"You’ve been in the folk tradition... I wonder how your attitude toward those types of songwriting have differed under President Trump..."

"... versus, at the time, under George W. Bush, when you wrote 'When The President Talks to God,' one of your best-known songs."

The NYT interviewer asks Conor Oberst, in "How Conor Oberst Survived Teenage Rock Stardom" (gift link).

Oberst answers: "You know, it’s really hard for me to even articulate the Trump era. Maybe at some point I’ll be able to do it. It’s like, you can’t satirize what’s already a parody. It’s already a disgusting, gross cartoon.... I’m sure it permeates everything I write, but to write directly toward, I found it almost impossible.... I mean, I’ve thought about it and I’ve had plenty of people be like, where’s the new 'When the President Talks to God'? I don’t know. It’s such an avalanche of insanity."

What is the origin and history of the idea that something/someone is beyond parody because what they already are is the parody?

"[Michelle] Obama called [George W.] Bush 'a wonderful man' and 'a funny man.' 'I love him to death,' she said...."

"'It turns out the country is starved to see a White center-right Republican and an African American center-left Democrat having fun and being able to converse, not as political figures, but as citizens,' Bush said."

From "George W. Bush gifts Michelle Obama a tin of Altoids at Obama Center opening in an ode to their friendship" (CBS News).

"The move would topple a key figurehead but leave in place the repressive Communist government that has ruled Cuba for more than 65 years."

"The Americans have signaled to Cuban negotiators that the president must go, but are leaving the next steps up to the Cubans, the people said. The United States so far is not pushing for any action against Castro family members, who remain the country’s top power brokers, two of the people said. That is consistent with the general desire of Mr. Trump and his aides to force regime compliancerather than regime change in their foreign policy...."

From "Trump Administration Said to Tell Cuba That Its President Has to Go/The United States has told Cuba that for meaningful progress to be made in negotiations, President Miguel Díaz-Canel must step down, said people familiar with the talks" (NYT).

The article at the link on "force regime compliance" is especially interesting: "Trump and Rubio’s Vision of War: The Art of Destroy and Deal/Unleashing his inner hawk, Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans President Trump’s military interventions. So far, they favor regime compliance, not change":

"It’s impossible to determine a single root cause for the overall sense of anger and frustration with government..."

"... but there is a fairly obvious hinge point after which voter fury grew, about 20 years ago. That’s when the Iraq War grew deadlier while the stated purpose of the invasion — to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction — turned out to be false. The housing market had blown up by 2008, causing a financial collapse that left millions of homeowners underwater and, the following year, led to an unemployment rate of 10 percent. Around that time, cable news began breaking away from its early focus on crime and trials and was instead becoming focused wall-to-wall on politics and government, fragmenting into ideological corners just as technology turned phones into instant echo chambers...."

From "Anger is a defining character trait for both parties, new study shows/Updated Pew research shows Democrats are now at record levels of anger toward government, surpassing previous GOP records" (WaPo).

Sample comments: "What a terrible both sidesism essay"/"Before Trump spewed his invectives demonizing our democratic institutions, I was mostly content with our government and felt it reflected our values...."

I like that the essay, by Paul Kane, reminded Democrats that their anger isn't traced to Trump. It was full grown in the Bush era. And you should have seen what it looked like here in Wisconsin in 2011:

"How do we squash the prejudice against female presidential nominees, which has always been with us, but became even worse after Kamala Harris got whomped by Donald Trump?"

Asks Gail Collins in a column with a title that asks a different question, "Where, oh Where, Will the First Female President Come From?"

Maybe it would be better to ask this other question, my question: When will we ever get to evaluate a female presidential candidate as just another presidential candidate? We've been nudged too many times to pick the woman because she is a woman. It makes people wary. I mean, really, why was Kamala Harris foisted on us?

So, yeah, she got "whomped." I'm collecting these colorful words that make losing seem violent but also fun. I'm thinking of George W. Bush taking what he called a "thumping" in the 2006 midterms, and Obama, after the 2010 midterms, saying he'd experienced "a shellacking."

Gail Collins is talking about whomping and squashing. Brutal words, but still polite. Euphemisms.

What's the etymology of "whomp"? It's the sound. A heavy, low sound. From the OED, quoting a 1960 issue of New Scientist: "The Sunday edition of the New York Times..whomped to the floor outside my apartment door."

"Every other recent president has said that he saw his role as transcending partisanship at least some of the time, to serve as leader of all Americans..."

"... even those who disagreed with him. George H.W. Bush talked of ushering in a 'kinder and gentler nation.' Mr. Clinton vowed to be the 'repairer of the breach.' The younger Mr. Bush spoke of being 'a uniter, not a divider.' Barack Obama rejected the idea of a red America and blue America, saying there was only 'the United States of America.' Joseph R. Biden Jr. called for ending 'this uncivil war.' None of them succeeded at achieving such lofty aspirations, and each of them to different degrees played the politics of division at times. Politics, after all, is about division — debating big ideas vigorously until one side wins an election or carries the vote in Congress. But none of them practiced the politics of division as ferociously and consistently as Mr. Trump...."

From "In an Era of Deep Polarization, Unity Is Not Trump’s Mission/President Trump does not subscribe to the traditional notion of being president for all Americans" by Peter Baker, in the NYT.

Who is taking an accurate measure of the consistency and ferocity of the divisiveness of the various Presidents?

My prompt to ChatGPT: "What are the most ferociously divisive things Presidents have said in all of American history? Give me a top 10, with just the quotes, not the explanations."

The list [NOTE: I did not verify the accuracy of these quotes. What follows is with ChatGPT gave me and the entire thing could be hallucination. Proceed with care!]

"We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program," said JD Vance.

Quoted in "Vance says U.S. 'not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program'/President Donald Trump said Saturday night that the U.S. had dropped bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites, the first time the U.S. has directly attacked Iran" (NBC News).

I'm interested in that rhetorical device: "We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program." 

I believe it's called paradiastole — or redescription. Other examples: 

George W. Bush, 2003: "We’re not occupying Iraq. We’re liberating it."

Barack Obama, 2013: "This is not a war on terror. It’s a campaign against specific networks like al-Qaeda."

Bill Clinton, 1999: "This is not a war. It’s a humanitarian intervention."

Benjamin Netanyahu, 2014: "We’re not fighting the Palestinian people. We’re fighting Hamas.”

Ronald Reagan, 1980s: "We’re not waging war against Nicaragua. We’re supporting freedom fighters."

Show Redditors finding a happy place to escape from Trump.

 

Link. Who would have thought, back when GWB was the hated devil, that he would one day provide solace to those who were agonizing over a far more hateful devil?

I like this picture someone put up. Do you see who it is? At first, I thought: LBJ??!? But he's too short:

"But the threat of a second Trump presidency means that having my birth certificate reflect present reality has turned into a matter of grave importance."

"Quite frankly, whatever is on that document may in the not so distant future determine whether one can live one’s life in peace."

Writes Jennifer Finney Boylan, in "Why I Changed My Birth Certificate 25 Years After I Transitioned" (NYT). Boylan is 66 and "transitioned nearly 25 years ago."

Despite the essay title, there's nothing more about the why — no detail about why Trump is a threat and why a revised birth certificate would work as protection against that threat. Most of the essay is about the process of getting the new birth certificate.

It reminded me of the David Rakoff essay "Love It Or Leave It" in his 2005 book "Don't Get Too Comfortable" (commission earned). It begins:

George W. Bush made me want to be an American. It was a need I had not known before.

"Are we just alternating between weird and normal — perceptions of weird and normal? If so, then 2024 is Trump's turn again."

That's the last line of a post I wrote on May 23, 2023 — "DeSantis uses Warren G. Harding's word, 'normalcy': 'We must return normalcy to our communities.'"

That was back when DeSantis was endeavoring to replace Trump by being essentially Trump minus the weirdness. Yes, there was talk of weird-versus-normal just like there is today. I said:

I myself am hungry for normality, but I don't trust people who keep saying "normal." I always think of Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty in "Lolita" — "It's great to see a normal face, 'cause I'm a normal guy. Be great for two normal guys to get together and talk about world events, in a normal way...."

"These guys are just weird. That's where they are.... The fascist depend on fear. The fascists depend on us going back, but we're not afraid of weird people. No, we we're a little bit creeped out, but we're not afraid."

Said Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, in audio played in the new episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, "The V.P.’s Search for a V.P."

The podcast host observes that the message — "Republicans are... just too weird for America" — "does seem like it's sticking a little bit."

Is it "sticking" or is it just the word that's getting said by people who say the same word at the same time. I'm thinking of those people who all used the word "selfless" when Biden accepted getting ousted.

Here's a whole NYT article on the emergence of "weird" as the word: "One Word Has Elevated Minnesota’s Governor to the Democrats’ V.P. Wish List/'These guys are just weird,' Gov. Tim Walz, a former schoolteacher, has said of the opposition."

"Imagine if, when Obama got into office, he decided to prosecute Dick Cheney and George Bush for crimes against humanity."

"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...."

Said Joe Rogan, quoted — with video — at "Rogan: It's Scary How Many Democrats Are Willing To Set These Precedents To Go After Trump" (Real Clear Politics).

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?

ADDED: Here's the blog post of mine from just before that Bloggingheads discussion, "Biden says a President Obama might pursue criminal charges against George Bush." I wrote:

6 quotes from today's oral argument in Trump v. United States.

I listened live and took some handwritten notes, so I could find various things in the transcript. Here are the 6 quotes that made the cut for me. All but one are from the Justices.

1. Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, encourages the Court to see far beyond Trump to the true horror of criminally prosecuting ex-Presidents:

The implications of the Court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for... allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?

2. In a similar vein, from Justice Alito:

So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II? Couldn't that have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against civil rights?

3. Justice Gorsuch makes a brilliant suggestion. If Presidents didn't have immunity from prosecution, they could give themselves the equivalent by pardoning themselves on the way out. And note the reminder that Obama could be on the hook for those drone strike murders:

Biden mutters to himself, frets aloud about "getting in trouble," looks around worried/confused, and mutters to himself again.

Oh my Lord. This man is not well. pic.twitter.com/5UoEW90FD6

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 6, 2024

I don't know if he's "not well" or if he's got something else bothering him, but would somebody please help him? Help us.

ADDED: The look on his face reminded of George W. Bush's "My Pet Goat" interlude. Maybe Biden doesn't want to upset the children. 

"Do you think if there were a new administration... you would be able to reestablish communication with the US government?"

"Or does it not matter who the president is?"

Tucker Carlson asked Vladimir Putin.

Putin's answer: "It is not about the leader. It is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with say, Bush. I know that in the United States he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I assure you that this is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia, too.... [T]he decision... to open the NATOs doors for Ukraine... happened during his presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans. But in general, on a personal, human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American or Russian or European politician. I assure you he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationship with Trump as well. It is not about the personality of the leader. It is about the elite’s mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost based also on forceful actions dominates the American society, nothing will change; it will only get worse...."

Notice that Putin chose which former Presidents to bring up, and he brought up George W. Bush and Trump. Nowhere else in the interview is Trump mentioned by name. Carlson's "if there were a new administration" implies Trump, but Putin's answer refers to Trump in the past. So, Putin, invited to take a position on the American election, chose to distance himself. And yet he did say he had a "personal" and "human level" relationship with Trump.

"The book’s popularity seemed to be fueled in part by the recent re-election of President George W. Bush..."

"... many of whose critics viewed his administration, with its purported dismissal of what one Bush aide called the 'reality-based community,' as exemplifying the very blitheness about truth that Professor Frankfurt had described."

From "Harry G. Frankfurt, Philosopher With a Surprise Best Seller, Dies at 94/He spent his career exploring will and deceit. Then came a sudden success: a bluntly titled book that found that one strain of dishonesty with a barnyard name was worse than lying."

The headline makes it seem as though the NYT doesn't think it's "fit to print" that blunt title — "On Bullshit" (paid link) — but the title does appear in the first paragraph and the word "bullshit" appears over and over in the text of the obituary. The key insight:

"My name is Joe Biden. I’m Dr. Jill Biden’s husband. And I eat Jeni’s ice cream — chocolate chip. I came down because I heard there was chocolate chip ice cream."

"By the way, I have a whole refrigerator full upstairs. You think I’m kidding? I’m not."

Said Joe Biden, quoted in "Biden makes ice cream joke in first statement since Nashville shooting" (NY Post).

Remarkably, Biden again returned to the subject of ice cream with another shout-out to a rep from Jeni’s....

Remarkably? 

"Is the United States Creating a ‘Legion of Doom’?/The emerging China-Russia-Iran axis may force the United States to choose between some unappealing options."

 Asks Daniel Drezner (at Politico).

"Declaring this week that defending Ukraine against Russia’s invasion was not a vital interest for the United States, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida cemented a Republican shift..."

"... away from hawkish foreign policy that has played out over the past decade and accelerated with Donald J. Trump’s political rise. Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis — whose combined support makes up more than 75 percent of Republican primary voters in the nascent 2024 presidential contest — are now largely aligned on Ukraine, signaling a sharp break from the interventionist approach that drove former President George W. Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan."

From "DeSantis, Backing Away From Ukraine, Angers G.O.P. Hawks/The Florida governor, who joined Donald Trump in declaring that defending Ukraine from Russia was not a vital interest, drew swift condemnations from establishment Republicans" (NYT).

DeSantis called the Ukraine/Russia war a “territorial dispute,” and thus, in the words of the NYT, "dismissed the argument that Mr. Putin’s aggression threatened the postwar international order" and "unequivocally rejected the idea that the conflict is a war to defend 'freedom.'"

Lady Gaga is here to help... but don't touch her!

Lady Gaga ran to help a photographer who fell at the #Oscars pic.twitter.com/czfGHvN29s

— Film Updates (@FilmUpdates) March 13, 2023

I like the way she got all dressed and made up and coiffed for the red carpet, then took it all off to do her stage performance styled pretty much like the average person watching the show at home from the couch.