich nirgends. In den PBS Abendnachrichten betonte heute ein amerikanischer Regierungsvertreter, dass die amerikanischen Maßnahmen bisher keinerlei Beschränkungen von Energielieferungen und -handel jeglicher Art beinhalten. Die Liefermengen russischen Öls in die USA fallen offenbar (saisonbedingt?) seit August 2021: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler...

    Ich lese nichts, dass die amerikanische Regierung einen Boykott russischen Erdgases durch Deutschland oder die EU fordere. Anderslautende Meldungen bitte hier verlinken. Die amerikanische Regierung fordert (mit voller Unterstützung durch den Congress; beide Parteien), dass NS2 nicht in Betrieb geht. Die Nichtinbetriebnahme von NS2 hat keinerlei Einfluss auf die nach Westeuropa strömende Menge russischen Erdgases, da die bisherigen Transportkapazitäten mehr als ausreichend sind. Die Gas-Liefermenge ist alleine davon abhängig, was europäische Energiehandelsunternehmen bestellen und bezahlen. Es gibt weiterhin keine Anzeichen, dass Russland abgeschlossene Gaslieferverträge nicht einhält. Auch im Kalten Krieg, zu Zeiten maximaler Spannung zwischen NATO und Warschauer Pakt wegen SS-20 / Pershing / NATO-Doppelbeschluss, wurden solche eingehalten.

    Ein ernstes potentielles Problem europäischer Energiesicherheit sehe ich in der bereits laut angedachten Abkopplung Russlands von SWIFT bei einer möglichen Verschärfung der Sanktionen. Dann könnten die europäischen Erdgaskäufer ihre Rechnungen in Russland wahrscheinlich nicht mehr begleichen, was wohl zu einem sofortigen Lieferstopp der russischen Lieferanten führen würde.

    Die USA beziehen ausweislich der Importstatistiken selbst kein Erdgas aus Russland. Die Exportstatistiken zeigen, dass der größte Teil der amerikanischen LNG-Exporte nach Asien gehen, und nichts nach Deutschland (kein Wunder, denn DE betreibt keine LNG-Terminals). Die USA exportieren momentan um die 68 Milliarden Kubikmeter Erdgas in Form von LNG im Jahr. Damit wäre eine Komplettversorgung Westeuropas bei weitem nicht zu bewerkstelligen.

    #262VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  23 Feb. 22, 07:32

    Norbert, danke für die Antworten und Recherchen. Die sind interessant und wichtig, vernachlässigen aber etwas den psychologischen Effekt, um den es mir auch und vermutlich sogar hauptsächlich ging. Seit Jahrzehnten hat sich bei nicht wenigen Deutschen der Eindruck festgesetzt, dass die Amerikaner gerne Sanktionen fordern (Iran, Kuba, Russland), die sie selbst möglichst wenig treffen und andere umso mehr. Ich glaube, dass der Vorwurf nur teilweise gerechtfertigt ist, dass aber die Amerikaner auch reihenweise Chancen liegen lassen, diesen Vorwurf zu entkräften. Dieses russische Schweröl könnte eine weitere Chance sein.

    Zu Nordstream 2 haben wir ja leicht differierende Meinungen. Ich habe nichts dagegen, dass eine Inbetriebnahme auf den Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag verschoben wird. Ich halte das allerdings für eine Entscheidung, die hauptsächlich Symbolkraft hat (das allein kann sie natürlich schon sinnvoll machen) und Russland nur in geringem Maße trifft.

    Zu LNG-Terminals: Angeblich gibt es in Europa 28 LNG-Terminals. Über einige von denen wird auch für Deutschland bestimmtest Flüssiggas angeliefert, das dann mit Tankern weitertransportiert wird. Wird das in den amerikanischen Exportstatistiken dann dem Land mit dem Terminal zugeordnet? Es gab in den vergangenen Jahren mehrere Projekte, in Deutschland LNG-Terminals zu bauen. Ob die an den regulatorischen Bedingungen gescheitert sind oder schlicht an unsicherer Wirtschaftlichkeit (das waren alles privatwirtschaftliche Projekte, soweit ich weiß), werden Beteiligte wohl unterschiedlich beantworten. Früher oder später wird es solche Terminals wohl auch in Deutschland geben, wobei man, wenn ich es richtig in Erinnerung habe, nach Lösungen sucht, die dann später auch mit Wasserstoff arbeiten können. Das alles hilft kurzfristig natürlich nicht.

    Was das Einhalten von russischen Lieferzusagen betrifft, bin ich nicht ganz so optimistisch wie Du. Ja, in der Vergangenheit wurden die immer weitgehend eingehalten, aber das muss in der Zukunft nicht so sein. Ich hoffe natürlich, dass ich da zu pessimistisch bin.

    Es ist sicher richtig, dass die aktuelle amerikanische Regierung keinen europäischen Boykott russischen Erdgases fordert, aber was nicht ist, kann ja noch werden. Zumindest habe ich heute gehört, dass Jarosław Kaczyński (ja, der ist nur inoffizell amerikanischer Regierungssprecher (-; ) jetzt auch über Nordstream 1 diskutieren will. Ich weiß natürlich auch, dass der unselige Lindsey Graham nicht in der Regierung sitzt, aber - um mal wieder zur psycholgischen Seite zu kommen - dessen Forderungen (to 'destroy' ruble, 'crush the Russian oil and gas sector') werden hier in Deutschland nicht immer so eingestuft wie es sein sollte. Richtig gut kommen sie nicht überall an.

    #263Verfasserharambee (91833) 23 Feb. 22, 14:15

    Speaking of US imports of Russian oil: Yesterday, I read that some CDU (I believe) politician was talking about the US importing a "Großteil" of its oil from Russia. From the reasonably current statistics that I could find, it appears that the US imports about 7% of its oil from Russia. Question to the NGSs here: Is 7% enough to justify the use of "Großteil" as a description? (From the options given here in LEO, I wouldn't think so, but such things are highly subjective.)

    #264Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 23 Feb. 22, 14:34

    Question to the NGSs here: Is 7% enough to justify the use of "Großteil" as a description?

    Nein, das ist meiner Ansicht nach nicht gerechtfertigt. 7% sind in diesem Kontext kein Großteil, siehe auch den zweiten Absatz in #260. Leider wird in dieser Diskussion sehr unschön mit Zahlen jongliert.

    #265Verfasserharambee (91833) 23 Feb. 22, 14:44

    Die Frage ist doch, was sind die 7%?

    Habe mal (nur bei wiki) nachgeschaut. Zahlen von 2017.


    US Ölverbrauch 987,1 Mio t

    US Import 392,9 Mio t

    Wenn die 7% auf den Gesamtverbrauch bezogen sind wäre der Importanteil an Russischem Öl 17,6%.

    Je nachdem welchen Anteil andere Länder hätten könnte das schon der Großteil sein. wenn aber die restlichen 82,4% aus nur zwei weiteren Ländern kämen natürlich nicht.

    Und wenn nur 7% der Importe statt 18% aus Russland kommen erst recht nicht.

    #266Verfassertraveller in time (589684)  23 Feb. 22, 14:51

    Here's the 7% figure in context from the US Energy Information Administration:

    Petroleum imports from Canada increased significantly since the 1990s, and Canada is now the largest single source of U.S. total petroleum and crude oil imports. In 2020, Canada was the source of 52% of U.S. total gross petroleum imports and 61% of gross crude oil imports.

    • The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by share of total petroleum imports in 2020 were
    • Canada 52%
    • Mexico 11%
    • Russia 7%
    • Saudi Arabia 7%
    • Colombia 4%

    #267Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 23 Feb. 22, 15:13

    Re #267: I must have been typing in invisible letters once again. As I wrote in #262, citing an official source:

    2020 haben die USA zirka 28 Millionen Tonnen Öl aus Russland bezogen (das waren ca. 7% der amerikanischen Ölimporte)

    In 2020, the US consumed about 6.66 billion barrels of oil. At roughly 7 barrels per metric ton, this was about 950 million metric tons. Imported Russian oil thus represented 28/950 = 3% of total consumption.

    Re #263: [...] vernachlässigen aber etwas den psychologischen Effekt, um den es mir auch und vermutlich sogar hauptsächlich ging.

    Auf psychologische Effekte in der deutschen Bevölkerung kann ich nicht eingehen, da ich diese nicht kenne. Ich habe mich daher auf Fakten beschränkt.

    Zu LNG-Terminals: Angeblich gibt es in Europa 28 LNG-Terminals. Über einige von denen wird auch für Deutschland bestimmtest Flüssiggas angeliefert, das dann mit Tankern weitertransportiert wird. Wird das in den amerikanischen Exportstatistiken dann dem Land mit dem Terminal zugeordnet?

    Exportstatistiken erfassen im allgemeinen das Land, welches das exportierte Produkt einführt. Ob dann zum Beispiel von niederländischen Energiehändlern als LNG eingekauftes und über Rotterdam eingeführtes Erdgas nach Deutschland weiterverkauft wird, wird da nicht erfasst. Mehrere Pipelines, die solche Weiterleitung ermöglichen, gibt es. Ob Deutschland bei der Erdgaseinfuhr aus den Niederlanden unterscheidet, ob das ursprünglich aus dem Groninger Feld kommt, oder früher mal amerikanisches LNG war, weiß ich nicht. Als Laie wüde ich vermuten, Gas ist Gas, das wird nicht nach Provenienz erfasst.

    Früher oder später wird es solche Terminals wohl auch in Deutschland geben

    Der Aufbau eines LNG-Terminals benötigt mehrere Jahre. So war es zumindestens bei einem Terminal in Louisiana. Dazu kommen, gerade in Deutschland, wahrscheinlich mehrere Jahre Genehmigungsverfahren, sowie Proteste von Umwelschutzorganisationen. Soweit ich weiß ist für DE die Eröffnung eines LNG-Terminals im Jahre 2023 geplant (vergesse jetzt, wo).

    Es steht aber nicht LNG in Hülle und Fülle zur Verfügung, das man einfach einführen kann, wenn man will. Um momentan etwas mehr LNG in Richtung Europa zu schicken, hatte die US Regierung (1) Japan gebeten, der Umleitung von bereits verladenem US-LNG nach Europa zuzustimmen (2) Katar gebeten, sich um verstärkte LNG-Lieferungen in die EU zu bemühen. Der amerikanische Regierungsvertreter sprach im PBS-Interview gestern extra an (verlinkt in #262), man sei sich bei der Gestaltung der Sanktionen der europäischen Energiesituation bewusst.


    TOKYO/LONDON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Japan will divert some liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes to Europe after requests from the United States and the European Union, the industry minister said on Wednesday, a step that aligns the country with the West as tensions flare with Russia.


    US in talks with Qatar over supplying LNG to EU: Reports

    Die richtige Lösung zum Abbau der Abhängigkeit der EU von russischem Erdgas ist die Dekarbonisierung der Wirtschaft. Das gilt natürlich ebenso, aber in anderer Konstellation, für die USA. Schon vor 20 Jahren gefiel mir dieser Sticker an einem EV1, welches in San Jose vor mir fuhr: "Terrorism prevention device" (aus der schwammigen Erinnerung. Möglicherweise war es stattdessen: "This car prevents terrorism").

    #268VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  23 Feb. 22, 20:50

    Addendum zu #268:


    Germany’s domestic natural gas consumption is sourced with over 90% import, but until recently, the country lacked any LNG terminal projects. Originating in the desire to diversify its natural gas imports, and connecting to the existing natural gas grid, the Brunsbüttel (German) LNG Terminal promises Germany an operational capacity of 5.1 million tpy. Brunsbüttel LNG Terminal is expected to become operational in 2023.

    #269VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 23 Feb. 22, 22:33

    For the unitianated, what's an EV1 (#268)?

    #270Verfasserwupper (354075) 24 Feb. 22, 00:29

    EV1 was an early BEV produced by GM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

    The terrorism mentioned on the sticker was clearly a reference to the 9/11 attacks, and the facts that (1) Saudi nationals were largely responsible for these attacks (2) Saudi money has played and still plays a major role in the global spread of radical Islam giving rise to terrorist groups and this money largely originating from oil exports (3) At the time, the US was still a major importer of Saudi oil, thereby indirectly financing those who want to harm us

    I am fully aware that some of the raw materials needed for BEVs also come from unstable regions of the world, whose autocratic rulers may in the future similarly harm the interests of the United States and/or the well-being of its citizens, just like the rulers of Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi-Arabia do today. In the balance, considering climate change, I believe decarbonization is the better way forward compared to the continued use of fossil fuels.

    #271VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  24 Feb. 22, 00:30

    I do not own or use a car, so I am as per #270 unitianated. I believe, rather strongly, that this is the way "forward".

    Nevertheless, I appreciate the explanations.

    #272Verfasserwupper (354075)  24 Feb. 22, 00:41

    Good for you. Cars are only one part of the puzzle. Maybe your home is heated with oil or natural gas, or your water heater or stove operate with natural gas, or you eat food grown with fertilizers based on natural gas, or you use some of the many products of the chemical industry based on oil and gas. Decarbonization is a big challenge, not one that we'll solve globally by 2050, but it seems one that we must solve eventually, by taking additional incremental steps every year.

    #273VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158)  24 Feb. 22, 00:47

    Decarbonization is a big challenge,

    I could not agree with you more. EDIT And it is a challenge that the coming generation(s) will be faced with head-on.

    #274Verfasserwupper (354075)  24 Feb. 22, 00:51

    The challenge is one that faces all of us head-on today. And in addition to big politics getting into gear, I see all of us adults individually responsible for doing our part in moving towards a sustainable life style. How much exactly the Biden administration is going to help move the needle remains to be seen. What has mostly happened so far is a rescinding of environmentally harmful executive orders of the DJT era.

    #275VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Feb. 22, 01:14

    The challenge is one that faces all of us head-on today.

    OK. I was about to edit, or at least add to, my response. Of course the challenge lies with all of us today already. But I still think it's relatively easy for people now to buck the question and ascribe to a more or less hedonistic, consumer lifestlye. The economic system we live in (and "with") rewards buying and consuming things - the more the better. It's just the way the U.S. and the Western world operates. This will change in the coming generations (IMO) and the question of carbon footprint, etc. will be harder and harder to dodge, as compared to today. The question might be foremost on your mind, but I would submit that it is really not present in mainstream society - at least not to the extent it will be in the future and really needs to be now already. But the world has only so much fossil fuels and the supply is dwindling even as we speak ( or type!). The clock is ticking...

    #276Verfasserwupper (354075)  24 Feb. 22, 01:28

    The question might be foremost on your mind, but I would submit that it is really not present in mainstream society - at least not to the extent it will be in the future and really needs to be now already.

    This is hard to gauge accurately, but you assessment is very likely true. I see my responsibility as two-fold: Reducing my personal footprint, and sharing my thoughts on the problem with others. Maybe add to that: Speaking out against irresponsible people who want to create panic. Panic is never helpful when there is a problem to be solved.

    #277VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Feb. 22, 01:36

    I don't know. Is it true "panic" you are referring to, or is it desperation? There is a fine line there. How do you effectively motivate people? Do you have an answer? Has it been tested?

    Sorry, but I have a soft spot for people that feel passionately about something that is truly important.

    EDIT Then again, we may just be talking past one another.

    #278Verfasserwupper (354075)  24 Feb. 22, 01:42

    people that feel passionately about something that is truly important

    In general, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, IMHO. However, some focus that energy into something constructive, while others focus that energy into something destructive. I have a strong preference for the former. As I stated many times in these forums: When I offer my thoughts on any topic, it is in the hope that some may find them useful in some way. If others don't agree, that is fine with me: I am not trying to convince anyone to adopt my points of view.

    #279VerfasserNorbert Juffa (236158) 24 Feb. 22, 01:56

    When I offer my thoughts on any topic, it is in the hope that some may find them useful in some way.

    They surely are, rest assured.

    Sorry, but an entire syllable somehow got garbled in my earlier posts. Unitianated[sic] --> uninitiated; please correct.

    #280Verfasserwupper (354075)  24 Feb. 22, 02:07

    Frage an die US-Amerikaner:

    Hier wurde dieser Tage berichtet, dass Donald Trump Putin und seine Taktik als genial bezeichnet hat. Trumps Bewunderung für den starken Mann Putin ist nicht weiter überraschend, genau so wenig wie die Freude an destruktivem Verhalten. Hier wurde mit der gewohnten Empörung berichtet, dass Trump seinem Nachfolger in den Rücken fällt. Wie wurde das denn in den USA bewertet?

    #281Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 24 Feb. 22, 09:52

    Ich denke mal, die Gläubigen der "Church of Trump" sind davon völlig unbeeindruckt, die anderen empört.

    #282VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 24 Feb. 22, 10:06
    DT ist auch seinem VORgänger in den Rücken gefallen und zwar immer wieder. Das ist nichts Neues. Was soll man dazu sagen?
    #283Verfasserwupper (354075) 24 Feb. 22, 10:13

    I make the mistake of reading the comments on Facebook. tRumpsters are celebrating what tRump said in praise of Vlado P. (Fans of a despot like despots of a similar vein.) At the same time, they are denouncing anything that Pres. Biden has said and done.

    Non-tRumpsters are horrified.

    BTW: I'm currently listening to a podcast from a show last night (The Last Word) during which the announcement of bombs going off in various cities and places in Ukraine was made and the UN Security Council was meeting. Chilling. They are also praising Chancellor Scholz's decision to kill Nord Stream 2 and recognizing the problems that will create.

    #284Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 24 Feb. 22, 10:16

    Are tRumpsters also praising what Putin is doing? I.e. bombing the Ukraine? Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass man den Einmarsch von russischen "Friedenstruppen" in der Ostukraine verteidigen könnte, wenn man ein entsprechendes Weltbild vertritt, aber Bombardierungen sind doch ein ganz anderes Kaliber.

    #285Verfassergrinsessa (1265817) 24 Feb. 22, 10:29

    Ich denke, das ist denen - mit Verlaub - sch***egal. Was ihr Idol gut findet, ist gut, egal welche Konsequenzen das haben mag.

    #286VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  24 Feb. 22, 10:40
    Some current topics are going back and forth between this thread and the 'Rest der Welt' thread. Just in case anyone isn't already following both ...

    Siehe auch: Neuigkeiten vom Rest der Welt 6 - #177
    #287Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 24 Feb. 22, 11:52

    #285 Ich schätze mal, dass in solchen Fällen argumentiert wird, dass doch "nur" militärische Ziele bombardiert wurden und dass das eine notwendige defensive Maßnahme war, um die eigenen Leute zu schützen.

    #288Verfasserharambee (91833) 24 Feb. 22, 12:53

    Re: 285

    From an AP report: Sen. Rob Portman (R) of Ohio is retiring. He is a co-chair of the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, and has "blasted" Putin's words and actions.

    A tRumpster (J. D. Vance) who is running to replace Portman said the following in a podcast interview before the invasion:

    "I gotta be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another. I'm sick of Joe Biden focusing on the border of a country I don't care about while he lets the border of his own country become a total war zone."

    I'm sure that the invasion hasn't changed his tone at all.

    #289Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 24 Feb. 22, 14:21

    The news from the US continues to be discouraging, and the State of the Union speech Tuesday didn't cheer anyone up as far as I can tell, except perhaps Biden supporters who may have been relieved that he only made about a dozen gaffes and slips, mispronouncing words or losing his place on the teleprompter. Could have been worse. *s i g h*

    I'm still collecting articles on how poorly the Democrats are managing their fragile few remaining months in power. If anyone has better news, nur zu.

    The most encouraging video I've seen in a long time, though, was the last link below, from a group of anti-Trump Republicans who are still fighting. They apparently held a parallel conservative summit called 'Principles First' at the same time as, or shortly after, the notorious CPAC conference, which is now only a platform for the loudest, meanest Trumpites.

    The anti-Trump panelist who seemed to have the best grip on reality -- that is, the most pessimistic view of the GOP in the short term -- was a guy named Joe Walsh. But he was evidently basing his impressions on the many angry Trumpites who call in to his podcast, so who knows. There was a more hopeful comment right at the end, from a Republican woman politician who is actually running against the repellent Lauren Boebert in western Colorado. She thinks there could be a silent majority of moderate conservatives and independents out there, at least in the West, who would support more centrist / rational candidates.

    As with everything else right now, we can but hope.


    Joke’s on them: how Democrats gave up on rural America ...

    When it comes to rural America, the Democrats are not doing well. They have lost Arkansas, which had two Democratic senators as recently as 2010. They’ve lost Minnesota’s farm country and its Iron Range in the north – once strongholds of the state’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor party. As of 2020, they’re on the verge of losing south Texas. And they’ve lost Colorado’s Western Slope. In 2010, the region was held by a Democrat, but it’s now represented in Congress by Lauren Boebert, best known for tweeting about the locations of lawmakers during the January 6 riot, pledging to carry her handgun into Congress, and going on a racist tirade against Representative Ilhan Omar.

    Unlike some of her fellow far-right House members, Boebert does not represent a deep-red seat. In 2020, she won with only 51.4% of the vote. Colorado’s third district is large and varied, covering the state’s entire western half. Federal public lands comprise much of the area, which also includes ski towns high in the Rockies, large chunks of farmland, and a couple of midsize cities. The areas near the New Mexico border have substantial Latino populations. ...

    Americans of all kinds, urban and rural alike, rightfully feel excluded from the centers of political decision-making and ignored by a giant, faceless bureaucratic state. ...

    Some on the left have an explanation for this state of affairs. Laid out most famously in Thomas Frank’s influential What’s the Matter with Kansas?,

    ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54666.Wha... )

    and most recently invoked by Bernie Sanders backers who note his popularity in rural areas, the argument goes like this: like the rest of the country, rural communities have been and remain dominated and exploited by the economic forces that transcend local control – deregulation, unrestrained financial markets, and deindustrialization. If Democrats would simply run on bold economic populism, it goes on, rural voters would overlook the cultural issues where they align with Republicans and vote in accordance with their economic interests.

    Frank’s account of the trouble with Kansas has troubles of its own. His diagnosis of the Democratic party’s shortcomings is not wrong, but his remedy is simplistic. ... Right now, rural America’s dominant political culture is conservative. Any serious attempt to build political power here must begin by conceding this fact. ...

    After Donald Trump’s election in 2016, these compounding rural crises became something of a preoccupation for national media and mainstream liberals. Rural America suddenly seemed to them a distant shore, home to strange customs, backward people, and jokes that weren’t funny. National reporters dropped in to diners and filed dispatches from Trump rallies. Pundits wrote countless columns with titles like “Why rural America voted for Trump”, “Penthouse populist: why the rural poor love Donald Trump”, and “Explaining the urban-rural political divide”.

    Democratic politicians such as Tester and the former Missouri senator Claire McCaskill criticized the party for abandoning moderates and recommended that it run candidates who could relate to rural voters – there’s a throughline between these suggestions and the cowboy hats.

    Trump’s success in rural areas and among non-college-educated whites spawned a market for books that sought to explain non-coastal areas. The condescending infatuation with JD Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy was the most obvious example, but more sophisticated works – including Arlie Russell Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, Nancy Isenberg’s White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, and Elizabeth Catte’s What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia – also became prominent.

    Four years later, though Trump didn’t win, he took an even greater share of the rural vote. In 2020, he won roughly 90% of rural counties. Whatever lessons Democratic strategists have absorbed do not seem to be working. ...

    During the Great Recession, Katherine Cramer, a professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, spent several years conducting ethnographic studies on rural, often white, Wisconsinites. She found a persistent sense that rural areas and the people who live there are mistreated, creating a recognizable “rural consciousness”. People felt not only that they had been abandoned by the government, but that cities and cultural elites hoarded power and prestige at the expense of rural areas.

    There’s evidence that the political makeup of rural America is neither as simplistic, nor as homogenous, as either major party’s treatment of it would lead us to believe. The past six months have seen one of the most sustained periods of labor activity in decades. More than a dozen strikes and unionization efforts are happening around the country right now, many of them in small towns and midsize industrial cities in rural areas. Every day, reports appear of workers walking off jobs that demand too much for too little pay. ...

    ... in response, the Democratic party has done nothing, as far as I can tell. Whether it’s a strategic lapse or an indication of the special interests Democratic politicians are beholden to is unclear.


    ‘The Scheme’: a senator’s plan to highlight rightwing influence on the Supreme Court

    Sheldon Whitehouse spent nine years rousing the Senate to act on climate change. Now he’s set his sights on the changes at the Supreme Court ...

    For almost nine years the Democrat took to the Senate floor every week the chamber was in session to demand that attention be paid to the climate crisis. He retired the “Time to Wake Up” series last year after 279 speeches only to revive it again this year.

    But now he has another alarm to sound.

    “The Scheme” is a series about the plot by rightwing donor interests to capture the Supreme Court and achieve through the institution’s power what they cannot through other branches of government. ...

    Another key player in the story is the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 by law students who wanted to challenge what they perceived as the dominant liberal ideology. Its co-chairman and former executive vice-president is Leonard Leo, who also advised Trump on judicial selection. ...

    There was no better example than 2010 and the supreme court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which allowed wealthy donors, corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited cash on elections. Since then an estimated $6bn in dark money, often from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors, has poured into political campaigns. ...

    Whitehouse is planning at least three or four more speeches about the Scheme. Like his climate series, he hopes that the message will get through: it is time to wake up.


     "Principles First" conservative summit

    Day 2, February 27, 2022

    Barbara Comstock, US Rep., R-Virginia, 2015-19

    Miles Taylor, co-founder, Renew America movement

    Joe Walsh, US Rep., R-Illinois, 2011-2013; host, White Flag podcast

    Michael Wood, candidate for US Rep., R-Texas, 2021


    See also


    #290Verfasserhm -- us (236141)  04 Mär. 22, 09:48


    "Supreme Court Live Updates: Leaked Draft Would Overturn Roe v. Wade

    A majority of the court privately voted to strike down the landmark abortion rights decision, according to the document, obtained by Politico. Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the draft could become one of the “most damaging decisions in modern history.”"

    Handmaid's Tale war eine Fiktion, kein verdammtes Handbuch ... Das wäre übel :-/

    #291VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  03 Mai 22, 05:35

    Das hab ich heute morgen auch gelesen und noch überlegt, in welchen Faden ich es posten sollte. Es kann sich noch ändern, aber allein die Tatsache, dass die Gefahr überhaupt besteht, ist erschreckend. (Und selbst mein normalerweise sehr gesunder Optimismus ist gerade irgendwo vergraben - im Moment überrascht mich wenig.)

    Der zweite Skandal bei der Sache ist natürlich das Durchstechen selbst.

    (Und immer noch kein Lebenszeichen von hm. Das ist auch nicht gut.)



    Abgesehen von dem konkreten Thema "Abtreibung" (das, verständlicherweise, von Seiten LEO hier nicht diskutiert werden soll) ist es auch einfach schockierend für mich, dass es so einen Rückschritt geben kann. Bisher bin ich automatisch davon ausgegangen, dass in der "freien Welt" Stück für Stück alles freier und demokratischer wird, es also nur die eine Richtung gibt. Dieser U-Turn erschüttert auch irgendwie meinen Glauben an die "natürliche" Entwicklung von Demokratien.

    #292VerfasserGibson (418762)  03 Mai 22, 12:02

    Dann hätte Trump sein Ziel, die USA wieder ein Stück reaktionärer zu machen, nachträglich noch erreicht. Es ist reinweg zum Kotzen.

    Merkt Euch meine Worte, der Widerling wird wieder gewählt. Wir werden den Trump-Faden bald fortsetzen können.

    #293VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 03 Mai 22, 13:39

    sein Ziel, die USA wieder ein Stück reaktionärer zu machen

    Das war nie sein Ziel, wenn ihr mich fragt. DT hat keine politischen Ziele, sein Antrieb sind Geltungsdrang und persönliche Bereicherung. Trotzdem war er natürlich für andere politisch nützlich, und rechte Ideologen freuen sich über die drei von ihm ernannten Supreme-Court-Richter (eine Richterin ist auch dabei), die nun diese katastrophale Entscheidung möglich machen.

    #294VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  04 Mai 22, 05:53

    "die drei von ihm ernannten Supreme-Court-Richter (eine Richterin ist auch dabei)"

    Wenn das nicht sein Ziel gewesen sein sollte, dann hat er es damit aber prima erreicht ... Diese Ernennungen dienen weder seinem Geltungsdrang noch seiner persönlichen Bereicherung.

    #295VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 04 Mai 22, 08:12

    Doch, zweifellos. Für DT war ein "konservativ" besetzter Supreme Court nur Mittel zum narzisstischen Zweck. Dass dem Guten ein Thema wie Abtreibungen am Herzen lag, können wir sicher ausschließen (wenn es nicht gerade um die paar ging, die er wahrscheinlich bezahlt hat).

    *Edit* Aber der Faden ist bald aus, sehe ich gerade, und schon wieder sind wir bei Mr. Unaussprechlich, obwohl es doch um die "Biden-Ära" gehen soll. Entschuldigung dafür.

    #296VerfasserMr Chekov (DE) (522758)  04 Mai 22, 08:33

    Naja, aber wir sind da mitten in der "Biden-Ära", von daher passt das m.E. schon. Dass da nicht nur Biden, sondern auch andere Ereignisse, die parallel passieren, diskutiert werden, finde ich normal bzw. fast schon zwingend.

    #297VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 04 Mai 22, 08:48

    Bisher bin ich automatisch davon ausgegangen, dass in der "freien Welt" Stück für Stück alles freier und demokratischer wird, es also nur die eine Richtung gibt.

    That's being much discussed in the podcasts I listed to out of the USA (chiefly NPR and MSNBC). People are shocked that that which has been accepted as a constitutional right for about 50 years, a good portion of the US's existence, is likely to be thrown out. Justice Alito's opinion states that since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, it's not a right, and that the 14th Amendment, on which the Roe v. Wade decision was based, doesn't apply..

    Moving beyond abortion, however, are the list of other topics that the GOP/the ultra-right want to attack, including birth control, marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges), and even interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), to name just a few, in which the SCOTUS decisions were based at least to a good degree on the 14th Amendment. None of those topics are addressed in the US Constitution, so they could just as easily be dismissed by this group of "Originalist" justices. (It would be interesting to see how Justice Thomas would vote on a challenge to interracial marriage since he is a party to one....)

    Alito's opinion seeks to create an exception for abortion and the 14th Amendment as opposed to the other issues that have been decided based on that, but, first, he provides no specific rationale or basis for that, and, second, future decisions could simply ignore his exception and decide to reverse those rights based on the same (il)logic.

    #298Verfasserhbberlin (420040) 04 Mai 22, 10:54

    Beängstigend :-(

    Soll der neue "Biden"-Faden eigentlich auch ins QZ?

    #299VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295)  04 Mai 22, 10:57

    OK, denn QZ.

    Hier lang bitte: Siehe auch: Biden-Ära III

    #300VerfasserB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 04 Mai 22, 11:15
    Die Diskussion zu diesem Artikel ist geschlossen.
  • Pinyin
  • Tastatur
  • Sonderzeichen
  • Lautschrift
:-) automatisch zu 🙂 umgewandelt