Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), who deserves re-election as much as or more than any other Congressperson, tells us Democrats are having trouble realizing just how bad inflation affects working families. One of her colleagues told her "we're not seeing it in the polls," apparently completely unaware of how that would sound to anyone who doesn't breathe Beltway air. You don't find out what you need to know through polls! You find out through talking to your constituents. Who are also your bosses. (And Ms. Porter aims her anger at CEOs, which more Democrats should try. Bosses aren't that popular, as you know -- except with other bosses and the politicians who eat out of their hands.)
That being said, the latest inflation figures actually comprise better news, perhaps better than our "liberal" media would like. CNBC's headline talks of "inflation barrel(ling) ahead," but the year-to-year rate actually dropped from 8.6% to 8.3%, while the month-to-month rate dropped rather more sharply, from 1.2% in March to 0.3% in April; if inflation grew at the April rate for a year, the yearly rate would be 3.6%, while at the March rate, it'd be 14.4%. That's a big deal, and only Beltway insiders care that it "fell short of forecasts." Regular Americans don't buy bacon with forecasts.
How do "liberal" media outlets "manufacture opinion" on the Title 42 immigration issue, according to David W. Moore at FAIR? By inducing as many folks as possible to actually answer the question -- despite the fact that very few Americans pay very close attention to it -- first by omitting a "don't know" or "unsure" or "no opinion" option, and then by giving respondents rather incomplete information about the issue. Fox News's poll, for example, suggested to respondents that Title 42 was entirely a health care issue; did they note that would-be immigrants actually have a right to a hearing before being deported, which Title 42 denies? Of course not -- just as they didn't note that right-wingers kept this pandemic going quite well on their own, without help from "caravans" and the like.
Alex Pareene talks with Tom Scocca about automobile dependence, apparently an acute problem in New York City, where I have never considered driving anywhere to be a good idea. Our governments' devotion to public transit has been wanting for, oh, just spit-balling here, for a little over 40 years, which maps easily onto Mr. Pareene's discussion about "how quickly and easily you become a sociopath, even a borderline eugenicist, behind the wheel." It's a great discussion, one that almost offhandedly births a great idea: stop calling them "accidents" and start calling them "automobile violence."
I actually had to remind myself that Steve Bannon's threat against Mark Esper for the horrible crime of telling everyone how terrible Donald Trump's last year in office truly was is drama, just like it is whenever right-wingers attack each other. I guess we'll know it's drama when Mr. Esper utterly fails to sue Mr. Bannon, since terroristic threats -- even deliberately vague ones -- do not enjoy First Amendment protection. (No, it really is a threat! The only way "(w)hen we come to power...You are going to be held accountable for this, bro" is not a threat is if Mr. Bannon had said, right beforehand, "ignore everything I'm about to say.")
Finally, the Democrats' new line of attack against Republicans -- calling them "ultra-MAGA" -- shouldn't give us much hope that they, or we, will survive the midterms. Instead of letting Republicans "lean into" their own branding, how about you call them weak? I mean, whining about masks and refusing to get vaccinated is weak. Having big book-burning rallies is weak. And trying to overthrow the government when your candidate loses by seven million votes is weak. I want Democrats to call Republicans weaklings, and then I want to see Republicans try to "lean into" that.
Comments