“Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from> around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Jennifer Ruben: If Charlie Rose and Roy Moore deserve banishment, why not Donald Trump?
Let’s stipulate that all alleged cases of sexual harassment are not the same. Kevin Spacey is alleged to have sexually assaulted male minors. Glenn Thrush of the New York Times allegedly made unwelcome passes at adult women. These are not in the same moral universe. Likewise, we can acknowledge that crude behavior, including an unwanted kiss and alleged groping of women, as Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is accused of, are unacceptable and obnoxious. Still, a 30-something district attorney allegedly preying on teenage girls is in another category. Harvey Weinstein is accused of rape and other sexual abuses as he wielded his power to make and break careers of vulnerable women. President Trump is accused of groping and forcibly kissing women over a period of time — which one could say is less heinous than Weinstein but worse than Franken (as the facts are now known).
And, then there’s Charlie Rose. [..]
The severity of the offense(s) and the need to protect the integrity of institutions (the press, the Congress, the presidency) should warrant permanent banishment for repeated actions of unwelcome physical conduct, even as we understand morally that some actions are worse than others. Congress is entitled to and should have a higher standard than Hollywood or even a run-of-the-mill workplace where an offending employee might be docked pay, demoted or suspended rather than dismissed. We still hold out hope that the White House should be held to at least that standard.
Dana Milbank: Thank you, George W. Bush and Sally Yates
“So this is how it’s going to work today,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders informed the press corps Monday. She told reporters that “if you want to ask a question,” you should “start off with what you’re thankful for.”
Like good little girls and boys, several obliged. The reporters were grateful for their children, their spouses, their health and the privilege of getting to ask questions at the White House. Then there was John Gizzi of Newsmax, thankful to his wife “for saying yes on the fourth request. My question is about Zimbabwe . . . ”
I prefer to share my thoughts of gratitude with my family at the Thanksgiving table, rather than when commanded to by a Trump mouthpiece. But maybe Sanders was onto something with her infantilizing of the press corps. Maybe in this week of Thanksgiving, we all should speak about what we are grateful for in public life. I’ll start.
Dean Baker: #RichPeopleNeedTaxCuts: The Republican Tax Plan
When it comes to tax cuts, Congressional Republicans are determined to come through for their wealthy donors, and they don’t really care who gets hurt in the process. They want big tax cuts for corporations, rich people who can arrange to have their money come through a pass-through business, and the heirs of the super-wealthy. Everything else is just window dressing, or more accurately, window breaking. [..]
As Paul O’Neill, a former top executive at several major companies and Bush administration Treasury Secretary, said:
As a businessman I never made an investment decision based on the tax code. If you give money away I will take it, but good business people don’t do things because of inducements.
Perhaps the biggest irony in this story is that the economy is actually doing pretty well right now. Unemployment is at its lowest level since 2000, wages are increasing up and down the income ladder, and we may actually be seeing the beginning of a pickup in productivity growth.
It’s hard to see the rationale for the Republican tax cut plan in this picture, even if we accepted their story. But, as the saying goes, #RichPeopleNeedTaxCuts.
Richard North Patterson: The Very Real Threat Of Voter Suppression
At the request of Senate Democrats, the Government Accountability Office is investigating President Trump’s voter fraud commission.
Despite recent successes in Virginia and elsewhere, Democrats are right to worry — about 2018 and beyond. The GOP is bent on suppressing Democratic turnout, and Trump has doubled down.
Falsely, he claims that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast in 2016. On this pretext, he has deployed the Justice Department to support voter suppression, and convened his kangaroo commission to weaponize the cause — targeting minorities.
The civil rights laws of 1964 transformed voting patterns: As Southern whites flocked to the GOP, the party appealed nationwide to voters beset by racial anxiety. Its focus became turning out whites while turning away minorities.
A principal tool was legislation requiring voters to produce government-issued identification. No evidence of voter fraud warranted their passage. Instead, these laws affected people too poor or overworked to obtain the IDs specified.
Mark Weisbrot: Unconstitutional War And Saudis’ Mass Starvation Of Yemen Faces Growing Opposition In Washington
The New York Times editorial board recently took an unusual position of denouncing what it called “war crimes” by a U.S. ally, in a war in which the United States government is actively participating militarily.
“Saudis Try to Starve Yemen Into Submission” was the headline, and it was no exaggeration. As the Times noted, there are nearly 7 million people in Yemen, including millions of children, who are facing famine.
“At least 10,000 people have been killed, many by Saudi-coalition bombings carried out with military assistance by the United States,” the editorial stated. [..]
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution, by a margin of 366–30, which did two unprecedented things: first, it acknowledged the U.S. role in the war, including the mid-air refueling of the Saudi-led coalition planes (which is essential to their bombing campaign) and help in selecting targets; and second, that this military involvement has not been authorized by Congress.
Recent Comments