"Oh, my God. Do you know how crazy that would be? You know how divided the country would be then? Well, that's the same thing kind of taking place now on a lesser scale, obviously, because it's not a war crime you're charging someone with, but you could. You could charge Trump with war crimes. You could find some things that he did, especially with bombings. Even what Obama did -- during the administration, they dropped a drone on a US citizen. No trial, no nothing. Boom...."
There were people, at the time of the 2008 election, who were quite serious that Obama must prosecute George W. Bush. I vividly remember having to deal with Jane Hamsher on Bloggingheads. She was quite adamant and insulted me — me, a law professor! — for not agreeing that it was absolutely necessary. And the topic came up because VP candidate Joe Biden had made the news by saying the Obama administration might pursue criminal charges against Bush:
Imagine if Jane and Joe's notion had won the day back in the first Obama administration! Where would we be now?
After writing the last post, about a WaPo column by Alyssa Rosenberg, I clicked on my "Alyssa Rosenberg" tag. It only had 2 other posts. One, from a year ago, was to another WaPo column ("Hillary Clinton and I are done"), but the other was from 2009, about whether long novels are still worth reading. It was a clip from a Bloggingheads diavlog, Rosenberg with Matt Yglesias, and I needed to fix some code, so I clicked through to the Bloggingheads website. I saw that there was a new diavlog with Bob Wright and Christina Hoff Sommers. I'm interested in that, but it goes on for more than 2 hours, so I decided to click on one of the subtopics that jumped out, "Bob denies Christina’s charge of 'benevolent sexism.'" Here's the clip...
Hoff Sommers criticized Wright for "benevolent sexism" because of the way he'd diavlogged with a feminist philosopher. Instead of going at it with her, he babied the female philosopher with softball questions. Okay. Wright says he wants to defend himself and: "I've done dialogues with Ann Althouse that got so contentious that she accused me of being sexist in the other sense, of being too hard on her."
Bizarre. I'm just idly clicking around. I didn't expect to hear my own name. And now I feel called upon to correct the record. I didn't say it was sexist to be "too hard" or "contentious." I don't like that characterization, and now I feel sort of nauseated. Good lord, what all do people say about you when you're not around? Stumbling into one example, it makes me wonder! What a strange world!
Wright was referring to this diavlog with me from February 2017, which was the last time I talked with him. Watch this clip and you may see why I'm annoyed to be characterized as having called him sexist for being too hard on me. What's sexist is that he treats me differently and with far more hostility than he treats the men who engage vigorously and give him a hard time. He's never had me back on the show after this:
If you watch that clip, you'll see that I'm talking about how podcast listeners might not want to hear yelling. Wright volunteers that every time he talks to me he ends up yelling. "9 out of 10 of my podcast conversations do not involve this level of voice raising, however, all of the ones involving you do." That's what makes me want to do feminist analysis, which I introduce in the form of asking him "What's your analysis of that?" He says he doesn't know, so I tell him what my husband says: "He says that you should at least pretend to be enjoying speaking to me and that you should show appreciation for me and, whether you actually feel it or not, to make it feel like this is a fun, enjoyable conversation, this is a good place to be as opposed to an intense struggle."
I'm really talking about the aesthetics of radio at that point, the subjective experience of the brain between the earbuds, the listener. Wright repeats that he usually doesn't raise his voice, and I say, "but you do with me" and suggest again that it could be "analyzed." I remind him that I was the only woman on Bloggingheads in the early days. I say, "To some extent, I feel I'm being badgered and bullied because I'm a woman (and because you perceive me as conservative, even though I'm not)." I never use the word "sexism," but at 89:00, he tells me I've accused him of sexism.
Anyway, my objection wasn't to tough opposition and hardcore debate, it's about getting yelled at and treated with disrespect. Something about me triggers him, and he came right out and admitted it, but he resisted any sort of analysis of why. I think it's shallow (or repressive) not to want to consider whether there's a gender element to why another person is aggravating you so much. I'd go on the show — back when I got invited — and, as you can see, I'm smiling and really into the joys of conversation. Why is he yelling at me?!
"... we are, after all, less than three weeks from the midterms. '#MeToo,' I replied. Many women I know — though, of course, not only women — are walking around with a churning knot of terror in their stomachs. The confirmation of the cruel former frat boy Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court brought back the anguish and degradation so many of us felt after the 2016 election. Donald Trump grows more thuggish and mendacious by the day; 'gaslighting,' a term taken from a play about an abusive husband trying to drive his wife insane, has become a byword of our national life."
But who's the other person — the "husband" — trying to drive you insane? It sounds more like some new phenomenon, some kind of gaslighting yourself.
I'm trying to read the new Michelle Goldberg column in the NYT, "A Cure for Political Despair/Join the women trying to save America from Trump," but it's so hysterical and melodramatic. I guess you have to believe you're seriously ill before the proffered "cure" works. I'll bet there's some old play where characters believe some phony panacea worked because the purveyor of the cure began by duping them into thinking that they had a terrible disease. Which is to say: I'm not convinced there is a disease. But Michelle Goldberg sets up her pitch for the cure by asserting that America is full of women who are in a nonstop panic attack and feeling "a churning knot of terror." (What's a "churning knot"? Churning is an agitating movement, but a knot stops movement.)
So women (and some men)(at least those in the vicinity of Michelle Goldberg) are in some sort of horrid psychological state, perhaps because of a few political events (Trump's election, Kavanaugh's confirmation) and perhaps because somebody's trying to drive them crazy. But who?? Goldberg doesn't say. Goldberg vaguely gestures: "'gaslighting... has become a byword of our national life." But gaslighting means that you feel like you're going crazy because someone has a devious intent of making you feel crazy. If anyone is gaslighting here, it's Goldberg and her ilk, insisting that all the women she knows — come, join the group — are permanently panicked and have stomachs in a churning knot of terror.
The churning I'm seeing is an earnest and blandly ordinary effort to generate excitement about the upcoming elections. And after a few paragraphs, Goldberg settles in to this mundane business.
There is, I find, only one thing that soothes my galloping anxiety, and that is talking to women who are actually doing the work of campaigning. The people who are knocking on doors and organizing rallies tend to be much more cheerful and confident than those who spend too much time on Twitter obsessing over each new poll.
That is, now that I've made you gallopingly anxious, activate yourself and campaign for a Democrat. You'll become more cheerful and confident. Ah, yes, after a few more paragraph, she says it explicitly:
So if you, too, are scared, or furious, or despondent, find a Democrat close to you and go canvass for her (or him).... The only way to feel better is to do something to help.
Of course, it's not the only way. The other way is not to gaslight yourself in the first place.
ADDED: I'm just imagining one of these women coming to my door. I mean, I don't answer the door, because I'm picturing all sorts of characters I don't want to interact with, and now I have one more on my list. It's a woman who's been experiencing nonstop panic who believes the way to deal with her raging insanity is to get out and about knocking on doors. I am never answering the door again. Now, it's not just the kid selling bad peanut brittle and the environmental activist with the clipboard, it's the freaked out lady who thinks talking to me is some kind of cure for the churning stomach knots.
IN THE COMMENTS: Amadeus 48 said...
If I want to panic, I look for that old Blogging Heads episode with Althouse and Michelle Goldberg. Althouse is so sane; Goldberg is so crazy.
THIS WOMAN NOW HAS A COLUMN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES!! SHE'S ON MY DOORSTEP!! I'M GETTING A CHURNING IN MY STOMACH! I'M GOING TO RALPH!!!
Amadeus 48 then came back and said:
OMG! I just watched the later Althouse/Goldberg Blogging Heads from 2010(?).
Althouse, I am in awe. Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" vs. "Dreams from my Father". Goldberg is as light as a feather. All hysteria all the time.
Well done.
Thanks. I just watched some of that. Very amusing from my point of view. Here:
I'm so glad I just made a "Stravinsky" tag — prompted by Spike Jones's tale of squeaky shoes —because I do have old posts that I can add it to — 5 old posts! I'm strangely proud of that. I'm not in any way suggesting I have serious musical analysis anywhere in this blog's 13-year archive, but that's not the kind of thing I've ever tried to do, so I'm not looking for pride in anything I'm not ashamed of having failed to do. It's the miscellany that amuses me. I'm going for something between the extremes of subtle and corny.
Stravinsky comes up in a September 2016 post, "Donald Trump, Sex Pistol/The punk-rock appeal of the GOP nominee." A writer in The Atlantic — James Parker — talked about "the impression Stravinsky’s 'Sacre du Printemps' made in Paris in 1913, then shifts to 1976, when The Sex Pistols went on British daytime TV live," and I wrote:
But what's Parker's point here? Is Donald Trump like The Sex Pistols because he goes on TV and talks to his interviewers in a way they're not used to and that busts up their game? Well, sort of. Parker says he's that and simultaneously the guy watching at home getting pissed off at the Pistols, because he's using a "transgressive, volatile, carnivalesque" style with respect to conservative things like "chaos in our communities" and "barbarians at the border."...
Parker says (among many other things): "Trump’s speaking style is from the future, from a time to come when human consciousness has broken down into little floating atavistic splinters of subjectivity and superstition and jokes that aren’t really jokes." Of course, Parker loathes Trump, but that reminded me of something I said about Trump as an exemplar of a new way of speaking:
I'm seeing something more positive about the speaking style of the future (and not just because I do cruel neutrality but because I think I'm speaking in the style of the future too).
I just watched that Bloggingheads clip — from a month and a half before the election — and it's quite interesting in light of Trump's actually becoming President and taking his new way of speaking to the White House.
Following the tag further back into the archive, back in 2013, it was, "Picture yourself, 100 years ago, losing your composure over this":
In this hot new episode of Bloggingheads (recorded on Friday), Glenn Loury objects strenuously to the effort to treat Trump as abnormal, and I agree. Despite that basic agreement, we find a lot to talk about:
The tags indicate the range of subject matter. The topics listed at the BHTV website are:
The “normalizing Trump” debate
Trump’s desire to keep judges “in check”
Political posturing around Gorsuch and Garland
Should judges infer that Trump wants a Muslim ban?
Glenn defends the Shelby County ruling on voting rights
Ann defends Citizen’s United
I can't figure out how to embed it, so you have to go here.
Topics:
How bad were Milo’s pedophilia comments? 8:21
Are evangelicals demonized? 5:40
Debating the limits of free speech 18:35
Is the media’s coverage of Trump unprofessional? 7:38
Is Trump anti-Muslim? 7:26
Ann’s “hypothetical Trumps” thought experiment 11:10
How not to oppose to Trump 3:36
I found it interesting to listen to this again. I was taking Trump seriously and trying to understand how he was speaking to us:
After the election, I really notice the urgency in my voice, begging people to look closely and figure out what is going on. Partial transcript:
Before the election happens, we should try to step up to the challenge of seeing what is happening to us... America really is going through a transition, we're becoming different, our minds are changing [through the internet and social media]. And Trump may seem weird by old standards, but he has some place within what is becoming the new culture that we're in, and we ought to have some sensitivity and perception about noticing what it is and operating successfully within it.... And I think [Trump] deserves credit for perceiving that there was something that could be done and putting it together... on the fly as a complete newcomer. People don't want to give him credit, and an awful lot of people in the elite are... calling him stupid or racist, and I just think, we're going to be looking back on this, especially if he wins, which he could.... [What Trump says and the way it's paraphrased and understood and misunderstood] is very fluid and dynamic, and you have to not jump to a conclusion but go back into the actual texts that are there and try to figure out what happened. I don't think people are doing that enough, and I feel like the election is going to pass, and if he wins, we'll have to look back for the rest of our lives.
A clickbait title good enough to get me — a staunch clickbait resister — to click through to The Atlantic, and I'm going to encourage you to click through because the illustration — by Diego Patiño — is really good.
The article is by James Parker, who regularly writes about music, so the Sex Pistols talk is more than just shallow goofiness. Parker begins by talking about the impression Stravinsky’s "Sacre du Printemps" made in Paris in 1913, then shifts to 1976, when The Sex Pistols went on British daytime TV live:
The beery drawl of Pistols guitarist Steve Jones filters louchely from the TV set: “You dirty fucker,” he says to the host, Bill Grundy. Then he reconsiders: “What a fucking rotter.”...
Wait. You don't need to rely on Parker's literary stylings — louchely, whatever — to visualize the occasion. It's on YouTube:
But what's Parker's point here? Is Donald Trump like The Sex Pistols because he goes on TV and talks to his interviewers in a way they're not used to and that busts up their game? Well, sort of. Parker says he's that and simultaneously the guy watching at home getting pissed off at the Pistols, because he's using a "transgressive, volatile, carnivalesque" style with respect to conservative things like "chaos in our communities" and "barbarians at the border."
It’s as if the Sex Pistols were singing about law and order instead of anarchy, as if their chart-busting (banned) single, “God Save the Queen,” were not a foamingly sarcastic diatribe but a sincere pledge of fealty to the monarch. Electrifying!
An amusing paradox, but Parker fails to acknowledge that it's a paradox made possible by the stodgy, humorless repression of the liberal side of American political culture. Parker continues with his good if purplish descriptions: Trump has a "big marmalade face and that dainty mobster thing he does with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand." Mobster? Or was that supposed to be "lobster"? Who knows? I know what he means about that hand gesture. (And did you know that Trump said his hand gestures count as a form of exercise?)
Parker says (among many other things): "Trump’s speaking style is from the future, from a time to come when human consciousness has broken down into little floating atavistic splinters of subjectivity and superstition and jokes that aren’t really jokes." Of course, Parker loathes Trump, but that reminded me of something I said about Trump as an exemplar of a new way of speaking:
I'm seeing something more positive about the speaking style of the future (and not just because I do cruel neutrality but because I think I'm speaking in the style of the future too).
Yes, I know, Hillary stumbled and collapsed today. You already know that. If I can think of something original to say about it later, I'll post about that. Right now, I wanted to show you this new Bloggingheads episode, which just went up. It was recorded on Friday morning, so that was before "basket of deplorables." We do talk quite a bit about Trump and the election. I'm going to watch it now, so I'll add some details in an update as I'm reminded of what we talked about.
ADDED: This is the best part, I think, about whether Trump deserves more credit than he's gotten:
ALSO: I think this is the Peter Beinart article that Bob refers to: "Trump's Immigration Policy Trap." I don't think it says what Bob claims it says. I said — as I'd already said on this blog — that it's very hard to find any direct statement from Trump that he would deport the 11 million people who are here illegally but living peaceful, settled lives. Bob says Beinart found them, but what Beinart says is:
At the second debate, on September 16... Trump had promised only to deport undocumented immigrants who are violent criminals. He had ducked Tapper’s question about the entire 11 million....
[I]n the third debate... Trump ignored the reference to deporting 11 million and focused his answer on the wall...
That's my point!
It’s not that Trump never discussed deportation during the primaries. Over the course of hundreds of interviews, he was occasionally forced to admit that, yes, he would send all the undocumented home.
Where's the quote? I think Trump only said things like "They will go home," not that they'd be actively seized and thrown out.
But he discussed the topic as little as possible....
This is from her new column, which argues that Hillary Clinton should not give Bill Clinton a major role in her campaign:
The sex scandal issue isn’t really central, since Americans have a long record of voting for the candidates they think can deliver, regardless of private peccadilloes. And Donald Trump has a history of boorish public behavior that could even overshadow the marital baggage Hillary has to tote. However, she’d be in a much stronger position if she was toting on her own.
The private/public distinctionthere is pretty subtle, but you see the argument. What Trump has done to women — e.g., referring metaphorically to Megyn Kelly's blood, calling Rosie O'Donnell fat — happened in public, but Bill Clinton's woman problems arose out of incidents in which the women was sequestered in a hotel room or the Oval Office. I don't think the private/public distinction cuts in favor of the man who physically imposed himself on vulnerable women in private and against the man who used crass language against powerful female celebrities as part of the public debate.
The phrase "the personal is political" means something important in the fight for women's equality. No one who cares about that fight should call the accusations against Bill Clinton "private peccadilloes." A "peccadillo" is: "A minor fault or sin; a trivial offence." That's the OED definition. Here's one of the illustrative quotes: "What the boy does almost proudly, as a manly peccadillo, the girl will shudder at as a debasing vice." Robert Louis Stevenson, Virginibus Puerisque.
You know what? This is the Governor we're talking about. I had just met the man. A state trooper sitting outside the door with a gun. I know that. I'm terrified. And so what I'm thinking next is what was happening here and what am I going to do next to get out of this room? Is he going to stop here?... And I was talking to him about Hillary and she was working with children's things or something, children's schools at the time, and I remember I was complimenting her on how she was really good with children. And... he came over by the wingback chair close to where I was at. Then it's like he wasn't even paying attention to what I was saying to him. Then he goes, "Oh, I love the way your hair flows down your back. And I was watching you," and stuff like that. Downstairs. And then he did it again. Then he started -- he pulled me over to him while he was leaning up against the wingback chair and he took his hands and was running them up my culottes. And they were long. They were down to my knees. They were long, dressy culottes. And he had his hand up, going up to my middle pelvic area, and he was kissing me on the neck, you know, and trying to kiss me on the lips and I wouldn't let him. And then I backed back. I said, "Stop it. You know, I'm not this kind of girl." I mean. And it still -- and then I ran right over to where the couch was. I thought what am I going to do? I was trying to collect my thoughts. I did not know what to do. I was trying to collect my thoughts. I did not know what to do. After the second time -- after the first time, I had rebuffed him. And then when I got over there and I kind of sat right there by the end of the couch on the -- seemed like on the armchair part. And the next thing you know it, I turn around because he was kind of back over here, and he come over there, pulled his pants down, sat down and asked me to perform oral sex.... He asked me would I kiss it. He goes -- you know, I can see the look on his face right now. He asked me, "Would you kiss it for me?" I mean, it was disgusting.
As Jones was leaving, Clinton said, according to Jones, "You're a smart girl. Let's keep this between ourselves." But she brought a lawsuit, a lawsuit that involved Bill Clinton in lying under oath and that Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to settle.
Private peccadillo. Really, Gail Collins, what do you think the young women of today — women who know sexual harassment and sexual assault are extremely serious — are going to think of your using that word peccadillo?
ADDED: Deja vu. Here I am last January, confronting Glenn Loury about the very same application of the word "peccadillo":
(How much evidence of tech savvy is it that somebody can photoshop a hat on an anime character?)
ADDED: The name Elspeth Reeve is familiar. In May 2015, I had a post titled "Masculinity is hard," about something she wrote in TNR called "No Campaigns for Manly Men." I paraphrased her position as: "without the broad, loud-mouthed, bullying Chris Christie in the presidential race, we have no 'manly men.'" That was, of course, pre-Trump.
You hear, in order, from Heather Hurlburt, Bill Scher, Matt Lewis, Sarah Posner, Robert Farley, Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan, John McWhorter, John Horgan, Michelle Goldberg, David Frum, Glenn Loury, George Johnson, and — last — me:
Calling for "new codes of conduct" on Twitter and drawing us in with the assertion that she is "experiencing violent bullying in the internet," she said:
“I think it’s important to remember that threats are more than someone saying I’m going to come to your house and I’m going to hurt you... Insulting someone’s appearance, insulting someone’s religion, or their race, you know, all of that to me constitutes a threat and I think we can make changes to how we control that dialogue on the internet without threatening our First Amendment rights.”
So, you want a broad definition for "threat," going beyond what you called "violent bullying." (I'm going to guess that "violent bullying" refers to words of violence — like "kill" and "rape" — directed at a particular individual and not restricted to a context where the target is going to need to worry that the the violence will occur.) You want "threat" to cover insults of all kinds, including the banal remarks about how somebody looks and the politically important critiques of religion. Then you want to avoid "threatening our First Amendment rights." But if I accept your meaning of the word "threat," then you are already threatening our First Amendment rights.
This word game works both ways.
I don't know if Dunham was thinking in terms of the actual law, but she did say "First Amendment." "First Amendment" understood narrowly only refers to what the government might do to us. Since Twitter is a private company, no control of the dialogue by Twitter can threaten First Amendment rights, if we stick to the narrow idea. Therefore, we can even adopt Dunham's definition of "threat" and say there can never be a threat to First Amendment rights, no matter how restrictive of speech Twitter becomes, because our oppressor is a private corporation.
"First Amendment" is already too narrow a term for the threat under discussion. We need to say "freedom of speech." This is a topic I've discussed at length elsewhere on this blog — notably here — so I'll stop this post now.
ADDED: Here I am in March 2011 fighting hard for my position that we need to care about what private enterprises can do to our freedom of speech:
"It troubles me that there can't be a serious discussion about immigration issues because people are afraid of being called racist. People are afraid of being called a bigot. And I think one of the things that people like about Donald Trump — those who like him — is that he's going ahead and saying it, and it's creating a kind of inoculation against something people have feared so much, which is being called a bigot. It's just too effective to call people bigots, and a lot of people are very intimidated and silenced and don't even want to talk about certain issues because they don't want to be called that. So I think part of his popularity is: He goes there, he says it, he takes the hit, and it still works for him. So that's a kind of a liberating change in the discourse."
I say, beginning this clip from a video dialogue I recorded on Monday with Glenn Loury:
Glenn agrees with me, says Trump is not doing "dog whistle racism," and proceeds, eventually, to endorse the Trump idea "You either have a country or you don't" and that "if you don't control your border, you don't have a country." (Which Glenn even punctuates with "Duh.")
Glenn goes so far that I eventually prod him with "I think you're a Donald Trump supporter." He doesn't deny it. He even laughs as if it's his secret that I've uncovered. I then propose the theory that there are many people who are intimidated and silenced about being Trump supporters. They don't want to identify with a group that's reputed to be uneducated and dumb. They're afraid of looking like a racist. I predict a cascade when people who've been silent realize that they can say it out loud: "There could be this breakthrough, where a whole lot of people you wouldn't expect would suddenly start saying they were for Donald Trump."
I invite Glenn to start the cascade. If Glenn is for Trump — how liberating! Again, he doesn't reject the idea. He's smiling and seems excited at the idea. He's excited about the political science idea of a cascade. He'd like to research it and write about it and get credit for spotting it. He exhibits so much delight that he abruptly says "I think I should stop talking."
And I say: "I think you're delighted by the possibility of embracing Donald Trump." He says: "I'm excited and amused by the possibility."
IN THE COMMENTS: Glenn Loury writes:
I just want to clarify something. I AM NOT A (CLOSETED) DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER!! I said as much during my conversation with Ann Althouse (listen to the whole thing.) Yes, I agreed with Ann that I don't see Trump's positions as dog-whistle politics meant to appeal to racists. And, I also agreed that some of Trump's formulations had a commonsense appeal ("you don't have a country without controlling its borders"; or, "friends and relatives of homegrown terrorists probably know something, and should tell what they know"...) But, while I do view the spectacle of Trump being the Republican nominee with a certain excitement and amusement, the chance I would ever vote for him is zero. As things now stand, I'm supporting Hilary ...
I respond:
Hi, Glenn. Thanks for commenting.
Of course, if you were closeted, you'd say you were not.
In any case, you decline the opportunity to live on the crest of the cascade, but it will be a more comfortable place soon, and the interesting question is why you didn't confront me about whether I am a closeted Trump supporter.
That's the first question in a series of montages that Bloggingheads is doing to celebrate its 10th anniversary. I'm in this one:
My answer — for the record and for the impatient — is: Nothing. (But those who know me know that one of my core beliefs is: Nothing is a high standard.)
Here's the second montage in the series, with the question: "What have you been proven right about over the last 10 years?"
A lot has changed since April, when Marco Rubio announced his presidential bid. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin was the top candidate of mainstream conservative activists and donors. Jeb Bush seemed like a fund-raising juggernaut with natural appeal to the party’s moderate voters, who play an underrated role in the Republican primary process. Mr. Rubio, a broadly appealing candidate but the top choice of few, looked boxed out.
Today, Mr. Rubio isn’t blocked. Instead, he has a big opening....
I said it back on June 10th:
I originally embedded that clip in a post titled "The get-Rubio movement" — which called out the NYT:
We're seeing evidence of this movement this week with the NYT article "Marco Rubio’s Career Bedeviled by Financial Struggles" and last week's "Marco Rubio and His Wife Cited 17 Times for Traffic Infractions." These are ludicrously weak attacks. Rubio bought an $80,000 fishing boat (which the NYT called a "luxury speedboat") after he received an $800,000 and he chose to lease an Audi (a "luxury item") when he needed a car in 2015. And he's gotten 4 traffic tickets in 18 years. The main thing we learn from all that is that the NYT really wants to get him.
Let me take you back to May 22, when the NYT had a piece titled: "A Hillary Clinton Match-Up With Marco Rubio Is a Scary Thought for Democrats."...
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
पोस्ट्स
