How the Times Covers Republicans: A Roadmap with all the Places Missing

Editors' Note:  Many years ago, the Times fired their Public Editor, claiming that the job was no longer necessary because the Internets would keep them honest.  In that spirit, we've appointed our own Public Editor who periodically shares his thoughts on what's in the Times, and, more to the point, what isn't.

By A.J. Liebling
Public Editor

The new Republican-run House of Representatives has got to be God's gift to reporters.  With so much crazy running around, it's almost like there are too many stories to chase.  So many lunatics, but only so many column-inches.  That's why someone in the Washington bureau thought it made sense to provide readers with a “road map” to their plans to bring down [Surely, investigate? – Ed.] the Biden Administration.

We unfolded their road map and it drove us crazy, but not before leading us down one blind alley after another.  It turned out their road map was missing a lot of important information, leaving the reader lost, dazed, and confused.

First stop on the map: the Weaponization Committee:

A special subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. 

Substantive policy questions: This remains to be seen.

That sounds a little dubious. What's this Committee going to look at?

The text of the resolution establishing the subcommittee gives the panel essentially open-ended jurisdiction to scrutinize any issue related to civil liberties or to examine how any agency of the federal government has collected, analyzed and used information about Americans — including “ongoing criminal investigations.” It also gives the subcommittee the authority to obtain classified information typically only provided to the Intelligence Committee, including some of the government’s most protected secrets.

What could possibly go wrong? We've reached the end of the road map before getting some possibly useful background about the Committee's Chair, Jim Jordan.  He's not just another Republican from Ohio.  He's the same Jim Jordan who has concealed his extensive involvement in the January 6 insurrection that came within feet of overthrowing the Government of the United States and hanging Mike Pence:

Jordan indicated he doesn’t plan to cooperate with the committee’s request because he has “no relevant information that would assist the Select Committee.”

Is Gym Jordan's alliance with these guys relevant?

Facts First: Though Jordan might not believe he has relevant information, what matters is that the Select Committee does. Committee Chair Bennie Thompson requested Jordan’s cooperation on the basis that he “had at least one and possibly multiple communications with President Trump on January 6th.” A January 6 select committee spokesperson said in response to Jordan’s letter that due to these communications he does have information the committee is seeking and is a “material witness.”

It’s worth noting that Jordan is a long-term Trump ally who objected to the certification of the November 2020 election in the House on January 6. In December 2020, Jordan attended meetings at the White House with Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence, and a handful of other congressional Republicans to discuss how to overturn the election results. Ultimately, Jordan voted to overturn the results in the two states where Republicans’ objections made it to a vote – Arizona and Pennsylvania.  

So the Republicans have put in charge of investigating subcommittee a man who ignored the legal subpoena of a duly constituted Congressional committee, participated actively in the January 6 insurrection, and to this day refuses to provide evidence relevant to determining the extent of his participation in illegal violent subversion?  

Wouldn't some of that background help Times readers evaluate the likely role, purpose, and legitimacy as they, um, wrestle with the problems posed by putting an insurrectionist in charge of a wide-ranging inquiry into both legitimately constituted government and its efforts to protect itself from violent subversion?

As noted above, CNN thought this was worth noting. The Times?  Not so much.

Moving along, the Times touched upon the second House Republican pile of whackjobs [Surely, Select Committee? – Ed.]:

What committees are involved: The Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is led by Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, and potentially the new Judiciary subcommittee.

Substantive policy questions: The Oversight Committee says the purpose of its inquiry is to inform legislation to strengthen federal ethics laws....

Political agenda: Mr. Comer has pledged for months to investigate Mr. Biden’s family and its business connections. His staff has already obtained the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, whose business activities are under federal investigation. Mr. Comer and Mr. Jordan held a news conference on Capitol Hill detailing their plans to take the inquiry’s focus beyond the younger Mr. Biden. “This is an investigation of Joe Biden,” Mr. Comer has said. 

Is there anything that inquiring Times readers might want to know about this Comer fellow? It's not like this loud proponent of fine Christian values like forced birth might have a skeleton or two in his closet, is it?  That well-known Communist fake news source, the Louisville Courier-Journal, reported

“It's just a simple procedure.”

A woman who dated gubernatorial candidate James Comer while the two were in college said in a letter to The Courier-Journal on Monday that he was physically and mentally abusive to her during what she said was a two-year relationship.

"Did Jamie Comer ever hit me? Yes," wrote Marilyn Thomas, who attended Western Kentucky University with Comer in the early 1990s....

In the four-page letter, Thomas detailed a relationship that she said "was toxic, abusive and caused me a lot of suffering. His controlling and aggressive personality alienated me from most of my family and friends at the time."...

In the letter, Thomas does not offer specific details of the alleged physical abuse other than to say Comer struck her. She told a reporter that she never filed a police complaint against him. In the letter, she said she had been "emotionally weak" at the time.

"Everything I did, everywhere I went, and everyone with whom I interacted had to be approved" by Comer, Thomas wrote. "Consequences were violent and swift otherwise."

She said Comer became "enraged" in 1991 after they visited a Louisville abortion clinic and learned that she had used his real name on a form requiring proof that she had an escort to drive her home. ...

Wendy Curley, who said she shared a dorm room at Western Kentucky with Thomas, said that Thomas and Comer had "a very rocky relationship."

"I would see bruises on her wrists and stuff where she'd say, 'Oh, I ran into a table,' 'I fell,' just that kind of stuff," Curley said....

She also said Comer took Thomas for an abortion.

"I know she ended up getting pregnant in like October of 1991 and had an abortion in the beginning of November, and I remember him seeing her to the dorm and just dropping her off after they got back from the abortion," Curley said.

Certainly a guy you'd trust to investigate allegedly unethical conduct.  (Just as a side note, don't expect to read much more journalism like this in the once mighty Courier-Journal, now owned by the bloodsucking vampire finaglers running all Gannett papers into the dust.)

More recently,

...Chairman Comer made news for two remarks (both seen in the clip below): calling Ukraine – which is fighting to protect democracy in Europe and thus around the globe – an “adversary” of the United States, and strongly suggesting President Joe Biden is “compromised.”

So Comer both supports Putin's violent Russian aggression in Europe and makes baseless charges about President Biden, who, unlike his crooked predecessor, is compromised apparently by having children.

We'd think that Times readers would be interested to learn that the Congressman in charge of investigations into “ethics” beat his girlfriend, helped her get an abortion (despite publicly proclaiming his opposition to abortion), and promotes Putin's anti-U.S. subversive agenda.  

The Times thinks otherwise.

How about the COVID Committee?  Now that seems like a subject ripe for congressional inquiry and oversight.  How is it that the richest and most advanced country in the world suffered over 1,100,000 deaths and millions more seriously ill, while dropping virtually all public health efforts to control the pandemic?

Nah, we're just s***in' you.  The House Republican COVID Committee will focus on:

whether the U.S. government should be funding so-called gain-of-function research, a narrow sliver of scientific inquiry that can involve tinkering with viruses in a way that could make them more dangerous. Such research is at the heart of Republican assertions that the pandemic may have been caused by a laboratory leak — a suggestion disputed by scientists whose research shows the outbreak most likely originated at a live animal market in Wuhan, China.

The point of course is to smear Anthony Fauci as somehow behind the epidemic (a lie pushed by bats**t crazy pride of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul), rather than to come up with any serious effort to evaluate the success of America's pandemic response program.

Cathy Rodgers has always hated the environment

And which deep scientific thinker will be running this inquiry?  Even though George Santos won several Nobel Prizes in medicine (according to him),

A special subcommittee of the Oversight Committee, and the Energy and Commerce Committee, [will be] led by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican of Washington.

Perhaps Times readers would like to hear something about her grasp of science, not to mention facts in general. Spoiler alert: it's not too good.

She's a climate change denier:

In her 20 years in the House, she has compiled a strong anti-environmental record. According to the League of Conservation Voters, she has cast pro-environment votes just 5% of the time during her career.

In 2012, McMorris Rodgers parroted climate denialist talking points to the Spokane Spokesman-Review, falsely stating, "Scientific reports are inconclusive at best on human culpability for global warming." The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that humans are the major driver of climate change.

She told the same newspaper in 2018 that humans are "partially" to blame for climate change, but still opposed government efforts to curb the problem.

She's been lying about health-related issues for some time too.  A thousand years ago, in 2014, she gaveg the Republican response to the State of the Union.  She chose to highlight a manufactured Obamacare horror story, which turned out to be nothing more than a person who believed Republican lies and therefore didn't bother to sign up for the benefits the Democrats had bestowed upon her.

Her inability to distinguish fact from fiction in both science and health care might have helped Times readers evaluate her bona fides on the Lynch Fauci Committee.  Again, the Times thought these details unworthy of mention.

What accounts for this reluctance to fill in the blanks in the Republican investigation road map?  We'll make a few guesses.  First, the Times presumes Republican bad faith and insanity and therefore does not regard it as newsworthy. Second, the Times may think that pointing out the sordid pasts of these esteemed Republicans might be considered unfair or slanted, even if true.

But the House Republican plan to convene lynch mobs under the leadership of already-discredited liars, cheats, election deniers, and fraudsters is news.  Big news.   

Why isn't it fit to print?

STOP PRESS:  As the Spy went to press, it finally received a response to these questions from an assistant to Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn.  He wrote:

How dare you criticize the world-famous Times Washington Bureau?  What do you know about journalism?  Have you ever written for the Harvard Crimson?  We thought not.  Why don't you just crawl back into whatever hipster hairy vegan hellhole you inhabit and let our brilliant, objective, fair-minded reporters shine their light without any more interference from the peanut gallery?

PS Please enjoy our special Opinion section today on the future of the Republican Party, featuring the brilliant insights of Kellyanne Conway and twelve ordinary typical patriotic diner-loving Republicans!

The Spy appreciates Kahn's thoughtful and nuanced response to our concerns.

This just in: mediocre white man wins again!

By Nellie Bly
Washington Correspondent

After a week of performative futility, marked by only one fistfight, House Republicans finally managed to install Bakersfield insurrectionist Kevin McCarthy (R – No-tell Motel, New York Ave. NE) as the Speaker of the US House of Representatives.

We'll let others describe how McCarthy eked out his win by handing out slices of his testicles to the lunatic hatemongers that make up the Republican caucus.  But we were struck by McCarthy's bottomless confidence, based on nothing, that he had somehow “earned” the second most powerful job in American government.

Who is Kevin McCarthy anyway?  

The new Speaker, shown here with his "assistant"

He was born and raised in Bakersfield, a s**thole at the anal ligature of California's Central Valley.  He ran a deli for a couple of years and then sold it, using the proceeds to attend Cal State Bakersfield.  He served as a staffer to a notoriously nasty Republican Congressman, Bill Thomas, and then started climbing the Republican greasy pole, first in Sacramento, and then succeeding Thomas, who to this day doesn't have a good word to say for his, um, protegé:

“I can’t recall a time when he came into the office to talk about a substantive political issue,” [Former Rep. Bill] Thomas told me. “The political goal as he moved up the district structure” was “to build up” relationships. “He’s the guy in the college fraternity that everybody liked and winds up selling life insurance, convincing people they need it.” ...In his view, the business of legislating is foreign to McCarthy. “He’s already said, ‘As soon as I become Speaker, I’m going after the Attorney General,’ ” Thomas told me. “Why would you want to spend your whole life trying to be Speaker to go after somebody? What are you for?”

This may not sound like much.  Indeed, it seems, like Bakersfield itself, to embody mediocrity.  But lack of talent or principle didn't cause Kevin to doubt his entitlement to fame and power:

From the start of his career, in the late nineteen-eighties, as a congressional staffer at a district office in the Central Valley of California, his ambition was to reach the House; once he arrived in Washington, it was to become Speaker. The House is where he’s most himself. He likens spending time there to “having breakfast at a truck stop.”

The continued undeserved success of Mediocre White Men, which somehow eludes the mediocre white gasbags and pundits, is glaringly evident to one group that has suffered the most at their hands: Black women

White supremacy looks like a less than mediocre shell of a white man with no soul, vision or purpose beyond faux power ascend to speaker after 14 failed votes and hearing chants of USA following their display of utter incompetence… #WokeAF

— Danielle Moodie (@DeeTwoCents) January 7, 2023

It's so obvious to Black women. Why can't anyone else see it?

Let's look at the parade of Republican Presidents and other worthies since say 1968: Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Denny “Wrestling Room” Hastert, Eric Cantor, Wilfred M. Romney.

That's a veritable Murderer's Row of Mediocre White Men.  In fairness, some of these white men were much worse than mediocre, and Romney was at least thought to be a smart and effective finagler who made a handsome fortune stripping and flipping America's great industrial heritage.  But anyone as clueless as Wilfred or as stupid as Trump deserves the sobriquet of mediocrity, whatever else can be said about them. 

You don't have to be a Black woman to recognize the phenomenon of entitled MWM.  You could be a Black man pushed out of his congressional district by a Mediocre White Man, who proceeded to go down in flames:

Nancy Pelosi is right. Mediocre men like Kevin McCarthy are allowed to fail spectacularly on the world stage day after day, and nevertheless receive chance after chance as though entitled to power. https://t.co/Xv7ybZdU5e

— Mondaire Jones (@MondaireJones) January 5, 2023

But the phenomenon is hardly limited to politics.

You can't swing a cat or a cliché without hitting a Mediocre White Man in a position of undeserved power, wealth, and fame.  The op-ed pages of America's two remaining newspapers are clotted with MWM's blathering on about nothing very much: Soprassata Dave Brooks, Six-Months Tom Friedman, Community College Adjunct Prof. George Will, and, at least once a year, the brother of retired Times columnist Maureen Dowd, Kevin.

Turn on cable TV news, and there's Impeachment Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Wolf Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chuck Todd, and somewhere around Channel 24,546 Chris Cuomo.

The unearned dominance of MWM is a facet of every aspect of American life where money or power is at stake.  In your daily life, everyone has met, to use David Letterman's lethal description of Wilfred M. Romney, “the man who looks like he turned your dad down for a loan.”  The guy who blackballed you at the country club.  The guy who was promoted over you because he was better at “managing up.”  The guy who sent Larry and Kent to sit on the sofa next to the freshman in the wheelchair.

L to R: MWM

The Halls of Mammon are crowded with Mediocre White Men.  Some started with a fortune and now are engaged in destroying once-prominent social media companies.  Others so lacked management skills that they caused a major airline to collapse at Christmas, but still have a job and long-term incentive compensation package.  You can hardly pick up ae proxy statement without reading about a CEO who gets $20 million a year either for not wrecking his company or engaging in ridiculous mergers that make it impossible to know if he has any idea of what he's doing.  Just walk down any beachfront on Nantucket or Osterville or drive around Deer Valley and you'll meet them in their native habitat.

And of course if you work your way down the list of Republican House and Senate members you'll run the gamut from Mediocre White Men to truly frightening bigots and lunatics.   One thing unites them though: the bedrock belief that they deserve to be there, which is usually accompanied by the equally firm belief that minorities and women don't.

Actually, what really infuriates Black women is that the MWM who have achieved success at the expense of less favored groups is that the MWM's don't even notice that they have succeeded due to undeserved privilege.  In fact, it infuriates them when that obvious truth in pointed out to them.  In Florida, Ron #DeathSantis (an exemplar of a Mediocre White Man right down to his slammin' white go-go boots) has actually outlawed saying as much:

...staffers for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) were asked an interesting question: What does “woke” mean?....Ryan Newman, DeSantis’s general counsel, said the term referred to “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”

Taryn Fenske, DeSantis’s communications director, said that “woke” was “a slang term for … progressive activism,” adding that the term also referred to a belief that there were systemic injustices in the United States.

The question came up because Florida was being sued for trying to outlaw teaching wokeosity in its institutions of public education.  Both of them.

Why do Mediocre White Men have a hammerlock on all the goodies that America has to offer?

Two reasons (actually, the clever reader may discern a single common thread):

1.  White Men.  The election of the worst human being in America as President confirmed what we had long suspected: mediocre white men want other mediocre white men to succeed.  It gives them hope, and they imagine it angers people they suspect of being non-mediocre: educated progressives with their fancy degrees and insufferable intellectual superiority.  They may be right about the insufferable bit, but what a price mediocre white men pay for venerating mediocrity: broken unions, bad health care, and a melting Earth to bequeath to their children, mediocre or not.

This is not a new phenomenon: when mediocre President and even worse criminal Dick Nixon tried to shoehorn a mediocre judge onto the Supreme Court (setting a path that later mediocre Republican Presidents have emulated), Sen. Roman Hruska, a mediocre Republican from the mediocre state of Nebraska weighed in:

As the Senate is in the process of debating the nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -- to fill the seat vacated by Abe Fortas -- Nebraska Republican Roman Hruska says in a TV interview, "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."

Imagine how thrilled Sen. Hruska would be to see the current Republican Supreme Court sextet!

Which brings us to

2.  White Women.  The support that mediocre white men give to other MWM's is understandable.  The decades of support given by white women is harder to grasp.  Why do they support MWM?  Maybe it's like asking fish what water is like.  They don't know anything else.

But that can't really be it.  We've never met a woman, no matter her politics, who was unable to distinguish mediocre (or worse) men from the others.  They may not have been right, but they grasped the distinction.  

Why won't they save us from MWM?

So is it simply a matter of bad judgment?  If women will marry a MWM, they'll certainly vote for one, or all of them.  Is it a lack of self-esteem, justified or otherwise, that make women think they don't deserve anything better than a mediocre white man as a husband, an adulterous lover, or a Speaker (and Kev has been all three!)?

Then there's the white bit.  If your greatest fear is loss of white privilege, maybe voting for generations of oppressive sexist mediocre white men is a small price to pay for your own (and your children's) loss of rights and benefits.  Hell, if you can fly to Midway for $79 on Southwest, your access to abortion is assured.  As for those who can't afford the ticket, well, that's their problem.

The solution to the domination of American politics and society by Mediocre White Men, like our new Speaker, is in the hands of white women.  But they're not willing to act, according to sources close to Hillary Clinton.  And that's why Mediocre White Men, like Kevin McCarthy, think they are entitled to anything they can get, even if their success requires 15 ballots, endless humiliation, betraying their country, and the loss of their privy parts. 

Good and Dead: Ex-Nazi, child abuse enabler, and tormentor of AIDS victims dead at 95

The obituary page of The Massachusetts Spy

By Luke Reschuss
Obituary Editor

Before it headed off into history, 2022 gave us one last parting gift: the long-overdue death of one of the most notorious religious leaders of our time, the reactionary Nazi-loving, Jew- and gay-hating ex-Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned in disgrace after his decades-long coverup of priestly rapists became public.

Benedict, in pre-pope uniform

Installed in 2005 by his fellow Cardinals to stamp out any embers of tolerance and compassion in the Roman Catholic Church (which, good to say, continue to burn despite his best efforts), he spent his pontificate tirelessly advocating on behalf of cruelty and intolerance.

The lengthy but hardly adulatory obsequies performed the public service of dredging up his sordid career, including these especially notorious clangers:

His embrace of demented Catholic Jew haters:

In January 2009, he lifted the excommunications of four breakaway bishops who belonged to the far-right Society of Saint Pius X. One of them, Richard Williamson, had roused outrage when he said in an interview days earlier that Nazi gas chambers had never existed and that only several hundred thousand Jews had died in the Holocaust, and not as a deliberate Nazi policy.

The pope cast his decision as an effort to heal a schism in the church. His critics said it was an extreme example of his willingness to cater to the far-right Catholic fringe. 

We would never be confused with St. Thomas Aquinas, but isn't it proper for a church supposedly based on charity, love, and the dignity of all to be in schism with hatred and anti-Semitism?  Guess we don't have the keen intellect supposedly possessed by this guy.

His coverup of the worldwide epidemic of priestly rape:

In 1980, when he was archbishop of Munich, he had permitted a priest undergoing psychological treatment for abusing children to be transferred to another parish. The priest abused more victims there and was convicted in 1986. But when the story broke in 2010, it emerged that he had been allowed to return to the ministry and was still serving in a parish.

Defending Benedict, the Vatican said that his assistant in the archdiocese had been responsible. But archdiocese documents revealed that Benedict had led a meeting and was copied on a memo in which the priest’s assignment was discussed.

He leaves behind many children

Sounds like the it-wasn't-me-it-was-Jared defense didn't wash. Although he made a few token efforts to reach out to victims, he did nothing either to provide transparency into his Church's worldwide coverup of sexual abuse (including the efforts of local henchmen like Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law '50, shuffled off to a sinecure in Rome one step ahead of a Suffolk County grand jury) or to honestly grapple with the root causes of priestly sex crimes and their coverup.

Instead, like the Republican defenders of pedophilia and abuse here in America, he chose to smear his political and philosophical opponents:

Benedict attributed the crisis to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, secularization and an erosion of morality that he pinned on liberal theology.  

Because if there's one thing that liberal theologians and thinkers have advocated for, it's the right of priests to forcibly rape children in secret with impunity. (The intentional inflammatory and false conflation of tolerance for those with difference gender preferences with advocacy of child rape has become a core principle of today's Trumpublican right. Benedict should be so proud.) 

His intolerance for other religions, notably Islam:

Everyone thinks their church is the One True Church, so it's to be expected that a Pope would be generally pro-Catholic.  But Benedict went far out of his way to condemn other religions that arose out of the same ethical monotheistic tradition as his.  Like Islam:

Benedict did not shy from voicing what he regarded as uncomfortable truths about Europe’s Christian roots and about other religions, Islam in particular. In his 2006 speech at Regensburg, he said, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.... With tensions already high after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the speech provoked an outcry in the Muslim world. 

Imagine a religion so evil it believes it has a duty to spread its faith at the point of a spear or sword.

Now imagine the Crusades.

His apologists blamed the outrageous insult on his supposed “tin ear” for politics. But you don't get to pass yourself off as the most brilliant Pontiff in a millennium and claim at the same time that you said dumb shit because you were insufficiently political. Especially when you successfully climbed the Vatican greasy pole all the way to the top, which suggests rather more acute political instincts. 

His cruelty to LGBTQ individuals:

You may argue that Benedict's anti-gay position could be justified on the grounds that Catholic doctrine  regards homosexual conduct as sinful, although it gives a pass to the 612 other supposed religious commands in the Book of Leviticus.  But Benedict didn't stop there:

With John Paul’s blessing, the church embraced an orthodoxy that Cardinal Ratzinger largely defined. His office moved against dissenting theologians; spoke out against homosexuality, birth control and abortion; and questioned the validity of other faiths. ...

The congregation’s [the Inquisition Office headed by Benedict d/b/a Ratzinger] delving into social issues provoked similar protests. In 1986, liberal critics objected to a document on pastoral care of homosexuals that discussed homosexuality as an inclination “toward an intrinsic moral evil” and as “an objective disorder.”

Priestly rape by contrast was just a by-product of ... liberal thinking.  As for the Levitical proscriptions against eating storks and wearing blended fabrics, those were not objective moral evils.  Because he said so.

Perhaps that's why with AIDS ravaging the world, Benedict came out against simple life-saving measures:

The bad publicity continued. In March, on his first trip to Africa, Benedict provoked new criticism when he said that condoms were not the answer to the continent’s AIDS crisis. Public health advocates complained not only that he had repeated the church’s long-held opposition to condom use, even as a way to fight the AIDS epidemic, but also that he had gone even further by saying that the distribution of condoms “aggravates” the problem.

You'll be thrilled to know that this brilliant thinker and religious statesman changed his mind two years and thousands of needless deaths later.

He looks forward to meeting new friends in his new home

His, um, flexibility when it came to matters of principle was evident at an early age, when, despite his strong Catholic views, he served as a member in good standing of the, wait for it, Hitler Youth.

That's right: Benedict will go down in history as the only Pope to have served as a card-carrying Nazi.

His apologists said he was automatically and involuntarily enrolled in the fun- and Adolf-loving teen club, based upon the accounts of – Benedict himself.  The future Pope admitted there was a financial aspect to Hitler Youthing: 

later, as a seminarian, I was registered in the HY. As soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back. That was difficult, because the tuition reduction, which I really needed, was tied to proof of attendance at the HY.

Do these people ever think about anything besides money?

At that time in Germany there were a few brave souls who refused to submit to Nazi terror based on their religious principles.  Some, like Sophie Scholl, paid for their beliefs with their lives.  In her case, though, there was no chance she could ever be Pope.  

Young Ratzinger, on the other hand, wanted to keep his options open.  For him it was the right choice, leading to a lifetime of ease passing judgment on Jews, Muslims, LGBTQ persons, social activists, and many others who were united by little else other than that they were never members of Hitler Youth. 

Perhaps for these reasons the reactions to Benedict's death were a tad on the restrained side:

The archbishop of Boston, Sean O'Malley released a statement:

“In all of my personal interactions with Pope Benedict (the sixteenth) XVI, I found him to be an engaged leader, thoughtful in his decisions and always committed to the mission of the Church.”

Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s statement also highlighted the former pope’s decades of service. Benedict will be remembered as the first pope to voluntarily resign in nearly six hundred years. He stepped down in 2013, citing his advanced age and ebbing strength amid the clergy sex abuse scandal. 

And Delta House had a long tradition of existence to its members. 

We note the passing of this committed if not commitable Catholic leader mostly because the intolerance and immorality he hypocritically espoused in the name of religion lives on, in the United States as white Christian dominionism.  

That should warm Benedict's heart, although given his current location, we suspect he's warm enough already.

A Heart-Chilling Republican Christmas Story

At least baby Jesus was warm and dry, unlike homeless refugees at the US border.

 

By Emma Goldman
Immigration Correspondent

EL PASO, Texas – It's Christmas in America and around the world.  If you don't remember what is being celebrated, here's a report from this Luke guy, who claims to have inside knowledge:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 

Luke 2:4-7.

It's damn cold in the hills of Judea in December and the family was fortunate to have a warm place to give birth to their son, Jesus.  From this story Christians derive the mitzvah (perhaps they have another word for it) of caring for those in need, especially those traveling in cold or slowed by pregnancy or infants.

Speaking of poor families trapped in the cold and seeking shelter, the Border Report tells us:

Churches and nonprofits that help asylum-seekers in the northern Mexican state of Tamaulipas are rallying to assist thousands of migrants before temperatures plunge below freezing.

Officials in South Texas also are opening up warming centers to help asylum-seekers who have been released from the Department of Homeland Security but have nowhere safe to go as a frigid blast of Arctic air is expected to move into the Rio Grande Valley on Thursday.

By the way, here's the weather in El Paso: 

So it's no wonder that Catholic organizations, aided by local governments and other institutions of good will, are mobilizing to shelter homeless refugees who have crossed the border into the U.S.:

Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez told Border Report that officials are working to convert the Mercedes Civic Center into a warming center.

“There’s been a coordination between all the different partners dealing with this matter,” Cortez said. “I’m concerned but the good thing is we have Catholic Charities and a large group of Catholic churches and centers and we’re trying to prepare.”

At the same time, other Catholic relief agencies, such as the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), inspired by what they believe are Catholic values, are providing legal counsel to penniless refugees seeking to establish their legal right to asylum:

CLINIC’s Catholic identity infuses every aspect of its work—how it is governed, who it serves, how it treats its clients, the way it works, and why it does the work that it does.

CLINIC was founded by the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops and is governed by a board comprised of a majority of bishops, along with women and men whose professional backgrounds provide helpful context for our work. CLINIC serves as a legal support agency for diocesan immigration programs.

Second, the kinds of cases and advocacy positions taken by the network—involving family reunification, protection of the persecuted, empowerment through work, authorization, legal status and citizenship—have their roots in Catholic social teaching.

Third, CLINIC views newcomers in their full human dignity, not solely from a legal service perspective....

Fourth, CLINIC takes the Catholic view that advocacy draws its legitimacy from service. Service allows advocates to give voice to newcomers, not to speak “for” them.

Fifth, CLINIC has adopted a principle of Catholic social teaching—subsidiarity....This allows CLINIC to focus its limited resources on needs that local programs cannot meet. In this way, CLINIC seeks to leverage maximum legal representation for low-income newcomers.

Sixth, the CLINIC safeguards the rights and promotes the dignity of all newcomers. The network does not distinguish among prospective clients based on race, religion or ethnic background. 

These gratifying humanitarian efforts are surely worthy of praise from anyone with an ounce of human decency or empathy, and certainly from anyone who proclaims themselves a Christian, right?

As others have pointed out, though, there's a world of difference between Jesus and Republican Jesus.   Following the teachings of Republican Jesus, the supposedly Christian Governor and Attorney General of Texas (the latter under criminal indictment) have threatened Catholic relief organizations and anyone else with the temerity to provide aid and succor to sojourners at our doorstep:

Faith-based groups in El Paso rejected claims by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that they may be aiding unauthorized border crossings. Hope Border Institute and Jesuit Refugee Services defended their work, calling the accusations a threat and danger to their work.https://t.co/K4LfplqzpY

— CLINIC (@cliniclegal) December 20, 2022

Threatening Catholic volunteers who have chosen to spend their holidays feeding, sheltering, and representing freezing refugees with criminal prosecution – it's Christmastime in Texas:

In announcing his call for an investigation, [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott cited reports that NGOs assisted in illegal border crossings near El Paso, and that those same NGOs and some in other border sectors also orchestrated other border crossings “through activities on both sides of the border.”

“In light of these reports, I am calling on the Texas Attorney General’s Office to initiate an investigation into the role of NGOs in planning and facilitating the illegal transportation of illegal immigrants across our borders,” Abbott said, adding that he is ready to craft legislative solutions aimed at solving the border crisis and the role of NGOs that Paxton’s office proposes.

[Texas AG Ken] Paxton swiftly replied to Abbott’s call saying he will launch the investigation, and pledging to take action against organizations found violating the law.

Rupert's yellow press sez it's a crisis

Now maybe crooked Attorney General Ken Paxton thinks that indicting Catholic relief workers is no big deal.  After all, he's been under indictment for five years and he's nowhere near facing a jury. 

The organizations aiding refugees, perhaps having read about other Catholics who suffered even worse fates for acting on their religious principles, were undaunted:

El Paso faith-based immigration organizations were quick to rebuke the claims, and the investigation.

Dylan Corbett, executive director of the HOPE Border Institute, said...that Abbott’s call for an investigation “is a vile threat to all of us on the border working to pick up the pieces of a broken immigration system, to create legal pathways for vulnerable migrants and to offer a dignified welcome.”

Fair and balanced CNN says so too.

“This intimidation is beneath the dignity of public service,” he said.

Not in Texas.

Of course, state interference with the lawful practice of providing representation to asylum seekers, a right guaranteed by federal law, violates the Supremacy Clause as well the civil rights of refugees. If only the United States Department of Justice had a division devoted to protecting civil rights, something might be done about this obviously illegal intimidation.

You won't hear much about this outrage in media coverage of the looming “crisis” at the border, which crisis consists of the specter of harmless refugees crossing into El Paso without safe temporary accommodation until they can arrange transport to their intended destinations.  The crisis is supposedly that they are sleeping on the streets, within eye-shot of white Texans.

Axios for the crisis hat trick!

Since the illegal and patently fraudulent invocation in 2020 of spurious public health grounds to bar asylum seekers by the bigots and plug-uglies of the Trump Administration, there has been an ongoing crisis at the border.

The Mexican side of the border, that is.

That's where desperate refugees, unable to cross, are living out in the cold on the streets of cities like Tiajuana and Ciudad Juarez.  Their suffering over the past two years does not constitute a “crisis”because white Americans don't see it.

Suffering south of the border: not a crisis!

And the suffering on the Mexican (non-crisis) side of the border is by no means limited to mothers and babies camping out in the freezing cold.  It's so much worse, according to Human Rights Watch:

Last week, I spoke to Amelia H. (not her real name) in Juárez, Mexico. She told me that after she entered the United States in September, US border agents stopped her and sent her back to Mexico just before midnight, even though US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims it doesn’t expel people after dark. They ordered Amelia to cross despite her pleas to make the trip in the morning. A group of men raped her on her way to a shelter in Mexico that night.

This horror was foreseeable and all too common. I’ve interviewed others who endured rape, abduction, or other violence after US border agents expelled them. Human Rights First has documented nearly 10,000 attacks on people summarily expelled. 

Republican Jesus must be so proud.

This Christmas Eve, it's freezing outside across the country, with a few annoying exceptions (like California).  But no matter how blustery it is outside, it's nowhere near as cold as the hearts of Republican anti-immigrant bigots.

Feliz Navidad. 

 UPDATE, December 25:

Today as then, Jesus comes into a world that does not welcome him (cf. Jn 1:11), that rather rejects or ignores him, as we do so often with foreigners and with the poor. Let's not forget the refugees, the marginalized, people who are alone, orphans and the elderly, prisoners.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) December 25, 2022

 

Dispatches from the COVID wars. Dateline: Compiegne.

By Vincent Boom-Batz, M.D.
Medical Editor

The war on COVID is over.

And, with apologies to The Onion, COVID won.

That's right, the pandemic that has claimed more than 1,100,000 American lives and continues to kill over 400 of us every day has vanquished all opposition in America, causing all parts of government to surrender unconditionally to the virulent menace.

Despite the fact that deaths from COVID have soared 65% in the last two weeks (see below)

America has thrown down all mandatory measures to save lives and left the battlefield.

Among the likeliest near term victims: our brave men and women in uniform. Just this week, the Congress and the President accepted a bloated defense spending act that specifically allowed recruits to opt out of receiving the COVID vaccine.  Although the idiotic idea came from pro-insurrection Republicans, Democrats caved like the French Army in 1940:

Democrats were forced to capitulate to GOP demands to curtail the vaccine mandate after a large segment of the party threatened to withhold their support for the legislation otherwise. Republican leaders who cheered the deal to strike the mandate have since pledged to seek retribution for its existence, demanding reinstatement for service members discharged for refusing to take the vaccine, and warning they will investigate President Biden and his advisers for having ever instituted the requirement. 

That's nice. So a proven tool said by the CDC to be vital for all of us will no longer protect either U.S. armed forces or anyone they come in contact with.

In repealing the mandate, Congress also overrode the views of military professionals, who viewed the requirement as an important part of readiness and force protection: 

During a briefing with reporters, Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said vaccination is still a military readiness issue, and said a repeal could be harmful to the health of the armed forces.

“What is important to the readiness of the force is getting the vaccine,” she said.

“So, yes, it would impact the readiness of the force. You’re more prone to getting COVID-19 … and we certainly know that the vaccine will save your life.”

By the way, the intolerable intrusion on liberty (or what the f***ever represented by mandatory COVID vaccination) doesn't apply to the other 12 vaccinations the military requires.

Why?  No one knows.  

Check that – the Washington Post's bats**t crazy consulting doctor Leana Wen knows: “ while protection against severe illness appears strong, effectiveness against infection is not.”  So it's OK in her mind to let soldiers and sailors get severely ill with COVID? 

It kinda depends on which piece you read in the Post, whose COVID home page splashed directly contradictory guidance:

 

So reducing military hospitalization rates by 50% isn't worth anything, according to her?  After all the downside to getting the vaccine is – what, Dr. Wen?

Proponents of continuing the vaccine mandates argue that, for the military and schoolchildren, many other vaccines are already required. But other vaccines are nowhere near as polarizing as the coronavirus vaccine. Equating this to others could have an unintended consequence of extending the backlash from covid-19 to other inoculations. 

Or it could be that surrendering to anti-vax extremists re COVID will only encourage these dangerous nuts to extend their campaign from opposition to mandatory vaccination to trying to undercut COVID vaccination efforts among their credulous base.

That couldn't happen, you say.  If you believe that we've a got a pair of white go-go boots for you:

Which has led that well-known wild-eyed radical formerly employed by the American Enterprise Institute to conclude that a slew of Republican vaccine deniers are – let's let him do the honors:

It makes it clear that a slew of Republican governors, from DeSantis to Abbott to Reeves to Stitt, are accessories to mass murder. https://t.co/DPyJj0jK8C

— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) December 17, 2022

Whoa, tiger.

The real question is why Republicans so cavalierly disregard the recommendations of the military and civilian professionals tasked with keeping our men and women in uniform fit to fight. To repurpose an old-timey Republican slur, why do Republicans hate our troops?  And why won't they support efforts to keep them safe and healthy?

Republicans: you can't trust them to protect our military.  Of course, that clear and potent political message was obscured by Democratic acquiescence, another in a long series of politically savvy moves by Democrats dating back at least to 2002. It's the old Democratic appeasement two-step: (1) throw away a position that's both correct and politically advantageous in exchange for (2) nothing. And it never, ever works.

But the bipartisan push to endanger our troops is of a piece with a similar effort to sicken all of us, by refusing to consider mask mandates in a time of rising pandemic COVID, flu, and RSV.  

Even Dr. Wen admits that masking in crowded public places, like those buses in the sky, makes good sense:

To Republicans, it's the face mask of tyranny

Instead, consider which situations are highest-risk for virus transmission. I’ve been traveling a lot for work recently, and I’ve been surprised by how few people are wearing masks in the middle of crowded airports and train stations where they’re standing shoulder to shoulder with many other people. Even if you have returned to all pre-pandemic activities and normally don’t wear a mask, consider keeping one in your purse or pocket and deciding, moment to moment, about whether to mask.

You might decide, for example, not to wear a mask in an airport’s empty security lines or while walking through spaces where people are spread out, but then slip one on during boarding, when dozens of people are packed together in an unventilated jet bridge. And you might keep the mask on before takeoff and after landing, when airplane ventilation often hasn’t kicked in, but then take it off during the flight, when ventilation is running.

Maybe you put one on if the people around you are symptomatic. On my last flight, I sat behind a parent with two young kids who both had runny noses and were coughing. This family probably shouldn’t have been traveling, but since they were, and I had no choice but to sit near them, I made sure to mask during the entire flight.

But measures like masks work best when everyone wears one, according to The New York Times:

while masks are most effective at stopping the spread of these viruses when the infected person is wearing one, masking to protect yourself from disease is still beneficial,  

This indisputable scientific fact is known even to Dr. Wen, but she can't bring herself to state the obvious conclusion: for the duration of the pandemic, the best protection is universal masking in crowded indoor spaces. And the only way to get that is to require it, like stopping at red lights.

So why not require masks?  Is it the terrible downsides of masking in indoor public places like – having to wear a mask? Let's ask the mad Dr. Wen:

Masking has become a major source of controversy during covid, but it shouldn’t be. A better approach would be to take mandatory masking out of the equation and empower people to make reasonable decisions based on individual circumstances.  

“No masks.  No vaccines.  D'Accord!”

Now Dr. Wen knows full well that an effective mask strategy depends on everyone wearing them whether they want to or not.  She only claims now that masks are bad because they are controversial. 

And why are they controversial, the worried well may ask.

The answer is short but tragic: because the immediate past President was a corrupt narcissistic heartless grifter who didn't want a mask to smear his greasy orange makeup.  So he invented a story about how Mexico was shipping us their rapists and masks.  (His actual claim was less plausible.)  Next thing you knew, there were fistfights on planes because the freedom of his enraged white base was being assaulted.

And it doesn't end with Trump.  Science denial and the supposed right to refuse low-risk low-downside public health measures like vaccines and masks have become, like needless COVID deaths and moppets mowed down by gunfire as they learned to tell clock time, a central part of American life.

So America has decide to unilaterally disarm against its most lethal adversary, and its allies in the Axis of Respiratory Evil, flu and RSW.  The result will be endless preventable agony and tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

And in exchange we will get nothing.  

Such a deal.  Marechal Petain couldn't have done better.

Latest Brainwave from the Problem-Solvers: Screwing Desperate Refugees!

By Immigration Reporter Emma Goldman
with Izzy Stone in Washington

Perpetually annoying and shape-shifting Senator Kyrsten Sinema is back, like a speck of dust, in the public eye with her announcement that she is now Independent.  Not of integrity or shame (we knew that already) but of political affiliation.

Billions of pixels have been excited with speculation about what this means.  The answer to any casual observer is clear: she is desperately trying to cling to her Senate seat by extorting the Democratic Party.  Facing certain defeat in the Arizona Democratic primary at the hands of any real Democrat, she now will run as an independent in a three-way race.  If the Democrats run someone plausible against her (hi, Arizona congressman Rubin Gallego!), the threat is that she will split the non-lunatic vote and allow Kari Lake to take the Senate seat with maybe 40% of the vote.  

The gun-at-the-head-threat to Democrats is clear: if you don't support me, you get a lunatic and possibly lose the Senate.

It's obvious enough to Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent:

Sinema’s gamble appears to be that Arizona Democrats would be loath to run a candidate against her. Under this thinking, with Sinema running in a three-way race, the Democratic vote would split and a MAGA Republican (such as Lake) would more likely prevail.

But Arizona Democrats are signaling that they won’t let that pressure dictate their actions, making a three-person race more likely....With our politics growing ever more polarized, a Kari Lake-type Republican could hold most of the MAGA and GOP base and a Gallego could get most Democrats. Independents (most of whom lean one way or the other, despite their fabled image, especially these days) could mostly split between those two, leaving Sinema with little support, even as an incumbent. 

The Arizona polling data seem to bear out the emptiness of Sinema's threat:

Kyrsten Sinema has an 18% favorable rating in Arizona right now.

Democrats: 5% fav, 82% unfav
Independents: 25% fav, 56% unfav
Republicans: 25% fav, 45% unfav

(Normally this is paywalled here so just screenshots) pic.twitter.com/kC54Iy6hwL

— Drew Linzer (@DrewLinzer) December 9, 2022

18%.  That's a favorability rating somewhere between those twin Arizona plagues: scorpions and STD's.

But we're not primarily interested in how soon Kyrsten can pursue her true calling of selling homemade ben-wa balls at the Scottsdale Crafts Faire.  The matter before us is her efforts to pursue her supposed vocation as a non-partisan “Problem Solver.”  If you can't wait to get back to a bunch of skinny guys running around Arabia in their footer bags, we'll give you the spoiler: they suck.

Greg Sargent has re-entered the chat, this time not to his advantage:

A big question is whether 10 GOP senators will support reforms being negotiated by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). The compromise would create a path to citizenship for 2 million “dreamers” brought here as children and invest a lot of money to speed the processing of the asylum seekers overwhelming infrastructure at the southern border.

Right now, negotiators are discussing including $25 billion to $40 billion in funds for border security and other border-related reforms, sources familiar with the talks tell me. Will Republican senators really forgo this opportunity? 

Now that we've learned what's really in the bill, we sure hope so.

The “Dreamers” are of course the people brought here as children by their desperate parents fleeing poverty, violence, and oppression in any number of mostly Western Hemisphere hellholes like El Salvador or Haiti.  They're adults now with a tenuous immigration status: able to work and live without fear of being rousted by the ICE body-snatchers, but without any path to citizenship or long-term protection from future depredations by white bigots like Stephen Miller. Our failure to resolve their uncertain status by letting them become citizens is undoubtedly on the top-ten list of national shames.

In 2018, Democrats offered a compromise: citizenship for the Dreamers in exchange for big bucks to build Trumpy's idiotic vanity wall.  The wall was a waste of money and resources and an environmental disaster in the making, but maybe worth it to protect the futures of these Dreamers.

Now “Problem Solvers” like Sinema and garden-variety white plutocrat Thom Tillis have a new compromise.  Instead of a wall, they want “other border-related reforms” to use Greg's innocuous vague description.

There's no bill text to analyze yet, but it appears that Sinema et al. are trying to gut the already-collapsing asylum system in exchange for protecting Dreamers whom everyone knows are never leaving the country anyway.

Tell us more Greg:

One of the Tillis-Sinema framework’s most fundamental goals is to reduce the incentives for the very type of migration that Republicans rail about. Conservatives often claim that many migrants seek asylum mainly to be released into the interior while awaiting hearings, and then disappear. 

Bar asylum seekers from entering? What could go wrong?

Conservatives also often claim that Hillary Clinton was running a pedophilia ring out of a Connecticut Avenue pizzeria, but that didn't persuade Greg to outlaw pizza.

In fact, asylum seekers released into the country with future hearing dates show up for their hearing (when they are properly notified of their time and place, which happens sometimes) 83% of the time, and 96% of the time when represented by counsel.  If they don't show up, they are ordered removed anyway and their names given to the body-snatchers.

So there's no problem to solve here.  Not that that would deter the Problem Solvers.  Their plan involves locking up asylum seekers (including women and children) because of what conservatives “claim.”  Or, in Greg's sunny summary, “Asylum seekers would be detained at the outset while benefiting from increased legal representation and being subject to quicker processing.”

Asylum cases are like other cases: they are complex, fact-intensive, and involve extensive efforts to marshal evidence They also provide no right to counsel so for example an unaccompanied five-year-old can be and is represented by her blankie.  The current system isn't doing a good job adjudicating asylum claims, to put in mildly, and the experiments with quickie hearings have proven disastrous. 

But wait – as with anything entrusted to the Problem Solvers, it gets worse:

While this system is built out, the government would retain for at least a year the power to expel migrants — similar to the authority regarding covid under the federal Title 42 health rule — without letting them apply for asylum at all. 

At least a year?  That sounds ominous, given that after 100 years, the immigration system has yet to be satisfactorily “built out.”

What was Title 42?  Besides a flagrant violation of international law, that is.  Let's ask the American Immigration Council:

The United States has long guaranteed the right to seek asylum to individuals who arrive at our southern border and ask for protection. But since March 20, 2020, that fundamental right has been largely suspended. Beginning on that date, both migrants seeking a better life in the United States and those wanting to apply for asylum have been turned away and “expelled” back to Mexico or their home countries. These border expulsions are carried out under...section 265 of Title 42—which the former Trump administration invoked to achieve its long-desired goal of shutting the border to asylum seekers. Over 1.8 million expulsions under Title 42 have been carried out since the pandemic began....Despite the claim made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that this order was necessary from a public health perspective to protect the United States,..[r]eports indicate that CDC scientists expressed opposition to the invocation of Title 42, arguing that there was no public health rationale to support it.

So repeal in fact of the right of asylum is the price the Problem Solvers want us to pay to protect Dreamers (who aren't going anywhere anyway)?

We think not (even if Greg seems intrigued by the deal).

We think that true compromise can't be based on tormenting desperate asylum seekers and violating international law.  Fortunately at least a few Democrats are wise to the scam:

Chuck Schumer has at least indicated he is open to the Problem-Solvers' immigration reform travesty.  Maybe he should think about what would have happened to Anne Frank had it been in effect in 1938, which is exactly what did happen to her: she was barred from refuge in the United States.  

We'd like to think we're better than that now, but if the Problem Solvers have their way, they will have proven we are not.

Broken News: Peter Baker Discovers that Trump is a White Supremacist

 

By A.J. Liebling
Meta-Content Generator with Spy Archivist Aula Minerva

Nothing gets past the ace political correspondent/pundit/bloviator/expert for The New York Times, Peter Baker.  Just this week he breathlessly revealed the shocking truth about the corrupt depraved bigot and leader of the Republican Party, this Donald Trump guy:

Former President Donald J. Trump once again made clear on Thursday night exactly where he stands in the conflict between the American justice system and the mob that ransacked the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power nearly two years ago.

He stands with the mob. 

You don't say.

Huge Times scoop: Trump sides with mob

The “once again” is doing a lot of work because if you have been a faithful reader of the Times since Trump stuck his finger in the nation's political eye in 2015, you might not have heard the truth about his extremism and his embrace of white supremacy and fascism before. 

The untutored reader might have reached this conclusion when Trump announced his candidacy by claiming that Mexico was sending over rapists and assassins.  But to the Times, this was NBD. Their announcement story treated Trump's candidacy as a source of hilarity:

Donald J. Trump, the garrulous real estate developer whose name has adorned apartment buildings, hotels, Trump-brand neckties and Trump-brand steaks, announced on Tuesday his entry into the 2016 presidential race, brandishing his wealth and fame as chief qualifications in an improbable quest for the Republican nomination.

Improbable.  Trump's racist attack on Mexican immigrants made it into paragraph never of the story.

Peter Baker wasn't available in the summer of 2015 to weigh in Trump because he was traipsing around with Barack Obama as the Times's Chief White House Correspondent.

But the Times reached into its endless bench of hacks to declare that Trump was no threat, no problem, and just comic relief from true Republican statesmen like ... Jeb Bush.

Here's Trump whisperer Maggie Haberman handicapping his chances in June 2015:

Good one, Maggie.

A couple of months later, Times pundit Joe Nocera, having rigorously reviewed Trump's views, including his racist anti-immigration lies, concluded:

I wonder, in fact, whether even now Trump is a serious candidate, or whether this is all a giant publicity ploy....

I’m not alone in wondering this, of course. Several Republican consultants I spoke to openly questioned whether Trump is in it for the long haul. “You would see him spending a lot more money if he were putting together a true national infrastructure,” said Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist [Whatever happened to that guy? – Ed.]. ...

He’ll be out before Iowa. You read it here first. 

We sure did, Joe. 

Let's fast forward two years, after pantloads of lies and sexist and racists smears that led him to an Electoral College victory, to Trump's open embrace of neo-Nazi racists after their rampage in Charlottesville. Here's Maggie Haberman again:

President Trump reverted Tuesday to blaming both sides for the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Va., and at one point questioned whether the movement to pull down Confederate statues would lead to the desecration of memorials to George Washington.

Abandoning his precisely chosen and carefully delivered condemnations of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis from a day earlier, the president furiously stuck by his initial reaction to the unrest in Charlottesville. He drew the very moral equivalency for which a bipartisan chorus, and his own advisers, had already criticized him.

“I think there is blame on both sides,” the president said in a combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now.” 

The story treated Trump's embrace of violent white extremism as yet another of his famous “controversies.”

Fortunately, Peter Baker was now available to weigh in:

Intentional or not, many of his most divisive comments charge directly into one of the most delicate issues in American life, race, whether it be his attacks on illegal immigrants, his “both sides” equivocation after the racial violence in Charlottesville or now his blasts at African-American football and basketball stars like Mr. Curry, the Golden State Warriors player who said he did not want to visit the White House for a traditional champions ceremony.

Speaking with reporters before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, Mr. Trump insisted race was not the issue. “This has nothing to do with race,” he said. “I never said anything about race. This has nothing to do with race or anything else. This has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag.”

To his supporters, Mr. Trump’s approach does not necessarily seem polarizing so much as animating. In an us-and-them world, he is speaking to a part of the country that has long felt ostracized by those who seem to have everything, whether it be Washington politicians or high-paid sports stars.

“Polarizing” and “divisive,” like cheering for the Red Sox in Yankee Stadium.

The obvious defect of this characterization is the equation of the two sides: the pro-Nazi side and the anti-Nazi side.  If the problem is polarization and not Nazis, then the solution advocated by clowns like Soprassata Dave Brooks and Andrew Yang – reducing divisiveness – make sense.  If the problem is Nazis (spoiler alert: it is!) then the Brooks/Yang line is dangerous gibberish which only distracts from the crisis at hand.

We perseverate on the Times's years-long failure to recognize the true nature of Trump not because it is great fun to rubbish pompous thin-skinned hacks like Baker and Haberman (although to be honest, it is), but because the failure to call out extremist white-supremacist fascist-adjacent subverters of democracy is a continuing threat.

The Times, seven years late, has finally understood the menace of Trump and Trumpism.  But what about the party he leads and the base who remain faithful to him?  And what about the equally odious Republicans who are setting themselves up as the safe non-addictive alternative to the Tiny Toadstool?

Is the Times recognizing the threat they pose to our constitutional order and our remaining liberties?

What do you think?

Please give a warm welcome to the loathsome and just re-elected Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis.  Ron works harder than anyone (and certainly harder than the low-energy Tangerine-Faced Grifter) to undermine democracy and free speech and promote hatred and bigotry.  He hasn't said boo about his rival's Turkey Day dinner with Nazis and Jew haters.  He hasn't condemned them or their views.

Just before that debacle but after DeSantis's fascist and bigoted politics were known to the meanest intelligence, the Times offered up this breathless analysis:

Polarization and divisiveness can lead to bad things

Fears of a divided field are why some have embraced Mr. DeSantis as the Republican who appears, in extremely early polling, to be the most formidable potential challenger to Mr. Trump, though political history is littered with early front-runners who fizzle.

“One of the reasons why Florida has done well is because over the last few years, we stood out as the free state of Florida,” Mr. DeSantis said. He never mentioned Mr. Trump by name but contrasted his approach to the pandemic with that taken by the Trump administration and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease specialist. “We refused to let the state of Florida descend into some type of Fauci-ian dystopia.”

The Times saw no reason to note that Florida's COVID death and disease rates were terrible or that Dr. Fauci's advice has always been rooted in the best available science. 

To be fair one opinion columnist (Frank Bruni) has been willing to tell it somewhat like it is:

It is not normal to release a campaign ad, as DeSantis did last month, that explicitly identifies you as someone created and commanded by God to pursue the precise political agenda that you’re pursuing. Better words for that include “messianic,” “megalomaniacal” and “delusional.” 

But the 76 trombones of drivel blaring in the Times's Opinion section tend to drown the occasionally sensible comment. So far the hard-boiled savvy journalists on the news side haven't let the readers know just how dangerous and crazy ol' Go-Go Boots DeSantis is. (Hint: Worse than Trump.)

We hope that they catch on faster than was the case with the Tangerine-Faced Fascist. But we're not optimistic that we'll get the real story anytime soon.

Based on his past performance, we expect Peter Baker to let us know what a menace DeSantis is by . . . 2029.