What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

On an even more meta level I find it hilarious that you have Republicans openly saying corporations need to "shut up" about politics, when it is largely the GOP that has vigorously enshrined the right of corporations to spend basically unlimited amounts of money on political speech.

Not only that but Hobby Lobby specifically enshrined the rule that corporations have independent first amendment speech and petition rights that state power must respect. 

[Valmy]

Remember also the messianic quality of the Obama 2008 campaign...

Yeah that was obnoxious and made me nervous.

And wow you can see how worse that shit can get when you have a Trump leading the cult. Biden, who has lukewarm support at best, is far more what I want to see.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interesting New York Times article kind of highlighting a phenomenon most of us are already deeply aware of--that crossing various cultural boundaries on behavior just don't matter anymore if you're a Republican politician:

For Trump's G.O.P., Crossing Lines Has Few Consequences

A dizzying week featured Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, caught lying and another lawmaker, Marjorie Taylor Greene, grilled under oath about her role in the Jan. 6 attack.

By Jonathan Weisman
April 23, 2022
Updated 2:23 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — There was a time in the nation's capital when lines mattered, and when they were crossed, the consequences were swift and severe.

Speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat, lost his job in 1989 amid charges of corruption and profiteering. Almost a decade later, Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, lost his after disappointing midterm elections.

Mr. Gingrich's expected successor, Robert L. Livingston, then admitted he had violated the public's trust by having an extramarital affair — even as he demanded President Bill Clinton's resignation for having an affair with a White House intern — and bowed out on his own.

More recently, in rapid succession, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, both Democrats, were forced to exit Congress amid charges of sexual harassment during the #MeToo era. On the Republican side, Representatives Blake Farenthold of Texas, Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania and Trent Franks of Arizona were also driven out by allegations of sexual impropriety.

Yet when the House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, was shown to have lied about his response to the deadliest assault on the Capitol in centuries and President Donald J. Trump's culpability for it, there was little expectation that the consequences would be swift or severe — or that there would be any at all.

Dissembling is not a crime, but doing so to conceal a wholesale reversal on a matter as serious as an attack on the citadel of democracy and the possible resignation of a president would once have been considered career-ending for a politician, particularly one who aspires to the highest position in the House.

Not so for a Republican in the age of Trump, when Mr. McCarthy's brand of lie was nothing particularly new; maybe it was just a Thursday. On Friday, another House member, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said under oath at an administrative law hearing in Atlanta that she could "not recall" having advocated Mr. Trump imposing martial law to stop the transfer of power to Joseph R. Biden Jr., a position that would seem difficult to forget.

"It's a tragic indictment of the political process these days — and the Republican Party of late — that truth doesn't matter, words don't matter, everybody can be elastic in areas that were once viewed as concrete," said Mark Sanford, a former Republican governor of South Carolina who lied to the public about his whereabouts when he was pursuing an extramarital affair in South America and was censured by the State House of Representatives. "You cross lines now, and there are no longer consequences."

Mr. Sanford's political comeback as a Republican member of the House ended when he crossed the one line that does still matter in his party: He condemned Mr. Trump as intolerant and untrustworthy. Mr. Trump called him "nothing but trouble," and Mr. Sanford was defeated in a primary in 2018.

It was Mr. Trump himself who showed just how few consequences there could be for transgressions that once seemed beyond the pale for the nation's leaders in 2016, when he survived the release of leaked audio in which he boasted of sexually assaulting women — then went on to win the presidency. In the years afterward, he survived two impeachment trials, on charges of pressuring Ukraine for his own political gain and of inciting the Capitol riot, and he continues to spread the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Those episodes were vivid proof, if any more were needed, that tribalism and party loyalty now outweigh any notion of integrity, or even steadfast policy beliefs. But if there were any questions about whether the end of Mr. Trump's presidency would begin to restore old mores and guardrails, the past months have put those to rest.

Last month, Representative Madison Cawthorn, Republican of North Carolina, angered fellow Republicans by saying lawmakers he "looked up to" had invited him to parties involving sex and cocaine. The allegations drew condemnation from Mr. McCarthy, who told Republican lawmakers that Mr. Cawthorn had later admitted they were untrue, though the House leader stopped short of punishing him.

Mr. Cawthorn's troubles seemed to get worse on Friday when Politico published photos of him in women's lingerie, undercutting the image he presents of himself as a social conservative. Hardly chastened, Mr. Cawthorn responded on Twitter: "I guess the left thinks goofy vacation photos during a game on a cruise (taken waaay before I ran for Congress) is going to somehow hurt me? They're running out of things to throw at me."

He then asked people to "share your most embarrassing vacay pics in the replies."

In Missouri, Eric Greitens, who resigned from the governorship in 2018 amid charges that he stripped the clothes off his paramour, taped her to exercise equipment in his basement, photographed her and told her he would release the nude photos if she told anyone of their affair, is running for the Senate as a Trump-loving conservative. When his ex-wife accused him of domestic violence in a sworn affidavit last month, he pressed on, near the top of the polls, saying she was being manipulated by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's former political adviser.

"The Greitens campaign has received tremendous support from donors and patriots across the country who see the deception and lies peddled by establishment RINOs," said Dylan Johnson, his campaign manager, using the acronym for "Republicans in name only." "Since they launched these unfounded attacks in the last few weeks, the campaign has seen an exponential increase in the rate of donations, sign-ups and engagement."

Mr. McCarthy's latest travails with the truth are reminiscent of the last time he had the speakership in his grasp and instructive about how Mr. Trump has changed the landscape.

Then, as now, the California Republican's troubles really started when he told the truth. In 2015, after Speaker John A. Boehner handed over the gavel, Mr. McCarthy made the mistake of saying on camera that the appointment of a special committee to examine the terrorist attack on a U.S. government compound in Benghazi, Libya, was aimed at least in part at diminishing the approval ratings of Hillary Clinton, who had been secretary of state at the time of the attack.

Fellow House Republicans were furious, insisting that their pursuit of the issue had nothing to do with politics. They gave the speaker's gavel to Representative Paul D. Ryan.

This time, the truth Mr. McCarthy told was that Mr. Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 had been "atrocious and totally wrong" and that he planned to seek his resignation. The lie Mr. McCarthy told was that he had said no such thing and that The New York Times had made it up, a statement that was quickly refuted by his taped voice telling Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, exactly what The Times said he had said.

But unlike in 2015, partisan hatred of the media and a desire for party unity might carry the day. Republicans said on Friday that they were singularly focused on winning control of the House. Their voters are far more concerned with the policies of Mr. Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi than the words of the House minority leader, whom most of them have never heard of, said former Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah.

"Conservatives and Republicans think it's an unfair fight in the media; it's always a Republican issue that gets the ink and not the Democrats," said Mr. Chaffetz, who challenged Mr. McCarthy for the speakership in 2015 when he stumbled. "They feel picked on."

"That's not to justify anything," he said, "but the treatment in the national media is something that bolsters Republicans."

As the news media parsed Ms. Greene's testimony on Friday during a long-shot hearing to determine whether she was an "insurrectionist" disqualified from seeking re-election, the congresswoman was fund-raising off what she says is persecution. On the witness stand, she laughed off the charges that she had supported the rioters on Jan. 6 because the evidence against her had been reported by CNN and other outlets that she said could not be trusted.

In her fund-raising appeal, she made the most of her day on the stand.

"The deck has been so stacked against me that I had to file a lawsuit to stop this charade," she wrote to supporters before asserting with no evidence that she would probably have to take her battle to stay on the ballot to the Supreme Court. "Fighting their fraudulent lawsuit could cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Indeed persecution, not propriety, is a watchword, not only in Washington but in state-level fights in which Republicans say their actions are merely to counter the overbearing efforts of "socialist" liberals and "woke" corporations.

Representative Charlie Crist of Florida, who was a Republican governor of his state before he became a Democratic congressman, insisted that honesty was as important today as it was when Abraham Lincoln was extolled as "Honest Abe" and a myth grew up around George Washington admitting he had chopped down a cherry tree because he could not tell a lie.

Mr. Crist is now seeking the governorship as a Democrat, and he said on Friday that if he won a contested primary, he planned to make honesty central to his campaign to unseat Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican.

"It already is part of this campaign," he said. "It needs to be and it should be. It goes to the core essence of integrity."

For Republicans, the ultimate arbiter of lines not to be crossed and the consequences to be paid remains Mr. Trump. For now, the former president signaled all is fine with Mr. McCarthy: "I think it's all a big compliment, frankly," he told The Wall Street Journal on Friday. If Mr. Trump decides the House leader must pay for his prevarications — or for the truths he tried to hide — the price still could be high.

Take it from one who knows: Mr. Sanford.

"We live in very strange times in politics," he said as he was hustling to his son's wedding rehearsal dinner. "I hope they can self-correct, but I worry they can't."

The article kind of crystallized something in my mind--the culture of simply saying any negative news is manufactured by a hateful leftist press, means that the Republican party no longer has the sort of controls that in the past would self-correct out the worst types of people from the party and from politics more broadly speaking.

The sins that are now entirely forgiven by the extremist base range from the fairly mundane (affairs, misspeaking gaffes) to the serious (implications of treasonous intent aimed at democracy itself), and the net effect is really bad for the party as a proper functioning political party in a democracy--and very bad for democracy itself because the two party system and the GOP as one of those two parties is not going anywhere.

In the past I remember leaning somewhat heavily toward the idea that too many politicians get hounded out of office too easily--a casual stupid comment, a racist remark from 25 years ago when they were in college, an affair--which in my mind is really between a politician and their spouse. But I have to wonder if maybe we were actually better off when things as "trivial" as an affair could end your political career. While I still believe that the particulars of an affair are between the married couple, there is probably some good association between general honesty and good behavior and being faithful to your spouse. I have no problem with people who are sexual libertines, but if you're in a regular marriage with no understanding of it being "open" to outsiders, lying to your spouse and perpetuating an extramarital affair actually shows a pretty high level of putting personal gratification above some pretty serious commitments of honesty and integrity.

I guess maybe the Puritans were right all along to some degree--if you can't be expected to be honest with your wife, maybe you really shouldn't be trusted as a politician. I don't think acceptance of extramarital affairs was the straw that broke the camel's back, but considering it used to be almost universally a death sentence in a bipartisan way, it's probably a net negative for society it no longer is.

[Berkut]

I was one of the few people who thought that

A) Clinton being asked under oath about getting a blowjob from Monica was complete bullshit, and he did not commit perjury when he lied about it, and
B) Clinton should resign anyway.

I think the investigation of him was pure, 100% political bullshit. On the other hand, given his history and all the shit he got himself into around his sexual adventures, the fact that he could not control himself enough to pass on what was fucking obviously a terrible idea (getting a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office) told me that he had no business being the President of the United States.

Now I look back and chuckle at my silly idea that something as trivial as that should result in a resignation.

[Sheilbh]

Surely if you thought he lied under oath - that is perjury? How would it not be perjury?

[grumbler]

Surely if you thought he lied under oath - that is perjury? How would it not be perjury?

In the US, perjury only applies if it is a false statement about a matter material to the case.  In the Clinton deposition, the lying was in response to a question that had no bearing on the case, thus not perjury.

[OttoVonBismarck]

David French had an interesting legal take on the DeSantis Disney War, I assumed that while in poor taste, there weren't any serious constitutional qualms about it--Florida had constitutional authority to create Reedy Creek Improvement District and it stands to reason it could dissolve it as well--in general States can incorporate and dissolve sub-state legal districts at will, at least under the Federal constitution. Some State constitutions enshrine permanent rights to various localities, which Florida I think does not [although I have seen it suggested that the Florida constitution requires a special district to be dissolved the same manner in which it was created, which some people have said could be a cause for litigation over this if Disney wants].

But anyway, French raised a different point--under O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake something that would ordinarily be entirely up to a government official's discretion, can be unconstitutional if the officials reason for taking such action is retaliation for exercise of a protected right. In the case of O'Hare, the mayor removed a tow truck company from its "rotation list" of tow companies that get called out for city tow work when the owner of the company wouldn't donate to the mayor's re-election campaign.

Now, I do think it is probably constitutionally significant that in Florida they aren't administering an official function differently based on political expression, but rather altering state law through the legislative process--which I think is usually an area where the courts defer more to the political branch than on bureaucratic activity.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's always the case that governmental action taken with the purpose and effect of chilling protected speech can be challenged, even if the action would otherwise be authorized absent that intent.  And Hobby Lobby affirmed the protected speech rights of corporations.

[Barrister]

Because you all love Canadian Constitutional law...

From 1st year Con Law we learned the case of Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121.  Roncarelli (A Jehovaoh's Witness) was a political opponent of the Catholic Premier of Quebec, M. Duplessis.  So Duplessis ordered the Liquor Commission to cancel Roncarelli's liquor license.  Roncarelli sued and won - despite the authority over liquor licenses being well within the government's authority, the Duplessis government had done so in this case for nakedly political purposes which was contrary to the rule of law.

So yeah - assuming the USSC follows a 60 year old Canadian precedent it should be an open and shut case between Disney and DeSantis.

[viper37]

Because you all love Canadian Constitutional law...
From 1st year Con Law we learned the case of Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121.  Roncarelli (A Jehovaoh's Witness) was a political opponent of the Catholic Premier of Quebec, M. Duplessis.  So Duplessis ordered the Liquor Commission to cancel Roncarelli's liquor license.  Roncarelli sued and won - despite the authority over liquor licenses being well within the government's authority, the Duplessis government had done so in this case for nakedly political purposes which was contrary to the rule of law.

Ah, Duplessis!   

That was a man.  His anti-union stance was legendary, even in its time.  If only he hadn't been so religious...    

It's possibly the only case that made it to Supreme Court, and Rex would likely know more, Oex would have an entire book devoted to these abuse , but, it wasn't the only one, and there quite a few  like this during his time in office.  And even more overt one: give me money (to the party) and you get contracts.  Don't give me anything, don't get anything.  There a censorship committee at the time, with numerous priests deciding what could be published in Quebec, and what could be aired in radio, and later television.  The good old times, according to some who wish religion to return in government.

[Josquius]

Given the sort of people we are talking about here they're not known for thinking beyond immediate cause and effect... But I do wonder whether this being challenged and over turned may not be part of the plan?
The purpose is to threaten Disney not actually harm them in a self destructive way. It also helps show those nasty courts to be against the people et al.

[The Minsky Moment]

It also helps show those nasty courts to be against the people et al.

The nasty court against the people is the court that granted such broad, sweeping First Amendment rights to corporate entities, namely the conservative majority on the USSC.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And I guess this is why having good lawyers matters--apparently the Florida legislature was unaware of this, but Disney's lawyers were not, there is a provision in Florida state law that before Florida can dissolve a legal district it has to resolve the debt of that district. Florida will have to actively solve the matter of the $2bn or so in bond obligations Reedy Creek has before the district can dissolve. Disney has said it plans to continue operating as it did before until that happens, since Reedy Creek won't be legally resolved until then.

There's a number of ways the legislature can likely resolve it quickly--and all of those options involve Florida having to write a big check or agree to guarantee the bond's future. Just letting the bond go to the counties may be a contractual violation of the bond's guarantees--the bonds were sold with the understanding they would be repaid by an entity that can levy a 30 mil property tax to pay them down. The counties containing Disney World cannot legally levy a tax above 10 mils, so Florida has to resolve that in some way. Again, Florida has options, it could agree to take on the bonds in a manner that would satisfy the original bonds promises, or it could even buy the bonds out via eminent domain at market value. Problem there is that means DeSantis has to publicly be seen basically paying off a fuck ton of debt that is going to be interpreted as "Disney debt."

DeSantis has promised that Disney will have to pay these debts in response, but appears to have basically no legal mechanism by which to force the matter. Apparently one Republican legislator theorized they could create a special taxing district centered on Disney, with a higher mil rate to pay the bonds off, but Florida law doesn't allow the creation of those kind of districts unless they are approved by a vote of the communities affected. The two small communities that actually make up Reedy Creek would basically have to vote themselves into paying a special tax to help DeSantis dissolve Reedy Creek, which it's unlikely they would be inclined to do.

[The Minsky Moment]

Problem there is that means DeSantis has to publicly be seen basically paying off a fuck ton of debt that is going to be interpreted as "Disney debt."

DeSantis doesn't have to worry about that; his supporters live in closed media bubble that will tell them that DeSantis is getting millions out of Disney, not the other way around.

I talked to a guy yesterday, mid 40s HS education - who is moving to O.C. Fla in a few months.  He was thrilled about DeSantis because according to him it meant "Disney will pay its fair share" and his taxes will go down.  When I attempted to explain the reality and advised him to prepare for a property tax hike if the measure wasn't repealed he didn't believe me.  When I then suggested that he look up the info online, he responded that he didn't do searches on Google because Google is "rigged" and "fake news"

This is where we are now.

[CountDeMoney]

I talked to a guy yesterday, mid 40s HS education - who is moving to O.C. Fla in a few months.  He was thrilled about DeSantis because according to him it meant "Disney will pay its fair share" and his taxes will go down.  When I attempted to explain the reality and advised him to prepare for a property tax hike if the measure wasn't repealed he didn't believe me.  When I then suggested that he look up the info online, he responded that he didn't do searches on Google because Google is "rigged" and "fake news"

This is where we are now.

Don't Say Pay.