Watching that eternally glorious bottom clip again, I was thinking about Buck Showalter, a fine manager who’s done an excellent job in Baltimore. Part of me has always thought that it’s unfortunate that he didn’t get a chance to manage the dynasty he helped build just as Jeter was about to come up. But it’s also true that he did unconscionably screw up an elimination playoff game. He sort of did Grady Little one better, letting a completely gassed pitcher give up the leads in the 8th and the 11th innings. When Cone walked the immortal Doug Strange with the bases loaded to allow the Mariners to tie the game in the the 8th, it was his 147th pitch. (And as with Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, it wasn’t just the pitch count — any idiot could see that Cone had nothing left well before Strange came to the plate.) And then he let Jack McDowell — an above-average innings eater but nothing more than that — throw to 10 batters on one day’s rest, letting him blow the game in the 11th. And he did this despite having John Wetteland, a very good closer, available. (Yes, he had given up a grand slam in Game 4 and also gave up a couple runs in a non-save situation in Game 1, but you can’t overreact to a pitcher giving up a home run to peak Edgar Martinez, who in 1995 had an OPS north of 1.100.)
The decision to fire Grady Little was easy — when a guy indefensibly screws up an elimination playoff game and is nothing but a generic hack anyway, there’s no choice at all. But Showalter was a good manager, and while it was really dumb not to bring Wetteland (or Wickman, or Rivera earlier, or anyone who wasn’t as obviously done as Cone), I’m not entirely sure that his firing was fair. But you have to say it worked out well for the Yankees.
(And has snowball’s chance on the streets of D.C. in July of winning anyway.)
The appropriate angle to such a story would be Mr. Chairman, you’ve got a lot of damn nerve. The RNC just put together a platform that is equal parts venom and shriek and nominated a vain, loud, bigoted con artist, a man who never met someone he didn’t want to screw over and laugh about it. A man someone once described as a giant shouting yam, and the imagery was so perfect, so powerful, that it put me off yams for life.
If there’s no place for Duke’s bigotry in the GOP, it’s because all the slots are filled and there’s a waiting list a mile long.
However, the most likely angle is Here’s how Reince Priebus is working (oh, so very hard) to a repair his party’s image, so that he looks like a decent bloke, rather than a cowardly, self serving, nothing of a human being. The latter approach might make it hard to maintain the Both sides do it narrative and if that goes, people might have to do some real reporting.
The Clinton-Kaine ticket will be hard to beat. I was downright shocked by the shrewdness of the Clinton-Kaine event I just witnessed. Shouts out to Latinos and the military community? So smart. What was even smarter was the highlighting of Kaine’s social justice roots. Smarter still? The damn positivity of the whole event. It was a STARK contrast to the Trump speech, which was wall to wall gloom and doom. If these two candidates keep campaigning like this, they will be unstoppable. I’m comfortable putting this on record now.
Kinsey, before he was shot in the leg, could be seen lying on the pavement with his hands in the air. He told police that he was unarmed and that the man sitting beside him was autistic and holding a toy truck — not a gun as a 911 caller had claimed.
Yeabut, but if someone got hit with a toy truck, it could really hurt. And if Kinsey was lying down, maybe he was also lying. About the truck. Not being a gun. It’s just logic.
“I took this job to save lives and help people,” the officer said in a statement released Thursday by the union. “I did what I had to do in a split second to accomplish that and hate to hear others paint me as something I’m not.”
This was Aledda’s official statement, which isn’t an improvement on his initial IDK [shruggy emoticon] when Kinsey asked why he had shot him.
Personally, I think that as an excuse, Hey, I was aiming at the other unarmed person! lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. But I’m not the sort who would selflessly shoot people who pose no threat to anyone, so clearly I am a flawed human being.
It’s also important to remember police heroically handcuffed the shooting victim – a therapist who was attempting to help one of his patients – after he had been shot. Maybe to keep him from running around, as people do when they’ve been shot in the leg.
And let’s not forget Aledda’s commander Emile Hollant, who valiantly gave conflicting statements about the shooting and got suspended without pay.
(Spradlin was one of the arresting officers who initially pulled King over for speeding and wound up body slamming her a few times.)
In the second video, shot inside a squad car as King is being transported to jail, Spradlin can be heard talking to King about race.
“Why are so many people afraid of black people?” he said.
King said she was also trying to understand.
“I can give you a really good idea why it might be that way,” Spradlin said. “Violent tendencies.”
The officer can be heard saying he does not blame white people for being afraid because of violence in the black community.
“Some of them, because of their appearance and whatnot, some of them are very intimidating,” he said.
Say, maybe that’s why the Klan wears hoods! To preserve the public image of white people as … No that doesn’t make any more sense than a white man who has just knocked a black woman down telling her she’s the scary one.
I suspect Aledda and Spradlin are operating from different motives. Aledda’s A man’s gotta do gibberish sounds like a CYA from someone who doesn’t really understand y his A needs a C; Spradlin sounds like the abusive crud who gets off first by beating his victim and then, when she is too frightened or hurt to argue, telling his victim why it’s her fault he hit her.
However, they’re both operating from the assumption – call it the certainty – that anything they say will be accepted without comment.
The result is statements that are bizarre if one believes that people are accountable for their actions. Some may say people like Aledda and Spradlin sound (or are) crazy. This is a mistake; not just because Fristing is irritating and it perpetuates the crazy (however that is defined) = dangerous stereotype. It’s a mistake because it assumes the officers are attempting to communicate in a meaningful way.
Aledda understood words were required, and so he uttered some words (making sure to let everyone know he’s a poor put upon hero as he did so). Spradlin shared his toxic beliefs with a captive audience because he could. If it sounds weird, congrats.
And maybe in a couple hundred years people like Aledda and Spradlin and Hollant will automatically stuff a candy bar in their mouths instead of talking. And in a millennia or three they’ll avoid doing the thing that would require an excuse at all. But I’m sure I’m being way too optimistic.
U.S. senatorial candidate and former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine addresses the first session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S. September 4, 2012. REUTERS/Jason Reed/File Photo
The pick is…fine. He wasn’t my first choice and still wouldn’t be, but the pick accomplishes the basic minimum of what is necessary in a vice presidential candidate, which is minimizing the downside risk. (As I will return to later, he’s far from unique in this respect, but he meets the standard.) He’s a moderate but not a Lieberman or anything. He’s not unqualified to be president, the media likes him, and Clinton seems comfortable with him.
I don’t believe that there’s any significant mobilizing effect that comes from vice presidential selections, so I don’t really see a major political missed opportunity.
With all due respect, the concerns about abortion are specious. Trying to figure out what a politician REALLY THINKS is a useless mug’s game. Maybe his 100% NARAL rating is a product of shifts in the party. So what? It’s not shifting back, and Kaine would have no means to impose some kind of secret anti-abortion agenda even if he wanted to.
I have two reservations about the pick. First, it unnecessarily puts a Senate seat at risk. It’s not a dispositive factor like it is with Sherrod Brown — there’s a Democratic governor in Virginia, and the Democrats can probably (although not certainly) retain the seat in an off-year election. But it’s a negative factor. The second problem is that it plays into the narrative that a “safe choice” means “white guy.” What risk, exactly, is involved with Tom Perez, and extremely intelligent and well-educated person who has numerous public offices without scandal or notable gaffes?
The pick is acceptable but suboptimal — in other words, very Clinton.
And so, Trump continued, her father would “change labor laws that were put in place when women were not a significant portion of the workforce, focus on making quality child-care affordable and accessible for all.”
Trump went on to argue, correctly, that “policies that allow women with children to thrive should not be novelties, they should be the norm” and then claimed that while “politicians talk about wage equality,” her father “has made it a practice his entire career” and promised that Donald “will fight for equal pay for equal work and I will fight for this too, right alongside of him.”
This portion of Ivanka’s speech was beautifully delivered, cogent, and mostly right on the money. It was also, with regard to her father, an enormous crock.
If Ivanka Trump is looking to be part of a two-for-one presidential team that brings our labor, economic, and social policies up to speed regarding women’s participation in the workforce, she should really get on the phone with Hillary Clinton. Clinton is the candidate running on policy proposals that would cap child-care spending at 10 percent of family income, boost pay for child-care workers, implement early childhood home visiting programs. and guarantee paid family leave — the basic building block of humane workplace policy that this country so embarrassingly lacks.
Ivanka certainly shouldn’t cast a vote for her father, a man who has not only shown zero interest in addressing any of the workplace inequities his daughter laid out, but whose campaign rests partly on the premise of returning America to the earlier era Ivanka described, in which women were treated as dependents, not as economic actors or as professionals or as equals in any realm.
In fact, just hours before Trump’s daughter took the stage, his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had given an interview in which he described Trump’s appeal to women lies with fact that “there are many women in this country who feel they can’t afford their lives; their husbands can’t afford to be paying for the family bills.”
This is the Trump’s campaign vision of women — they are wives whose economic concerns extend only to their husband’s earning power.
And if you believe this is some sort of internal dispute — that there is substantive tension between Manafort’s vision and Ivanka’s view, and hers will win out — I would submit that every available piece of evidence supports the fact that Trump himself, and certainly the party he is leading into November, wants to return women to a subservient past, and actively obstruct policies that would better support them, or treat them as fully human.
If not for the recent changes at Salon, I would bet that two recent prep-school dropouts would already have published pieces using Ivanka Trump’s speech as evidence that her father is actually to Clinton’s left.
It’s official: David Duke is running for Congress.
The former Ku Klux Klan leader and one-term Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives said in a video announcing his candidacy Friday that he believes in “equal rights for all, and respect for all Americans.”
“However,” he added, “what makes me different is I also demand respect for the rights and the heritage of European Americans.”
Duke will seek an open seat vacated by Republican Sen. David Vitter, who announced last year that he would not be seeking re-election. More than a dozen other candidates have also signed up to replace the retiring senator.
To be Scrupulously Fair, the Republican Party is clear that it has no room for this kind of politics, with the notably rare exception of its nominee for President of the United States.
An appeals court has overturned Purvi Patel’s conviction for feticide. It’s far from perfect. She’ll be re-sentenced for neglect of a dependent, and the state has accomplished the goal of Setting an Example. But it is a vast improvement over 20 years in prison for daring to exercise control over her body.
Although he probably won’t be selected, Corey Booker is apparently at least somewhat in the running for Clinton’s VP slot. I’ve been having this argument with a lot of people for a while — including, at least back in the day, Brother Loomis — but can I note that Booker has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate? Part of the difference between Booker (7th most liberal) and Kaine (41st) is political context. But not all of it — Booker has a more liberal voting record than Schumer or Gillibrand or Lautenberg. He’s been a leader on criminal justice reform. Sure, he has bad views on educational policy, but among elite liberals (including the one in the White House) this is the more the rule than the exception; I’m not sure why he gets singled out or how this could be some kind of dealbreaker. And, yes, he said some dumb (although not really policy-related) stuff about his Wall Street friends. But overall he’s been a more-than-solid liberal vote. This may be, in part, because he’s a young ambitious pol who sees which way the winds are blowing, but who cares? I’d still rather have Perez, but assuming that NJ Dems have a plausible candidate to replace him in November, he’d be a better pick than Kaine. And I still have no idea where the idea that Booker is another Lieberman or something comes from.
The peak came in 2004, during the reelection effort for George W. Bush. That year, nearly 7 percent of the Republican delegates were black, including 16 percent of those from Louisiana, 13 percent of those from Maryland, and 13 percent of the delegates from New York and Michigan. By 2008, those figures had plummeted: 1.6 percent overall, including none from Louisiana and none from Maryland.
2008? What was it that happened in 2008 that might have caused African-American delegates to stay away from the RNC?
I’m sure it will come to me in a moment.
Lovelace told Capehart that his estimate from last month was still preliminary (hence the dotted line, above) and that the party was working with outside groups to “ensure people from diverse backgrounds are able to participate during the convention.” Attempts to contact Lovelace on Tuesday morning were not successful.
He may have realized that it was time to move on to a nice cushy think tank. Or he may have been chased off by a ululating Trump supporter. (BLUELIVESMATTERCRIMINALSANIMALSBUILDTHATWALLLLLRAAGH!)
Meanwhile, another Washington Post reporter thinks the GOP’s Trump’s racism racial controversies are the problem.
The standard press/pundit approaches to Trump’s racism scarcely warrant comment; white supremacy isn’t going to defend itself you know! But in this article the writer glissades past the outbreaks of violence at Trump’s rallies and the almost masturbatory delight Trump took in them.
…the overall lack of ethnic diversity at the convention illustrates one of his greatest challenges: how to court black voters after four decades of controversy over his racial views, including campaign-trail rhetoric that has alienated many minorities.
Follows a short list of examples (with bonus anti-Semitic stereotyping!) that the reader is supposed to pretend (or allows the reader to pretend) are unique to Trump, rather than things Republicans do on those rare occasions when parrots fly and dolphins live at sea.
Why ignore the violence? Perhaps the reporter is showing a bit of foresight. If he’s going to spend the next 3,000 months writing stories that treat Donald Trump as anything more than an ambulatory, semi-articulate grease clog with some attic insulation stuck on one end, it won’t do to note he once said he’d like to punch a protestor, indicated he would pay the legal fees of a man who did punch a protestor in the face, or expressed a fear of weaponized fruit. Or perhaps he just missed it, the way he seems to miss two presidential elections.
Twelve years ago, the GOP seemed on its way toward broadening its base, boasting 167 black delegates at its convention.
At first I thought that a 7ish% turnout is not something to boast about, but I was forgetting the IOKIYAR effect.
That year, President George W. Bush drew 16 percent of the black vote here in Ohio, unusually high for a Republican, to help secure his reelection, as well as 11 percent nationally,
Not mentioned: 2008, when McCain received 4% of the African-American vote, or 2012 when Romney received 7% (both worse than Reagan, after four years of Reagan). Why, it’s almost as though there’s a trend that can only missed if one ignores one decade + two years of history.
and party leaders had hoped to increase minority engagement in 2016.
Ha ha ha. And it would have worked. If successful minority engagement didn’t involve engaging minorities in any way that minorities would like to be engaged.
Texas’ law, and the similar ones being enacted by other state legislatures, are not just bad public policy — they also run afoul of federal law. While the Roberts court struck down a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Section 2 of the Act — which forbids racially discriminatory state voting practices — remains in effect. The Fifth Circuit is a conservative, Republican-controlled court, and yet a 9-6 majority found that SB 14 violated the Voting Rights Act.
The majority opinion, written by Judge Catharina Haynes, was straightforward and powerful. More than 500,000 eligible voters in Texas lack the required ID. Various forms of statistical analysis confirm that racial minorities were far more likely to be affected by these requirements, and various individual cases confirm these effects. As a result, a majority of the court upheld the District Court’s determination that “SB 14 has a discriminatory effect on minorities’ voting rights in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
The lengthy, angry dissent by arch-conservative Judge Edith Jones defended the law using reasoning that would make it virtually impossible to find any vote suppression law illegal (which of course is the point.) Jones says that because the law did not affect the 90 percent of Texas minorities that had the required ID, the fact that those without the requisite IDs were overwhelmingly people of color does not represent racial discrimination. This is a transparently illogical claim.
The four Democratic nominees on the Supreme Court are nearly certain to agree with the Fifth Circuit’s decision, meaning it will almost certainly stand. As a result, SB 14 will not be permitted to go into effect in its current form.
Donald Trump hasn’t lowered the bar in regard to political discourse in America: he’s drilled a hole halfway to the center of the Earth and thrown that bar down it.
So last night, when he didn’t call Obama the N word, or grab the ass of his daughter who he has more than once said he would like to have sex with (he just came awfully close), or suggest rounding up American Muslims and deporting them to Madagascar, he got a kind of credit for showing some restraint.
Although pretty much everybody agreed that as delivered the speech was interminable and boring and way too shouty, plenty of not-stupid people also described it as “powerful,” at least in its paper form.
This is grading on the Trump curve. Here’s a characteristic passage:
Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims. I have a message for all of you: The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon, and I mean very soon, come to an end. Beginning on January 20, 2017, safety will be restored.
This is pure cult of personality stuff. Besides relying on an exact inversion of the truth (violent crime in America is at historically low levels), it also indulges in unabashed magical thinking: the speech did not include any indication of how this miraculous overnight transformation of the world’s third-largest country was going to be achieved.
The whole thing was like that. The speech’s only message was: you are scared children, I am your stern but lovable daddy, and I will make it all better, don’t ask me how. Authoritarianism for Dummies, in other words.