Main page    Feb. 19

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Russians Are Playing Trump Like a Balalaika

We have no idea what the correct approach to the mess in Ukraine is. But we do have a pretty good idea what the wrong approach is, as the Trump administration is providing an object lesson in that subject at this very moment.

Yesterday marked the conclusion of round one of the "peace" discussions that include the U.S. and Russia, but not Ukraine or the various powers of Europe. Nothing much was accomplished, apparently, with the result that there will be a second round of talks at some undetermined future date. And yet, despite the lack of progress, many things are now evident to anyone who is paying attention:

We wonder if Rubio is regretting giving up a safe Senate seat for this gig. If he is, well, he really should have seen this coming from a mile away.

In any case, as we note, all of these dynamics are evident to anyone who is paying attention. Like, say, Vladimir Putin. He's a reprehensible human being, but he's also a skilled player of diplomatic chess, and he knows full well that in this game, he's a grandmaster up against a player who is Class D, at best. Consider the assessment of Foreign Policy magazine, whose authors know a wee bit more about these things than we do:

In Moscow, it was like Christmas, Easter, and New Year's all rolled into one. In a gushing readout of his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the immediate start of negotiations about the future of Ukraine—without preconditions or other countries at the table. Earlier, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and any chance of a return to the country's internationally recognized borders, fulfilling two key Russian conditions. On the same day, the U.S. Senate confirmed Tulsi Gabbard, whose talking points often align with Kremlin propaganda, as the next director of national intelligence.

The Kremlin and its media machine have not been this ecstatic since the launch of Putin's "special military operation" on Feb. 24, 2022, when for a day or two it actually looked as if Russian forces would overrun Ukraine without much of a fight. "Trump is now doing our job for us" by "sawing" Europe into pieces, Russian talk show host Evgeny Popov told his viewers. His giddy, smiling co-host, Olga Skabeeva, described the turn of events as having been "unimaginable" and "unthinkable" before. On another show, the pundit Sergey Mikheev was elated by another Hegseth remark that was widely interpreted to mean that Washington was reconsidering its security commitment to Europe. Mikheev concluded that Russia was finally free to strike Brussels, London, and Paris. Some pundits basked in the fact that it was Trump who reached out to Putin. "It's as if Julius Ceasar himself telephoned a barbarian," Mosfilm studio chief Karen Shakhnazarov commented on another show.

If that's not bad enough, the latest intel suggests that Putin has no intention of ending the war, even on extremely favorable terms. Instead, the plan is to string Trump along for as long as is possible, get the administration to kick the legs out from under Ukraine as much as is possible, and then to continue the war, with the goal still being the total absorption of Ukraine into Russia.

Indeed, Trump v2.0 is a month old as of tomorrow, and Putin has already taken the administration to the cleaners at least once. Last week, the White House secured the return of American school teacher Marc Fogel. This is something the Biden administration was unable to do, so Trump naturally took several victory laps. He also claimed that the costs of the exchange were "minimal" and that it was not a prisoner swap.

As it turns out, when Trump said it was not a prisoner swap, what he actually meant is that... it was a prisoner swap. The Russians secured the release of Alexander Vinnik, a very bad guy who used crypto to launder billions of dollars. Put aside the hypocrisy of Trump attacking Joe Biden when Biden traded bad guys for Brittney Griner and other Russian hostages. Trump has just given yet another object lesson that if Russia wants any criminal back, no matter how awful, all they have to do is grab a random American. Oh, and he's also offered up more than a hint that if the Russians can set up an agreement under circumstances that Trump would prefer not be made public, they can perhaps create a little kompromat for themselves.

Thus far, this item hasn't been too cheery. So, here's the good news, such as it is. While the Russians are taking note of the fecklessness of the Trump administration, so too are the member states of the E.U. They are not going to let Ukraine go without a fight. And so, the E.U. is quickly organizing a summit, at which they will discuss what to do about Ukraine if the U.S. turns its back on Zelenskyy. As we have noted, the nations of Europe do not have military resources as extensive as the U.S. But they are hardly pushovers, either. And they do have one card to play that, while not optimal, could be laid on the table: direct military involvement.

In the short term, Trump would surely cheer a situation in which bullets are flying, and the U.S. is not involved. This is because he does not have the long-term vision to recognize that if the U.S. makes clear it's no longer available to be a loyal partner to the nations of Europe, the nations of Europe will make clear they are no longer available to be a loyal partner to the U.S. Add Canada and Mexico to that, and things could get lonely for America on the world stage very quickly. "America First" could turn into "America Alone" very quickly, and Trump is not aware how intertwined the American economy is with the world economy. (Z)

Hamas Resumes Hostage Exchanges

While Donald Trump certainly appears to be getting outmaneuvered by Russia, things look to be a bit better on the Gaza front. Hamas backed down on its threat to stop releasing hostages, and returned to compliance with the agreement negotiated in the waning days of the Biden administration. If Hamas sticks with the plans it announced yesterday, it will turn over six living hostages and the bodies of four dead hostages on Saturday.

As we have written many times, this is definitely not our area. And in this particular case, information on the ground appears to be exceedingly thin. It is possible that Hamas was cowed by Trump's bluster and threats. If so, then kudos to him for handling the situation correctly. That said, it looks more likely that Trump's bluster was really for the benefit of the U.S. audience, and that the progress being made is because of diplomacy on the part of Israel, Qatar, Egypt and Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff.

We don't really have much to say here, other than to reiterate the hope—shaky as it may be—that the peace will hold and the bloodshed will end. If that does prove to be the case, it will be a feather in Trump's cap, regardless of how the administration actually got there. (Z)

No More DeJoy in Mudville

Yesterday came a development that many Democrats have awaited for more than 4 years: Postmaster General Louis DeJoy sent a letter to the USPS Board of Governors that he is stepping down from his post, as soon as a successor can be chosen.

Why now? Largely speaking, the letter does not say. However, all kinds of possibilities suggest themselves:

Whatever the motivation is, DeJoy is at DeEnd. Note that the new postmaster general will be chosen entirely by the USPS Board of Governors, without input from Congress or either of the co-presidents. At the moment, there are three Republicans, two Democrats, and two independents on the Board, so a range of outcomes is possible. There are also three vacancies, so if Trump quickly fills one or more of those (as is his right), then it could push the replacement process in a Trumpy direction. (Z)

Jesse Watters Says the Quiet Part Out Loud...

Fox entertainer Jesse Watters is a medium-sized cog in a very large propaganda machine, and he's feeling proud as a peacock about that. So, he used the Monday night edition of his show to engage in a little braggadocio about how much better he and other right-wingers are at manipulating the message than the folks on the other side of the aisle:

We are waging a 21st-century information warfare campaign against the left, and they are using tactics from the 1990s. They are holding tiny presser conferences, tiny little rallies. They are screaming into the ether on MSNBC. This is what you call top-down command and control. You've got the talking points from a newspaper, and you put it on the broadcast network, and then it disappears. What you are seeing on the right is asymmetrical—it's grassroots guerrilla warfare.

And Watters wasn't done. He was also happy to crow about how the process works:

Someone said something on social media, Musk retweets it, Rogan podcasts it, Fox broadcasts it and by the time it reaches everybody, millions of people have seen it. It is free money, and we are actually talking about expressing information.

One is reminded of the old line attributed to Mark Twain: "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots."

We really don't disagree with much of anything Watters said here—it's been clear for at least 20 years that Fox was nothing more than propaganda (note that the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism was released in 2004). And it's also evident that the right-wing mediasphere is very good at adapting to new developments. Rush Limbaugh dies, Joe Rogan steps forward. Print journalism is on the rocks, right-wingers turn to eX-Twitter for "reporting." And so forth.

Watters also opined that non-right-wing media outlets don't do enough to weaponize scandals (he used the example of "Sri Lankan transgenders are getting electric cars") and that there is "no way [the Democrats are] catching up." Putting aside the fact that Watters' specific example is both stupid and a slur, he's right that the non-right-wing media outlets of the world do not weaponize scandals 24/7, and he's almost certainly correct that there will never be a true left-leaning equivalent to Fox.

That said, the fundamental reason for these things is not the one that Watters—who, let's be honest, is an arrogant pri**—thinks it is. He would suggest that those on the left just don't get it, and are basically too stupid to figure it out. Anytime you hear an explanation along these lines, it's almost always useless. There are certainly individual nitwits on both sides of the aisle, but collectively, there are plenty of intelligent people, both right and left.

The real problem here is that the demographic groups that Fox and their ilk appeal to are, substantially, primed toward simple, emotion-driven storytelling. Some of them are religious fundamentalists, and so have learned to see the world in stark, black and white terms. Others are very angry about... whatever, and are pleased to gravitate to whatever will give them fuel for their resentments. Still others have not had a lot of exposure to the art of critical thinking (say, from a parent, or an advanced education, or a religious leader interested in rational inquiry, or the like).

By contrast, the current iteration of the Democratic Party skews heavily toward groups that see a world of complexity and shades of gray. That could be due to education, or to membership in a religious group that values critical analysis, or to being part of a disadvantaged group that learned that the dominant narrative is not always the unvarnished truth. Whatever it is, there have been attempts to recreate the Fox dynamic, but with a lefty spin, and they largely didn't work. Think of Air America, the left-wing talk radio network that went up in flames. Think of MSNBC, which certainly has its fans, but is never going to be the left-wing flamethrower mirror-image of Fox.

All of this said, the day will come when Fox is knocked off its perch. Two things are currently in the process of dying off: cable TV and Fox's audience. The next chapter, in terms of political media, is going to feature independent blogs and podcasts very heavily. And those are two areas where the playing field is a little more level, primarily because it's easier to develop an alignment between a content producer and the audience that works best for them. In other words, Fox is a mass-produced McDonald's hamberder, whereas, say, the "Life in the Left Lane Podcast" is something more like a grilled top sirloin patty on a bed of lettuce with Dijon mustard and sautéed shiitake mushrooms. (Z)

...While the Washington Post Continues to Kowtow to Trump

The Washington Post continues to clothe itself in glory. Take a look at the Inauguration Day edition of the paper:

A copy of the Washington Post, and then wrapped around the outside is an anti-electric-vehicle ad

What you see there, wrapped around the paper, is what is known as... well, a wrap. Everyone who works at newspapers hates them, because they are giant pains in the rear end. Well, everyone except the sales staff, since advertisers pay big money to be the first thing people see, even before the front-page headlines.

This particular wrap was paid for by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). Naturally, the AFPM is not pro-electric vehicle, and they decided to commemorate their good fortune in the inauguration of an administration more friendly to their point of view than the previous one was. Exactly what was achieved by the ad, which cost over $100,000, we do not know.

Not long thereafter, the lefty organization Common Cause decided they would like to run a wrap of their own. Here it is:

The ad shows a laughing Elon Musk, asks 'Who's running this country?' and observes that nobody elected Elon Musk

Broadly speaking, newspapers are OK with politically oriented wraps as long as they are not extreme or potentially offensive to a large number of readers (say, containing racist language or sexually explicit imagery). This is the policy of the Post, as well. Indeed, when Common Cause booked the wrap, and paid its $115,000, the organization was sent a copy of the AFPM ad as an example of what was OK.

With the AFPM ad in hand, Common Cause's designers came up with the ad above and sent it in. This design should have cleared muster at any major paper; there's no adult language, bigoted language, nudity (thank god), photos of aborted fetuses, or anything like that. And it cleared muster at the Post... right up until it did not. Several days after being told the wrap was approved, Common Cause was advised that it would not run after all. The Post offered no explanation for the change in course.

Even without an explanation, however, it's obvious what happened. Someone in the chain of command saw the ad, was scared that it might hurt one of the Co-Presidents' fee-fees, and killed it. This is the only explanation that fits the facts. If the ad violated the Post's standards, it would have been rejected at the outset. If some problem was discovered later—say, the picture being used violated the rights of the copyright holder—Common Cause would have been advised (and, very probably, would have been given a chance to correct the problem).

So, going forward, it's pretty clear the newspaper's rule is: High-profile pro-Trump ads are OK, but high-profile anti-Trump ads are verboten. The Post is not on a newfound mission to be fair and to play things straight; it's on a newfound mission to pander to the White House. This was hardly a secret, but now there is a concrete illustration that could not make things any more plain.

In the end, it is Common Cause that gets the last laugh, at least in this instance. Had the Post just stuck with the original plan, the wrap would have been seen by 300,000 people or so (the paper's circulation is 139,232, and conventional newspaper wisdom is that each copy is seen by an average of 2.4 people). And by now, nearly every copy of the wrap would be in a landfill or a recycling bin. But instead, the ad has now been seen by millions of people, since the Post's cowardice became national news. Even better yet, Common Cause got its money back, and so got five or ten or twenty times the exposure at a cost of $0.00. Maybe one of these days, these folks who are trying to protect the image of Donald Trump (and Elon Musk) will finally grasp the basics of the Streisand effect. (Z)

Trump Embraces Black History

On the whole, Donald Trump hates Black history. Actually, it's probably more accurate to say he's basically ignorant about, and indifferent to, Black history. However, his base largely hates it, so he has to behave as if he hates it, too. Just this week, during her confirmation hearings, Secretary of Education-designate Linda McMahon pandered to this impulse within the modern Republican Party, suggesting she would look into a ban on Black history courses, as such courses might conflict with the Trump executive order that bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Just in case you needed hard evidence that the squawking about CRT wasn't really about CRT.

All of this said, Trump has now found one part of Black history he is apparently very passionate about. In order to understand where this is coming from, however, we must back up a bit. First, note that four different judges have now issued injunctions against his anti-birthright-citizenship executive order. Second, note that there is a real Achilles heel in Trump's legal position that goes back to a rather key point in Black history.

As readers undoubtedly know, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War (July 9, 1868, to be exact), and was prompted by a very clear need to define the legal status of those folks who were formerly enslaved. There were a number of ways this could have gone, but the Congress was substantially under the control of Republicans who were pro-civil rights, and so it was that citizenship was bestowed upon the nation's Black population.

There was, however, a slight legal problem. The fellows who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment could not define the right to citizenship in terms of a person's parents, because most enslaved people were born of people who were themselves not entitled to the rights of citizenship. And so, the already broadly accepted concept of jus soli citizenship was incorporated into the Amendment. If a person was born in the U.S., they were a citizen, unless some other nation had exclusive claims on the citizenship of the person's parents (a circumstance encountered, most commonly, with the children of diplomats).

Whether one consults the historical record or legal precedent, it's clear that jus soli citizenship was meant to apply, and has been applied, very broadly and generously. However, if Trump's XO is going to stand up, then his lawyers (specifically, the solicitor general) will have to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to have a limited reach. And arguing that jus soli citizenship was meant ONLY for enslaved people is a way to get there.

Trump shared his newfound interest in safeguarding the rights of those in bondage on his boutique social media platform on Monday:

The 14th Amendment Right of American Citizenship never had anything to do with modern day "gate crashers," illegal immigrants who break the Law by being in our Country, it had everything to do with giving Citizenship to former slaves. Our Founding Fathers are "spinning in their graves" at the idea that our Country can be taken away from us. No Nation in the World has anything like this. Our lawyers and Judges have to be tough, and protect America!

We suspect it is not a coincidence that this largely echoes a piece published in The New York Times that points out this potential line of attack against the Fourteenth Amendment. The two fellows who wrote that piece are both experts in the Amendment, and were not intending to give Trump advice. They were merely pointing out, as we have a couple of times, that there are one or two footholds here if SCOTUS really, really wants to give Trump a victory.

Whether the Supremes actually will want to do that is obviously an open question. This is already a Court with shaky credibility, and blowing up the Fourteenth Amendment (and ) certainly will not help on that front. Perhaps even more troublesome is affirming the general notion that a president can rewrite parts of the Constitution he does not like, with the stroke of his XO pen. On the other hand, there are surely a few current members of the Court who are xenophobes, and the other right-wingers might decide this is not a hill they want to die on. Trying to predict what the Roberts Court will do is often a fool's errand, and is especially so in this case. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones