The DNC once again shoots itself in the foot; per James Carville: "It's Gaza and Zionism, stupid"

First, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin didn't want to release the party's internal post-mortem on the 2024 presidential campaign by Kamala Harris, aka Kamala is a Zionist Cop.

That got pushback.

Then, after he did, we see why. "Gaza" and "Palestine" aren't even mentioned, though that — and the DNC's feeble response combined with getting punked by Republicans on this in Michigan above all — is a fair part of why Kamala is a Zionist Cop lost. 

Per that piece, it also pretty much dodges looking at Dementia Joe's refusal to step aside. 

And, it also doesn't look at whether racism and sexism were factors in Harris' loss. On race? Dear Leader won; was he perceived as post-racial in a way Harris wasn't? (I see what I did there.) Sexism? Might have been a factor indeed, though I don't want to give either Harris' Harridans or Hillbots room to excuse-monger that as an attempt to cover up bad campaigns.

Back to the link, though. Here's Martin:

Martin acknowledged the lack of comprehensive findings, saying that he was “not proud” of the report and cautioned that it would not “meet your standards”. But he added its release was dictated by the public’s need “to trust the Democratic party”

Well, sure they're going to trust you now, in light of all of the above.

Meanwhile, he follows on that first paragraph by further throwing other people under the bus:

When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime. Not even close,” the embattled party chair said in a statement released after the report’s publication. “And because no source material was provided, fixing it would have meant starting over, from the beginning – every conversation, every interview, every data set.

Beyond what it deliberately overlooks, it's loaded with caveats. 

Misgivings about the quality and contents of the 192-page document are stated graphically at the beginning and at the top of each page in the form of a disclaimer marked in red, stating: “This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC. The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”

At the top of EACH PAGE!

And, I've looked via a link to the PDF at Drop Site News's reporting. And, it's not just at the top of every page, it's in a larger font, like New Century Schoolbook bold italic, and in red ink.

Maybe get the Florida wonder, David Hogg, back as a DNC vice chair? 

(I'm actually joking in that snark. Per the reality, as I wrote last year, David Hogg would not be the answer to the problem on Gaza. And getting beyond why Harris lost, he wouldn't be the answer on climate change and other things, either.) 

Hell, Wikipedia's summary of exit polling is probably more accurate. What does it say?

In all of the below, it has shifts from 2020 to 2024. 

Harris lost big on first-time voters. 

She lost among non-whites, both with and without college degrees. That reflects the big Hispanic shift to Trump.

She lost the same amount on union and non-union households.

More Harris voters were voting against Trump rather than for her; the opposite is true of Trump. (That said, Martin claims she needed to bring more "negative firepower," per AP's report. I guess he did recognize that she really didn't have much to campaign FOR. And, he apparently hasn't disavowed that.)

Also on that site, in a voter analysis subsection, the Institute for Middle East Understanding, which sharply criticized the lacuna in the post-mortem, per the Guardian link at top, found in their own polling at the end of 2024 that 2020 Biden backers who didn't support Harris in 2024 mentioned "ending Israel's violence in Gaza" as their No. 1 concern. "Immigration" was actually a fairly distant fourth.

The survey also found that 36% of these voters would have been more likely to vote for Harris if she "had pledged to break from President Biden’s policy toward Gaza by promising to withhold additional weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians.

That said, per the second half of my header, James Carville would never actually admit that. 

In fact, from what I can see on Shitter, as of a week ago, he appeared to (still) be conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Back to Martin. Is it any wonder, per another AP piece, that many Democrat apparatchiks have a crisis of lack of confidence in him? That piece reminds us that Martin pledged to make the 'autopsy" public on his first day as chair.

But? Sure, it's easy for the likes of Dan Pfeiffer to criticize him. But, they'll stay inside the left hand of the duopoly, and also ignore that Dear Leader being a Nice Polite Republicrap is part of why Democrats are where they are. 

Meanwhile, the Never Trumper Rethugs like Rick Wilson or The Bulwark will never talk about the Gazan elephant in the room.

That said, a Bulwark piece asks how relevant is a DNC today? That then said, after Trump shuffles off, how relevant will an RNC be? 

Texas Progressives

Off the Kuff presented interviews with Reps. Christian Menefee and Al Green in advance of the Democratic primary runoff. 

SocraticGadfly had fun mocking Trump, the UFO-heads, Trevor Lawrence aka Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Rod Dreher all in one piece.

It's official, and shock me it's him among the wingnuts on the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas invoked the hoary old Comstock Act in wanting to uphold the Fifth Circuit on Texas' mifepristone law. 

RIP Gwen Farrell Adair, "Nurse Gwen" (and others) from M*A*S*H.

The Monthly says you should go to Marble Falls for art, not just cream pies (which are overrated IMO). 

CD Hooks discusses Strangeabbott muscling Grand Prairie over Eid while overlooking the 2024 inverse of the True Texas confab at the Fort Worth Botanical Garden. 

VD Hooks is OK with Bernie (while surely still hating Greens, along with fellow Monthly writer Forrest Wilder.) 

In a blind taste test, could you really tell a Fredericksburg peach from a Palisade one (the most common touted Colorado one)? For that matter, could you tell it from one from Parker County, Clay County or Deep East Texas? I doubt it, Texas Monthly, and I've had roadside-type peaches from all those locations (well, Stonewall to be precise, not Fredericksburg) other than Clay County.

Customs and Border Patrol said earlier in May they wouldn't build a wall through Big Bend. So, WHY has a contract been awarded? CBP ain't talking, meaning that, until further notice, its head, Rodney Scott, should be considered a liar. Related? Team Trump is suing the Diocese of Las Cruces to get Catholic-owned border land in El Paso.

Houston Democracy Project Blog reported the solid Panzarella over Hellyar win in Houston City Council District C, was a strong rejection of Hellyar's police union endorsement. The work of making HPOU endorsement toxic for Democrats seeking municipal election in 2027 is well underway. Please join this effort.

The Eyewall takes an early look at the summer's hurricane forecast.

The Current finds that not everyone in Boerne is happy to be the site of a new Bravo show.

The Dallas Observer reports on another lawsuit filed in Hood County against a very noisy cryptominer.

City of Yes explains why social media is not a town square and what we need to do to get real town squares back.

The Texas Signal warns about private equity capture of OB/GYN care.

Harris County Treasurer Carla Wyatt needs to stop drinking period

And, if she needs a massive legal banhammer dropped on her after her second DUI, rather than what looks like codding of a diversion program after her first arrest — one that she never should have been given, IMO, and that she may have violated anyway, that's what needs to happen.

Beyond Kuff? Harris County Treasurer Carla Wyatt seems to have a clear alcohol abuse problem. (From my history in media, a person in their 50s or older getting multiple DUIs is a problem indeed. It may indicate a long chronic behavior abetted by others. It may indicate massive age-related changes that increase susceptibility. In either case, the age means it may be harder to change behavior. 

Yes, the piece I linked is the NY Post via an aggregator. But it has the facts on the ground.

Here's why she shouldn't have gotten diversion the first time.

Wyatt was previously booked on a driving while intoxicated charge in 2023 and recorded a blood-alcohol concentration of .365% – more than four times the legal limit of .08, according to KPRC.

IMO, a diversion program is meant for someone with, say, a BAC of 0.12 and no priors. Even with no priors, her blood alcohol level should have disqualified her.

That said, did she actually complete the diversion? Well, maybe not:

But she was accused of not installing an ignition interlock device on her car, according to her case report.

An installed interlock would have prevented her second arrest. It would have prevented her from further damaging her own life and being a further danger to the public. If so, and her attorney wants to fight, I hope the failure to install the interlock gets brought up time and time and time again until he surrenders, too. That includes reviving the original case and charge, of course.

And, if Wyatt had a mini-stroke in her past, and other cardiovascular health problems? That shouldn't be used as an excuse, but rather seen as yet more reason for Wyatt to stop drinking, and for other people to say this. 

By not providing all the details about her past history, and with other comments, Kuff comes halfway close to enabling her. I'm sure there are other people who have been fully enabling her. 

 

Trump endorses Paxton; bad framing by the Texas Tribune; stupidity by Talarico camp

Yes, the first two days of early voting are in the can, but Rethuglicans still like day-of election day voting more than Democraps, so Trump's endorsement of Kenny Boy over Big John Cornyn has plenty of potential election effect.

And, it really does, as his Pure Gall cutout from the Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ world just beat Thomas Massie by 10 percentage points in Kentucky tonight, after toppling Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy a week earlier.

Per the Trib at the top link:

In teasing the endorsement Tuesday morning, Trump said he’s “had my mind made up for a long time.”

Typical Trump bullshit, of course. The easy refudiation then is, "Then why didn't you make the endorsement a long time ago?" 

Trump probably got showed some Kentucky 4th District polling that showed Gallrein was up on Massie and so Trump figured he could look like kingmaker in the Texas Senate race now. 

The Trib then claims that Trump is making the endorsement now because he thinks Dem nominee James Talarico is a weak candidate. Only problem is that the quote of Trump's they cite is from March.

They're not the only ones screwing up.

A Talarico spox said:

“With all the baggage, it’s no wonder that one-in-four John Cornyn voters say they’ll vote for James Talarico if Paxton is the nominee,” SMP spokesperson Lauren French said.

In reality, the poll said 4 percent, not 1-in-4, and that's actually lower than with Paxton backers. The poll also said Paxton was comfortably ahead, as of a month ago. And, that's not just one poll. See here.

Frankly, I can see how this plays out. Paxton gets the nomination, Talarico and campaign team think this gives them an edge, and instead, they get their ass kicked in November. 

Meanwhile, Kenny Boy has another office scandal, this one over a plea deal giving a child sex abuser a misdemeanor. 

Kelly Board (Foust): An undercover operative on Shitter?

And, by undercover, I mean for one country not named the United States and not part of any Cold War 2.0 animus. Three guesses and the first two don't count.

This Kelly Board (Foust) attacked Drop Site News for its noting that a US federal judge had suspending US sanctions against UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese. 

She said, in her response, that "she's still under lawsuit, a fraud and a liar." I in turn called Board a fraud and a liar.

The reality is that Albanese, who is NOT American, or British, and don't forget that constitutional jurisprudence in Italy is not the same as in Anglo-American law, said she was a lawyer although she's never taken a bar exam. She does have a law degree.

When this came out last year, Zionist sites like UN Watch (it is) started a lawfare campaign against her. (It is.) I can't prove deliberation, so I won't call her a liar. I definitely don't call her a fraud. 

Ms. Whoever (don't know if that's her real name, blue check and all and hold on to that thought, aside) then got snooty. And, like she's not a real defender of "free Palestine," no matter her claims

She replied:

Total liar and support of killing an entire population and their right to exist.

And then the snooty:

Sounds botish and very ignorant in your not requested reply to me.

OK, now.

First the first. You claim to support a free Palestine, but free for WHOM? Yes, you make an occasional callout response to either Bibi's official Shitter or the Israeli foreign ministry's, but it's not that strong. And, you claim Albanese is supporting genocide against Israel. I didn't think to include that in first response back, which was mainly snark about not realizing I needed her permission to respond.

Let's get back to that.

The first pull quote, "support" instead of "supporting" seems a bit off.

Then, to pick up the thread from above? Lots of blue checks don't follow that many people, so under 200 following is not a big deal. But, a blue check on Shitter, on Shitter since 2019, with under 100 followers? Seems a bit off. She also has no posts, but only replies. (She's not a porn bot, which of course all do that.)

She responded to me, May 14, before my full callout May 15 of "free Palestine for WHOM" with this:

Francesca is a fraud and a liar. She has undermined UN rules, lied, and abused power. This lawsuit isn’t about a UN Watch, this is about her facing consequences that have gone unchecked for far too long. This just enables her to sit in front of a jury, finally. And pay her respected part - and then some.

OK, as with the "support" vs "supporting" above, something seems just a bit off on English usage, like the "respected part." This ignores that it's a lie that Albanese has undermined rules or abused power, of course.

Her profile bio also seems just a bit "off," as if she used AI to help fill it out: 

I’m like a historian of people, places, and events; including: strong points. It’s not here though.

But, one would thing that an Israeli operative would knock out the English just as well as their operatives speak flawless Arabic in person. So maybe I should think of the Cold War 2.0 angle more. Anyway, a bot calling me "botish" would be hypocritical, assuming she's one herself. Also, as a native English speaker, I'd spell it "bottish."

As for the blue check? After Elmo changed the rules, it doesn't mean that's a "verified" account. And, out of curiosity, I checked. A blue checkmark can hide their checkmark; they can't hide tweets, though. A person who's not a porn bot, but has been on Twitter nearly seven years and only replies, never posts for themselves is some kind of nefarious person.

That said, I googled her "@" as well as her Twitter handle. The third response on very slim returns was this TWStalker account for a Knesset member's page, one who tweets entirely in Hebrew. Replies aren't shown unless you click on individual posts. She is not a follower or followed, though.

THAT then said, would Mossad or another Israeli intelligence agency maybe get a developing world Zionist, emigrated to the US, to post this? Or have an Israeli deliberately slightly mangle stuff? Remember that, before the emigration of Russian Jews, they would have learned these tricks from both the Tsarist Okhrana (though those would all be dead) and various Soviet intelligence agencies. 

I've spent enough time on that; I'm not going down the Jessica Wildfire rabbit hole.

The 25th Amendment solution, or non-solution, republished with response to Blogger

NOTE, May 21, 2026: I am REpublishing this after Blogger said it was "unpublishing" it because it allegedly violated community guidelines. I was just given a link to all community guidelines without saying WHAT guideline was violated. That's more gaslighting than Elmo and his minions on Shitter.

There is NO adult content here. There is LESS THAN NO child exploitation or abuse. Nothing dangerous that I can tell, and certainly nothing illegal. (Describing a hypothetical-only quasi-coup under the 25 Amendment is certainly not illegal.) Skipping down the list, there is no misleading comment related to democratic principles, or to other things. Nothing deceptive, fraudulent or scammy. No harassment; it's legitimate talk of Trump's psychiatric background.

I got an email about this as well, from a "no-reply" Blogger account, which had no more explanation than the note on Blogger. 

That said, fuckers on Blogger? I'm also copy-pasting this to Substack. Per the email, I'll click your link. I'll also copy-paste it here, anew. How's them apples?

If it was the one dead link I removed, you're still shitheads for not telling me yourself. 

 

Good old Rusty Douthat is proposing that we look at the 25th Amendment, rather than the impeachment process, as a way of dethroning President Trump.

Update: Proving that Peter Principleship stupidity is bipartisan for inside-the-Beltway / Acela Corridor pundits, Richard Cohen halfway makes the same call, though he doesn't go full Douthat.

Beyond my continuing to reject the idea of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, I do agree with Douthat that Trump probably hasn't risen to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" prescribed by the Constitutional impeachment process in part because he's too dumb to do that.

So, yes, let's look at the 25th Amendment.

Section 4 is the applicable portion:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. 

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Several thoughts.

First, this is an invitation to a quasi-coup by a savvy Veep. Mike Pence is certainly more savvy than Trump. And, people like Rusty Douthat would greatly prefer him. In fact, I've half-jokingly tweeted that Trump tapped Pence as sort of a hostage against Congressional Democrats.

You just have to round up half the cabinet, plus one, and say, "Voila, I'm the acting president."

Then, if Trump contests it?

Oops, you're back to a quasi-impeachment setting.

Two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.

So, first, for this quasi-coup to succeed, Pence has to be a good vote-organizer, and a good vote-counter along with that.

Second, Members of Congress must have gonads nearly as big as they would for impeachment. Charles Cooke at National Review talks about the "psychic shock" of invoking the amendment. He's primarily referring to Trump voters, but this must also be extended to Congress, whose members in general like the daylight of responsibility about as much as cockroaches.

Third, it seems pretty clear this provides for a JFK-type situation, as Cooke also notes; in fact, it was in the wake of his assassination, and wonders about where U.S. leadership would have been at had Lee Harvey Oswald not killed him, but, say, the head shot did permanently incapacitate him, that the amendment were passed.

In this case, even for the initial coup, let alone two-thirds of Congress, Pence would have to get a psychiatrist sign off on a mental health evaluation. First, is Trump "diminished" in that sense? Probably not. Is he an idiot? Yes.

(Sidebar and addendum: If a threat of the 25th Amendment could be used to force Trump to take ADHD meds [dead link removed], if that's what he needs, well, in that limited sense, it might work. But, the threat has to be credible in the first place.)

And, Oliver Wendell Holmes, from the Supreme Court bench, long ago spoke about the rights of America to have idiotic laws and, presumably and tacitly behind that, idiotic government officials.

For example:

I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job.

And, unless something is unconstitutional, judges theoretically rule by statute, then common law.

So, no, Rusty, it's a non-solution. And I think you know that. Basically, you're trying to fart in already stinking bath water and pretend you're giving us a bubble bath.

There's also this sidebar, written about impeachment but also applicable to use of the 25th Amendment. What if it fails? You think Trump is stark raving mad NOW? To add to that, Bruce Bartlett notes that Faux News et al would likely have shielded Nixon today while sheepdogging Congressional Republicans.

==

Sidebar: This is yet another argument for parliamentary, or at least quasi-parliamentary, government. (A Donald Trump would have never risen to run the GOP. Unfortunately, a Paul Ryan might have, and a Hillary Clinton almost certainly would have headed the Democratic Party. Of course, quasi-parliamentary government would theoretically provide more openings for third parties.)

And, I also think Rusty knows THAT.

Per my review of "Frozen Republic," the real answer is constitutional reform that goes well beyond eliminating the Electoral College. All of this is badly, badly needed.

Sidebar 2: This is the second blog post in a row where I've had to note the Peter Principle class of inside-the-Beltway, Acela Corridor "journalists" has limited understanding of the U.S. Constitution. That's not to mention the Texas Legislature's ongoing cluelessness, mixed with willfulness, about that document.

==

Update, Feb. 14, 2019: It's clear that Andrew McCabe knows little about how the 25th Amendment operates, as far as who invokes it, and what it can and cannot do. Ergo, I'll still assume it's more likely that he, not Rod Rosenstein, is lying about the idea of invoking it.