CSotD: One week more before the storm

Next Tuesday, it will all be over but the shouting. And the recounting. Expect both.

Clay Jones (Ind) expresses the weariness I think most people are feeling at this point, perhaps because Dear Leader began running for re-election about five minutes after taking the oath of office.

 

As Ann Telnaes (Washington Post) notes, everything he’s done since has been centered on his own needs, including adding two justices to the Supreme Court who served on Bush’s legal team in the 2000 recount (Kavanaugh is the other, Roberts was already there).

I’ve often observed that it’s hard to tell the cunning plans from the foolish impulses, but Trump was quite out front about wanting that ninth seat filled in case he lost the election, and I guess you could say that, while the plan wasn’t all that cunning, saying it aloud was remarkably foolish.

 

However, it’s a done deal — which it was from the moment Moscow Mitch green-lighted it — and the major factor in it, as Jimmy Margulies (KFS) points out, is that it’s one thing Dear Leader has done that can’t be simply overridden by the next president, even if he gets a compliant Congress.

 

The (only) major benefit of which is that it gave Mike Luckovich (AMS) material for a “set the clocks back” gag with some heft.

I can’t decide if it was “ironic” or simply appropriate that Barrett, who replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg, be sworn into office by Clarence Thomas, who replaced Thurgood Marshall, and was, upon confirmation, saluted with this caricature by Emerge magazine, a black-run publication that knew the extent of the reversal.

The cover created a stir at the time, but we were less divided then. I suppose women can say whatever they want about the switch from Ginsburg to Barrett and it won’t roil the waters much.

Though I did see grumbling about Barrett being sworn in as part of a Dear Leader Campaign Event in the White House, which I’ll stick up here on the shelf with the demands that Brett Kavanaugh be impeached, which I already had next to the “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards that once graced the highways.

I think it’s important that people stay angry, but I think it’s even more important that they get smart.

First step might be to put some focus on local politics. Not only is it where you just might be able to elect some of your “perfect candidates” and start building a coalition with federal potential, but it’s the states who pass stupid laws that end up in front of the Supreme Court.

No stupid laws, no stupid decisions. Easier said than done, certainly, but utterly impossible without effort.

 

In any case, as Anne & God (Ind) notes, we’ve heard enough.

I haven’t voted yet, but I’ve certainly made up my mind and, while I haven’t had many phone calls — not living (as she does) in a swing state — I never needed or wanted text messages in the first place, and I’m sure getting those.

I don’t know who thinks they’re a good idea, but if I were trying to monkeywrench this election, I’d be sending out robocalls and text messages spoofed to seem like they were coming from my opponent.

None of those “Proud Boy” bogus threats — just a constant stream of petty annoyances.

(I should probably delete that before someone decides it’s a great idea.)

 

But it does bring us to Mike Smith (KFS)‘s point, which is that we don’t need foreign adversaries messing with the integrity of our elections. We’re perfectly capable of doing it to ourselves.

Granted, nobody has said (out loud) that they’re attempting to restrict minority voting. That would be overt racism and we prefer institutional racism, such that rules are either applied in areas with large minority populations or are written such that minorities are more apt to be impacted by them.

However, whether we try to parse intentions or just observe outcomes, there is one political party filing lawsuits to keep the vote low and another party dedicated to keeping turnout high.

And we know which ticket the Q-Anon candidates run on.

 

It’s worth pointing out that even a conservative like Rick McKee (Cagle) recognizes that Dear Leader has long since lost credibility with anyone who possesses a memory and the integrity to place reality above loyalty.

 

Mike Marland (Ind) is more specific in calling out New Hampshire’s Republican governor, Chris Sununu, but, if you think this is too much of a satire, go watch Arizona Senate Candidate Martha McSally duck and dodge the same question.

Editorial cartoonists, as well as Andy Borowitz and the Onion, face a real challenge in a world in which reality is outstripping parody.

Though it’s nothing new. “What the hell’s wrong with you?” is cousin to “What the hell were you thinking?” and Ruben Bolling reposted this Tom the Dancing Bug from 2016, in a spirit of “I told you so” that ought to be unsettling.

I don’t have an answer for “What the Hell were you thinking?” because I’m one of those people who thought a clown like Trump would get trounced by voters.

Then again, I laughed when they nominated that vacuous nitwit, George W.

I haven’t picked a winner since Northern Dancer, and he finished third in the Belmont.

Leaving me with this

Juxtaposition of the Day

(Nick Anderson – AMS)

 

(Matt Davies – AMS)

I want it to be over, and not just the election.

I have faith in the American people, but, then, Anne Frank thought “in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart” and look where it got her.

But even if I’m right and the polls are right and we even get the bonus of turning the heartless power freaks out of the Senate, I don’t know what it’s going to be like between Nov 4 and January 20.

I’ve said before that I wouldn’t be surprised if things ended with the White House surrounded by tanks, and that the only question is whether the turrets will be facing in or out.

We’ll see.

One week more before the storm