The Gathering Storm (Sally Forth)

#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor

Via Associated Press:

Former acting attorney general Sally Yates is expected to testify to Congress next week that she expressed alarm to the White House about President Donald Trump’s national security adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, which could contradict how the administration has characterized her counsel.

Yates is expected to recount in detail her Jan. 26 conversation about Michael Flynn and that she saw discrepancies between the administration’s public statements on his contacts with ambassador Sergey Kislyak and what really transpired, according to a person familiar with that discussion and knowledgeable about Yates’s plans for her testimony. The person spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the testimony.

As a general rule, it seems wise to suggest we cannot really know what to expect, except, of course, the general outline of history, that Yates warned the Trump administration about Michael Flynn, and all the President’s men and women seem to have ignored her. And, you know, maybe that explains she was fired, though upsetting the president by refusing to enforce his unvetted executive order might do it, regardlesss of being yet another improper reason to dismiss a Justice Department attorney.

And, true, it is not necessarily helpful to wonder if this will be what blows proverbial lids into orbit or smithereens or whatever happens to them when they come off highly-pressurized metaphors. Still, though, as societal institutions struggle to catch up on the avalanche backlog of dubious and dangerous implications about Team Trump’s behavior, complacency can have many meanings. There is comfort in the notion that the processes continue despite Congressional Republicans, but it is also easy to get lost in some abstract faith that this all adds up to something. Their guilt does not preclude process, and that, apparently, requires some degree of extraordinary vigilance, as the Congressional majority really does not seem particularly interested in doing their job. All told, though, this should be something of a spectacle. You know, in that boring way that Congressional hearings are, followed by breathless analysis verging on panic because we … must … know … this … now! … even if it’s just some pundit saying we don’t know anything yet.

You know: Breaking: Pundit — “Too soon to know what to think.”

____________________

Image note: Top — #PutiTrump: Protest image of Vladimir Putin, artist unknown. Donald Trump in detail of photo by Mark Peterson/Redux for msnbc, 2016. Left — Sally Q. Yates (Credit: J. David Ake/AP Photo).

Tucker, Eric. “AP source: Yates to testify on warning White House on Flynn”. Associated Press.

The Conservative Conundrum, and Other Notes

Paul Krugman offers a curious observation:

As many have noted, it’s remarkable how shocked — shocked! — that establishment has been at the success of Donald Trump’s racist, xenophobic campaign. Who knew that this kind of thing would appeal to the party’s base? Isn’t the G.O.P. the party of Ronald Reagan, who sold conservatism with high-minded philosophical messages, like talking about a “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks?

Seriously, Republican political strategy has been exploiting racial antagonism, getting working-class whites to despise government because it dares to help Those People, for almost half a century. So it’s amazing to see the party’s elite utterly astonished by the success of a candidate who is just saying outright what they have consistently tried to convey with dog whistles.

We might call it curious not for being obscure, but, rather, for being obvious.

That is to say, despite the blunt force with which reality asserts itself, we are somehow expected to ignore it. The Republican Party, of course, seems very good at ignoring it. Even establishment tools like RedState managing editor Leon H. Wolf are getting in on the act:

Sadly, 35% of our party has decided to abdicate their responsibility as adults to take their civic voting duty seriously, and so the poisonous threat of Trump has completely altered my own personal voting calculus.

And we, too, might try the word, sadly.

Because, sadly, we find ourselves up against a baseline standard that can only break when conservatives need it to; blaming voters, even on those occasions when circumstance otherwise describes it as wholly appropriate, is problematic in the marketplace.

The Jeb Bush Show (Radical Restructure Remix)

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours.”

―Jeb Bush

This is an occasion when it is instructive to read past the superficial narrative. True, this is another occasion on which Mr. Bush required a do-over^α, and the line really didn’t sound all that good. Still, though, the rebound was good enough to get Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)―the ostenisble House GOP budget wonk and former vice-presidential nominee―onboard. And even Democratic-sympathizing pundits and politicians alike can find a reason to go with the later iteration; to wit, Steve Benen:

For what it’s worth, the Florida Republican, not long after his interview, clarified that his comments were about part-time vs. full-time employment. The Washington Post reported Bush saying, “You can take it out of context all you want, but high-sustained growth means that people work 40 hours rather than 30 hours and that by our success, they have money, disposable income for their families to decide how they want to spend it rather than getting in line and being dependent on government.”

As a matter of Economics 101, Bush’s broader points have at least some technical merit. When an economy has more full-time workers, it means more economic activity. When employees work more hours, it means more output and greater growth. None of this is controversial.

The problem with Bush’s rhetoric, however, is the real-world implications, and the degree to which he fails to understand the issue.

For example, the Republican candidate, who made $5.8 million in “consulting and speaking” income in 2013, makes it sound as if sluggish economic growth is your fault – you’re just not working enough hours. In reality, however, full-time employment is soaring when compared to part-time employment, and Americans are already working, on average, 47-hour weeks.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-VT), running for the Democratic nomination, is also willing to follow that course.