1. Jay Rosen has written about the normalization of Trump as president.* His list of six simple points is worth reading, and so is his explanation why they conflict with the fact that millions and millions of American voters decided that this carnival barker was a good idea for the most powerful man in the world. How does a journalist stay polite to those voters, while telling the truth about Donald Trump?
2. The Graham-Cassidy plan to kill Obamacare dead at the last possible moment is a weird one. Many believe that it's not a viable candidate at all, just a gesture, but who knows? Its anatomy is the same as that of all the earlier attempts: Move money up the income hierarchy, as high up as possible, and let insurers discriminate against customers almost as much as they wish:
In reality, Graham-Cassidy is the opposite of moderate. It contains, in exaggerated and almost caricature form, all the elements that made previous Republican proposals so cruel and destructive. It would eliminate the individual mandate, undermine if not effectively eliminate protection for people with pre-existing conditions, and slash funding for subsidies and Medicaid. There are a few additional twists, but they’re all bad — notably, a funding formula that would penalize states that are actually successful in reducing the number of uninsured.
Haven't we been here twice already, fighting the attempts to abolish the Affordable Care Act?
The fatigue of resistance! The fatigue of having to fight the same wars, over and over again, while the Republicans just rearrange the chess board and start another round. The battles are asymmetric, because the opposition is scattered and needs to be reassembled and reactivated every time, while the powers-that-be have full-time workers organizing the next atrocity.
In any case, the best strategy is to fight the Graham-Cassidy bill as if it was a serious plan, even if it isn't, just in case it then becomes one, due to our fatigue. See how stacked the games are?
3. This is the picture of the press conference which announced the birth of the Graham-Cassidy bill:
So many fathers...
Which brings me to the National Federation of Republican Women which had their biennial convention in Philadelphia last weekend. The website of the federation tells us that it has been "engaging and empowering women since 1938," but
Allison Ball, 36, told the assembled delegates — the women’s wing of the GOP, bedecked in Trump pins and American-flag scarves — how instrumental the women of the party had been in her successful campaign for Kentucky state treasurer. How important it was to encourage more women to run for office.
Still, Ball said, grinning: The crowd in the ballroom “prove there’s no such thing as women’s issues. Only people’s issues.”
It was a theme the federation, at Philadelphia’s Downtown Marriott for its 39th biennial meeting, would return to throughout the weekend — a convention for women, organized by women, that kept insisting that the necessity of political action on behalf of women is a fantasy of the left.The bolds they are mine. I like that confusion, by the way: There are no women's issues, but more women should be encouraged to run for office.
But nothing stops them from running already, given that there are no women's issues. Or if there are such issues, they are the women's own fault (nothing to do with what they are taught at church or in their communities):
Women are more likely to assume they’re not qualified for office, and “Republican women tend to be very oriented around raising a family,” said Cynthia Ayers, who spent two decades in the National Security Agency and is running in Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate primary next year. “Men don’t necessarily keep that in mind when running for office. It’s harder for women to break in at that point. And the funding seems to be there for men when they run.
------
* hat tip to ql at Eschaton for the link