PMC Commentary

Kevin McCarthy's speakership is going to be a lulu of a loser

Kevin McCarthy appears to be a "high-bred" of George W.'s brilliance and Gen. McClellan's tactical genius. The nation awaits his November splendor. The NY Times:

[McCarthy has] found himself under a harsh glare for comments he made suggesting that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s poll numbers were dropping in part because of a Republican-led inquiry by the Select Committee on Benghazi…. "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable," [McCarthy told Sean Hannity, who is very 'trustable']. "But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."

Well put, Kevin. Neither I nor Team Clinton could have said it better, and it's appreciated.

The remarks about the Benghazi investigation were not the only subject where Mr. McCarthy generated controversy. He also seemed critical of the man he seeks to replace, Mr. Boehner. "I think John Boehner deserves a B-," Mr. McCarthy said in the interview.

So McCarthy angered establishment Republicans by not giving Boehner an A, and he antagonized the "conservatives" by not giving him an F. In brief, McCarthy managed to annoy his entire caucus before being sworn in. This should be quite an adventure.

 

"Please proceed, President Putin."

John McCain beat me to the punch. Minutes ago, from the Senate floor, he quoted from David Ignatius's column this morning:

"Russia has played a horrible hand brilliantly. We folded what could have been a pretty good hand," argues Ryan Crocker, a retired U.S. diplomat who has served in nearly every hot spot in the Middle East and is among the nation’s wisest analysts of the region. "The Russians were able to turn a defensive position into an offensive one because we were so completely absent."

Before listening to McCain, I also wished to quote from Ignatius's column, whose lede reads in part: "The United States hasn’t been able to organize a winning strategy to deal with the Islamic State. Maybe we should let Russian President Vladimir Putin try his hand."

That, suspects Ignatius (as I do), is President Obama's private thinking. Putin is self-inviting a bundle of backlash in a region that offers nothing but pain. By aggressively siding militarily with Syria, Iran and Baghdad's Shia, he's sucking himself into the world's deepest snake pit of sectarian animosities. His own domestic Sunni-ethnic minorities will not be pleased, not to mention the Middle East's religious majority.

As for whom McCain cited in Ignatius's column, exactly what "pretty good hand," Mr. Crocker, did Obama fold? This will become another of those phantoms that the neocons are brilliant at inventing. The temporary Iran accord was an abomination until it became the ideal to hold onto; W.'s splintered Iraq was a peaceful, happily united, altogether pleasant place until Obama withdrew our few remaining forces; and Obama's execrable Syrian predicament was actually a "pretty good" thing — until Russia escalated. Such are the fairy tales the neocons tell.

The most distasteful realpolitik to swallow is that while Bashar al-Assad is bested in tyranny by only Kim Jong-un, there is no better alternative. Not now. Ultimately, a political resolution must be negotiated. Until then, Putin is only stretching his already overstretched resources and risking some enormously ruinous blowback.

"Please proceed, President Putin." This is what I imagine is flashing in President Obama's mind. 

 

Pope Francis still has a lot to learn

My wife once volunteered to supervise, for a week, a local kindergarten's playground activities. One day, one little boy attempted to bamboozle her about a misdemeanor he had committed against another little boy. My wife, seeing through this obvious ploy, explained to the first little boy that there once lived a man by the name of Richard Nixon, who did some very bad things. But the worst thing he did, she continued, was to try to cover up his transgressions. "The cover-up is often worse than the crime," she instructed the lad. She related this incident to me with hilarious effect, saying I should have seen the unsettled expression on the utterly uncomprehending little boy's face.

I wish my wife were here to explain life to Pope Francis. His cover-up of his meeting with the transgressive Kim Davis was more sinful than that of the little boy's, in that Francis should have known better. A Davis lawyer tells the NYT that his client "and Vatican officials had agreed to keep the meeting secret until the pope had left the United States because … 'we didn’t want the pope’s visit to be focused on Kim Davis.'" Yet now, of course, the memory of the pope's visit will be focused on little else; and the pope's silence about the meeting — which the Vatican insists was meant to be only temporary — has the stench of a cover-up.

A daily reader and — shameless hint — regular contributor emailed this this morning: "I can’t articulate how horrible I feel about this. Back to the cold comfort of cynicism for me. People and Popes will always break your heart."

I had always been invulnerable to papal heartbreak because my cynicism extended to all organized religion. Today, I feel the reader's pain.

Perhaps if my wife had been Pope Penn I, she could have enlightened the scheming little boys who run the Church. And boy, is Pope Francis ever in for a lecture when he meets up with my wife.

 

Absolute grace under absolutely squalid fire: Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards

Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards is one of the classiest ladies ever to "live on the greatest nation that’s ever been on the face of the Earth," as the next speaker of the utterly classless Republican House, Kevin McCarthy, would put it.

What a contrast it was as Richards testified yesterday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, two hours of which I watched last night on C-Span's replay. Throughout, Planned Parenthood's chief executive was gracious, heroically controlled and graceful, while her Republican Inquisitors once again proved themselves a disgraceful pack of venomous buffoons. All I can say on Chairman Jason Chaffetz's behalf — and this would be considered a compliment in his quarters — is that he made former Chairman Darrell Issa look reasonable.

Any House hearing thrusts on the viewer a deliberative choice. Are Republican committee members as stupid as they sound, or are they feigning profound imbecility so as not to elevate themselves above the 51 percent+ back home? As with most things, one's deliberation splinters into specific cases. When it comes,
for instance, to Blake Farenthold (right), the former choice is incontestable. Chaffetz, though, is brilliantly moronic as he plays to the cameras.

As was the "evidence" he offered — such as that halfwitted graph he presented, which clearly and horrifyingly showed that Planned Parenthood's cancer screenings are now dwarfed in numbers by the abortions it performs. All one needs to do — and plenty promptly did so — is observe that the graph's actual numbers defied its "X" trajectories. (As for the horrifying decline in cancer screenings, that comes from the medical community's recommendations.)

From there, Jason Chaffetz — a vastly overpaid demagogue who junkets the world on taxpayers' dime — assaulted the stunningly dignified Cecile Richards on her salary and organization's travel expenses. The sickening irony of this line of inquiry need not be repeated. Ms. Richards also had to explain, repeatedly, that mammograms are performed by radiologists, who tend to do their work in radiology labs — not neighborhood Planned Parenthood clinics.

Chaffetz, however, was not to be outdone in the category of best theatrical buffoon. That award went to Ohio's Jim Jordan, who "interrupted Richards 19 times in five minutes" as he relentlessly demanded satisfaction for a question that Richards was relentlessly answering.

Not once did any Republican committee member — lawmakers all — acknowledge that abortion is legal, nor did any seem to comprehend that the federal government doesn't simply "cut a check" to Planned Parenthood every year for nearly $500m. Like other healthcare providers, Richard's organization is merely reimbursed by Medicaid for services performed; it also receives, in a much lesser amount, Title X grant money for family planning.

Perhaps Title X could be amended to include a bit of congressional planning? Jesus! We thought the 113th Congress was bad.

At least the 114th's historic awfulness was highlighted yesterday via radiant contrast: Cecile Richard's awesome gracefulness.

 

***

I just performed a (nearly) precise 72-hour calculation. You helped to surpass the goal by $185. I am touched and inexpressibly proud of you. All I can say is thank you so very much.

If you aren't yet one of the yous, I am leaving this appeal up till Sunday evening. So there's still time to contribute to the fall upraising. I know it's hard to believe, but some people actually read the Internet at home, on the weekend, while away from their, ahem, work. I would kick myself later if I didn't reach out to these 14 people in a timely way.

As for you — the already contributing you — thank you again.

***

I see I'm only three days short not short at all of a six-month leap from my last love-offering appeal. So what the hell, I might as well clang the bell, extend the cup, and beg like there's no tomorrow. That's the way I run this little enterprise of PM Carpenter's Commentary — on impulse. There is no plan — never has been — which is probably why I'm reduced to assaulting your conscience for alms.

Of course there will be a tomorrow. I don't use PBS scare tactics. I don't threaten that if you fail to cough up, I'll fold my tent out of penury, though penury there be. I do remind you that I do this only twice a year.

Other than that? What can I say? If you're at all tempted to contribute, then you already know the whys of that temptation better than I. I should like to think it's mostly because you enjoy the writing and opinions here. But perhaps you also enjoy getting good and pissed at me. That's fine. In fact, that's welcome. The comment section is always open to objections.

Here's a vast admission against interest, which I might as we'll just put out there: There will indeed be a tomorrow here, always a tomorrow, for I wouldn't know what to do with myself in the absence of writing daily about politics and, occasionally, other stuff. I hope you contribute. I really hope you contribute. I desperately hope you contribute. But if you don't contribute, I'll be back anyway.

It's just nice to know that you care that I will — be back, that is, every day.

***

[UPDATED, 1:01 pm Central, Fri.] $3,185 raised in 72 hours. The goal was $3,000. If you haven't yet, please contribute today.   

[Further update: You do not need a Paypal account or a Paypal registration or anything like it; non-Paypal-member contributors inform me that a "guest" service is available.]

to P.M. Carpenter's Commentary

 

Let us celebrate "conservatism's" ideological diversity

Paul Krugman does.

I do want to weigh in for a minute on Donald Trump’s tax plan — which would, surprise, lavish huge cuts on the wealthy while blowing up the deficit. That’s in contrast to Jeb Bush’s plan, which would lavish huge cuts on the wealthy while blowing up the deficit, and Marco Rubio’s plan, which would lavish huge cuts on the wealthy while blowing up the deficit.

This surely complicates the electoral task of millions.

 

Rush Limbaugh goes astronomical

I protest, yet I'm as guilty as anyone of mindless distraction. It's bloody everywhere; it's not only the culture I live in, it is, of course, the inescapable politics I read and write about. I might prefer to lock myself away in a rustic Taoist monastery with a well-stocked library (and an NFL cable package), but here I sit — in morbid fascination with one of the dumbest, most uselessly distracting asses ever to haunt the public arena. I give you … Rush Limbaugh:

OK so there's flowing water on Mars…. But, NASA has been corrupted by the current regime. I want to find out what they're going to tell us. OK, flowing water on Mars. If we're even to believe that, what are they going to tell us that means? That's what I'm going to wait for. Because I guarantee, let's just wait and see, this is September 28, let's just wait and see. Don't know how long it's going to take, but this news that there is flowing water on Mars is somehow going to find its way into a technique to advance the leftist agenda. I don't know what it is, I would assume it would be something to do with global warming.

This idiot has how many regular listeners? I don't care if the number has dropped from 15 million morons to only 1.5 million (or whatever) geezers of palsied, paranoid degeneracy. They, along with Fox News' senile audience, are, for some sick reason, still easy entertainment — and an irresistible distraction.

 

Post-Boehner gibberish to come

Dana Milbank recaps future "mis-speaker" Kevin McCarthy's speech delivered yesterday to a flock of flighty neoconservatives. Some of the tortured oratorical highlights:

"We must engage this war of radical Islam if our life depended on it because it does," [McCarthy] opined.

"I have visited Poland, Hungria, Estonia," he said, and also "visited in our, uh, the allies in the Arab Gulf."

McCarthy called for "an effective politically strategy to match the military strategy," and he lamented that "we have isolated Israel while bolding places like Iran." He blamed President Obama’s White House for "putting us in tough decisions for the future," but he voiced hope that a "safe zone would create a stem the flow of refugees."

Russia’s hybrid warfare became "high-bred warfare."

Kevin McCarthy may well become constitutionally second in line to the presidency; or, more directly, the House's reincarnation of the Oval Office's predecessor.

Milbank observed that "With the death of Yogi Berra, the new speaker may become the most famous mis-speaker in America. But in a sense, it may not matter what he says, because his colleagues won’t be listening to him anyway."

Upon reading that, I was about to object by counter-observing that McCarthy's muddlement is precisely the kind of conservative genius that would warrant heedful respect from his colleagues. This observation, however, was unnecessary. Milbank was ahead of me. "[McCarthy's] garbled language, by confusing everybody, could help him blur the differences within his caucus."

 

That "Donald Trump Is Not Going Anywhere" leads one to ask about those who got him here

One needn't be Harold Bloom to appreciate Mark Leibovich's therapeutical, 5,000-word literary profile of Donald Trump. It cracks you upside the head with a preparatory photo.

We get it: Trump as the reptilian-eyed demon of democracy; Trump as the dark, shark-suited denizen of an underworld unleashed on a willing, sinful republic; in short, Trump as the antiChrist of American politics.

From there, Leibovich's psychological markup is thoughtful throughout (but ultimately quizzical).

While populism is often associated with grass-roots movements, Trump’s brand of it flows not from the ground up.... Rather, Trump’s is pure media populism, a cult of personality whose following has been built over decades…. In large measure, the core of Trump’s phenomenon is his celebrity itself, which, in today’s America, is in fact as populist as it gets.

This strikes, perhaps, at a deeper infirmity of American democracy. We've been entertaining ourselves not to death, but to distraction. While technological gadgetry of iPhones and iPads and flat-screen TVs and its ubiquitous offerings of politics-of-the-minute are the futuristic present, they have also thrown us back into a kind of medieval obscurantism. We — I use the word advisedly — we wouldn't know profundity if it descended from the clouds in radiant robes of clarity, for we're too busy bowing in feudal awe to the latest lords of media creation …

… whose cultural eminence alone impels mass stupefaction. That they have no political wisdom to offer is an insignificance. Any Mad Ludwig will do, as will any parvenu Trump. What do those of low-born blood with their noses stuck in an iPad full of real Beverly Hills housewives know of tariff wars or Gestapo roundups? Who among them even cares? This cult-of-personality celebrity crap is good and exquisitely entertaining stuff.

Back to Leibovich's psychological profile. It sought a consult from David Axelrod, who, writes Leibovich,

has likened campaigns to "an M.R.I. for the soul." If that’s the case, maybe the most fascinating question for Trump is not where this all ends up, but what his expedition reveals about Donald Trump’s soul, if it reveals anything at all.

That's where I part from New York Times Magazine's psychologist. I, my dear Leibovich, don't really give a damn about Donald Trump's soul. I understand his dark and perhaps unplumbable depths of personality were your charge, but my concern is sociological. What in God's name would possess millions of 21st-century Americans to exalt the deep shallowness of a Trump, or the high-studied witlessness of a Carson, or the grinning meanness of a Fiorina? What compels the rest of us to persist in pondering the GOP as a political party, when, in its unfolding reality, it is little more than a medieval mob?

I would have enjoyed 5,000 words on that. As noted, I suspect it is has something to do with frivolous distraction, but I also appreciate that it goes much deeper. Why the depth, and what of it? What drives millions to embrace superficiality and ignorance and rank malignity? Those are my questions.

And here we return to Harold Bloom, who so frequently cites Percy Shelley's profundity: that to grow, in Bloom's paraphrasing, we must "abandon easier for more difficult pleasures." Which is to say, deep learning — the antagonist of deep shallowness. How we all get there is the deepest question of all.

 

Rubio is getting the hang of this GOP politics thing

A large part of Rubio's upticking in the polls — at Bush's continued expense — will likely be due to his comprehension of what Trump comprehended long ago: Republican politics is all about vitriol.

For weeks I was dumbfounded at Jeb's relative calm in the face of Trump's persistent assaults. But Marco? He sees his opportunity and he's taking it, because of P.T. Barnum's reputed advice: If you want to draw a crowd, start a fight. Trump noticed Rubio's rise, so Trump, predictably, has lit into him. Nothing could make Rubio happier. It's crowd-drawing time.

Today on NPR the Florida senator first said he's "not interested in the back and forth to be a member or part of [Trump's] freak show." He then betrayed that lack of interest with stiletto-like, self-interested precision:

[Trump] is a very sensitive person. He doesn't like to be criticized. He responds to criticism very poorly. He had a speech in South Carolina to an empty crowd. He got booed on Friday at that Values Voters Summit. His poll numbers have taken a beating, and he was embarrassed on national television at the debate by Carly Fiorina and others.

This stuff sells big to an audience raised on what, by now, is tediously called the politics of personal destruction. Tedious or not in name, it works in execution (for a while, anyway). Just ask Trump. Or, you can ask Rubio — who either figured out what Bush couldn't, or is simply willing to do what Bush isn't: get really nasty.

 

The emetic Carly Fiorina

Earlier today I reported on my Saturday night and Sunday night activities, which, I just realized, leaves an informational gap. What of Sunday morning? For you vastly sane Twitter non-followers, this I reported contemporaneously:

I'm still a bit queasy.

 

Who would Indies blame for a government shutdown?

By a margin of 46 points (69-23) the American electorate opposes shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood's funding, according to a Quinnipiac poll released today. Republicans, too, oppose a shutdown by a 20-point margin (56–36 percent).

In terms of blame, there's the usual partisan split: 73 percent of Republicans would blame a shutdown on Obama and congressional Democrats, and 79 percent of Democrats would blame congressional Republicans. There is a statistically significant gap among Independents, however: 39 percent would blame Republicans, while 30 percent would blame Democrats. 

Soldier on, Ted Cruz, and keep peddling that snake oil.

 

Jeb's plutocrats are restless

The Washington Post reports that Jeb Bush's money is getting nervous. "The former Florida governor needs to demonstrate growth in the polls over the next month or face serious defections," write Ed O'Keefe and Matea Gold. "At least a third of the bundlers who signed up to raise money for Walker have switched their allegiance to Rubio, while a smaller number have gone with Bush."

A couple of the story's quotes are priceless. Said, for instance, Henry Barbour, nephew of Haley: "You’ve got a right wing of the party that is almost determined not to get to know [Bush]. They want to believe that because they disagree with him on a couple issues that he’s not their guy." It seems rather apparent that Henry hasn't been reading his party's memos.

And said a "top party fundraiser" unaligned with Bush: "You’re seeing people really gravitate to [Rubio] and saying, 'Okay, we’ll buck the Bush machine.'" What's priceless about that? The misquoting of the last verb.

 

Trump's tax-plan specialists

Moments ago, in unveiling his tax "plan," Trump said he had sought the advice of top economic "scholars." He failed to name them, but he has their photos on his website.

There you'll find ...

and … 

and ...

and, of course,

***

What could go wrong?

I do however hope they and their tax plan help his polling numbers, which Trump, just now, mangled as badly as conservative "scholars" have mangled macroeconomic theory. 

 

Obama, Putin, Syria, and a united notion

In President Obama's U.N. address, he denounced the prevailing idea that Bashar al-Assad's brutish Syrian dictatorship is acceptable since any realistic alternative would be worse. I wonder, though, how genuinely distressed Obama is by President Putin's military intervention on Assad's behalf. 

Spherically speaking, Syria is, after all, in Russia's backyard. To the United States, Syria is essentially a blood moon. Hence Obama has kept a commensurate distance. Let Putin pour Russian resources into Syria. He'll either wound ISIS — a plus for the U.S. — or consume himself in another Afghan folly.

I can't see Obama instructing John Kerry to strenuously protest Putin's intervention in Syria. Obama recognizes, I'd wager, that Putin is, for now, merely playing into Obama's hand.