Where is the news in the NYT that Tulsi Gabbard just endorsed Trump?

I had to do a search of the website to find it 7 paragraphs into "How Democrats View Kennedy and Trump: ‘A Weirdo Campaign Just Got Weirder’/Democrats once seriously worried that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be a spoiler. Now, after his endorsement of Donald Trump, they see a political opportunity":

And on Monday, after Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who has rebranded herself as a celebrity in the MAGA movement, endorsed Mr. Trump, the D.N.C. issued a news release with the headline: “Trump’s Circle of Weirdos Gets Even More Extreme.”

The NYT expresses some disapproval of the weirdness theme, calling it "a playground-style strategy" and giving us this juvenile quote:

“A weirdo campaign just got weirder,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a Democratic think tank that has led efforts to stop independent and third-party candidates from siphoning votes from Democrats. “This campaign of freaks is not going to do Republicans any favors.”

Tulsi Gabbard's name appears in another NYT article this morning, "Trump Hits Harris Over ‘Humiliation’ in Military’s Afghan Exit/Courting military votes, Donald Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery to observe the anniversary of a deadly Kabul bombing and then spoke at a National Guard group’s conference."

"President Biden said in a statement that he has received, and accepted, an invitation from CNN for a debate on June 27."

"'Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place,' he wrote. Mr. Trump told Fox News Digital that he 'will be there' and is 'looking forward to being in beautiful Atlanta.' CNN confirmed the date in a statement and said the debate would be hosted in its Atlanta studios, in a crucial swing state, with no audience. Moderators will be announced later."

The NYT reports.

That's brand-new breaking news. It came out just as I was about to put up this TikTok of President Biden challenging Trump to a debate (as if Trump hadn't been saying — for months — "anywhere, any time, any place" to Biden).

"We are working to figure out what a fair debate would look like with the lingering impacts of the auditory processing in mind."

"To be absolutely clear, the occasional issues he is having with auditory processing have no bearing on his ability to do the job as senator. John is healthy and fully capable of showing up and doing the work."

Said Fetterman campaign strategist Rebecca Katz, quoted "Fetterman campaign says stroke recovery factors into fall debate plans/Advisers say the Pennsylvania Democrat can engage in one-on-one conversations but struggles with more chaotic auditory environments" (Washington Post).

Since returning to in-person events, Fetterman’s speeches have been limited to about 10 minutes and are sometimes halting. He has mostly avoided public interactions with reporters and voters... 

“Can you even imagine that if you had a doctor that was mocking your illness or ridiculing that?” Fetterman said in Mercer County....

See the embed below for the video. But was Oz mocking/ridiculing his illness? Actually, no: 

"Who gets left off that first debate stage?"

"The [new!] NBC/WSJ poll measured 16 GOP candidates in our horserace question. And here are the 10 Republicans who make our poll's Top 10 — the criteria being used for the first GOP debate in August — and the six who get left off:"

1. Jeb Bush 22%
2. Scott Walker 17%
3. Marco Rubio 14%
4. Ben Carson 11%
5. Mike Huckabee 9%
6. Rand Paul 7%
7. Rick Perry 5%
8. Ted Cruz 4%
9. Chris Christie 4%
10. Carly Fiorina 2%
11. Donald Trump 1%
12. Lindsey Graham 1%
13. John Kasich 1%
14. Bobby Jindal 0%
15. Rick Santorum 0%
16. George Pataki 0%

"[A]n alliance of students and faculty... must make debate and controversy, not dull pedantic cant, the common style for educational life."

A good line, from a famous statement, made half a century ago.

"I do want you to support me and be my man."

I never embedded this back when it came out about a month ago — just after the first debate. Everyone, it seemed, had already linked to it immediately — with good reason! — and I felt it was instantly too late to be pointing to it. But I must say, it's my favorite thing from the campaign season, Meade and I play it every day and sing lines from it when we're not playing it. We know all the words — within reason/unreason — and allude to them in daily casual conversation. The deep, truthy absurdity gets better and better and serves more and more fundamental needs as the electoral season crawls to its desperate end. Now, first, I want you two to turn and look at each other....



It's party time, chumps!

"Yes it could be a hanky. But it falls kind of heavy, and stays uniform in it's [sic] fold."

"Plus it is flat.  I have never seen a man's hanky be so uniform and flat coming from a front pant's pocket.  Back pocket, yes, breast pocket in a jacket, yes.. but not the front pant pocket."

Daily Kos, theorizing that Romney had a "cheat sheet" during the debate, during which no notes were permitted.

It was a hanky. So Obama's would-be helpers — attempting to besmirch Romney — succeeded only calling attention, once again, to what nearly everybody thought they saw on Thursday: Romney's superior preparation, ability to think on his feet, and eloquence.

ADDED: Gawker gives the history of debate conspiracy theories, and in one of them I — of all people — am the conspiracy theorist. 

"In just a little while, I'll go on stage to meet Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate here in Denver."

Obama emailed last night.

I couldn't be prouder to represent you out there.

Represent me?! Read this morning, it sounds like an outrageous excuse. Like it's my fault. That's representation of me? I didn't know I was so tired and grouchy.

Drudge calls attention to Obama's stance during the debate.

We noticed the foot position here at Meadhouse and Meade said "He's standing like a girl," which made me say "If only he had stiletto heels."

That photo is juxtaposed with the headline "Lost, bewildered without his teleprompter..."

"I’m not a student in your classroom," said Scott Brown to his lady lawprof opponent.

That happened at last night's debate.

After Warren listed the instances in which Brown voted against Democratic-backed bills, a back-and-forth ensued, as the senator tried to respond with a defense of his record. His line brought him some boos. Brown is pitching himself as the likable candidate in this race. Lines like this one could cut against that image he has carefully crafted.

That's WaPo's Sean Sullivan, spinning Brown's effective quip. Boos? I heard cheering. [ADDED: That is, a kind of "ooh!" that sounds to me like appreciation.] The worst thing to me about the clip, which you should watch for yourself, is that Brown lets it show that he's pleased that he got off the funny, telling alternative to "Let me finish" or "I didn't interrupt you, now, please don't interrupt me."

But let's talk about likeability. (Note: I prefer the spelling "likeable" to "likable," even when the candidate seems lickable.) Brown found a memorable, amusing way to cut off an interruption, which made him look good, at least to some people. The key is to look good specifically to those people who are not already strongly against him or for him. Now, the subtlety here is that the man cut off the woman, and he did it in a way that called attention to her position as a teacher, and that's a bit like calling her a schoolmarm, except that we know she's a Harvard law professor, and thus a powerful, elite sort of professor who exercises power in a setting that is traditionally male. She wields masculine power and presumes to control and channel the speech of less powerful males. That's the image of the law school classroom, as depicted — talk about memorable! — in the movie "The Paper Chase."

Now, nearly everyone watching that iconic scene — just linked — in "The Paper Chase," identifies with "Mr. Hart," the student, who resists the control of the imperious lawprof Prof. Kingsfield. And that's how Scott Brown positioned himself, making him a man of the people and her a member of the entitled elite.

Did you watch the Tammy and Tommy debate?

I did, and one of the things I said out loud while watching it was: "I'm glad I didn't blog that I was going to live-blog this." I had, however, blogged to predict that it would be boring, which it mostly was.

We did get some laughs, especially when Tommy said "I built Wisconsin," which he later modifed to "We built Wisconsin." I lost count of the number of times he said he was governor "for 14 years," which was nearly always followed by the statement that he lowered "taxes 91 times," which tied to Tammy having no "record to run on" and being "a taxer and a spender." Those were his talking points.

Everyone's winking at Drudge right now.

Here's the archived page, so you can click all the links. Here's Drudge itself.

Now, let's analyze the winkage. The main headline is Hillary, acknowledging her recent dissembling about Libya. She was just bullshitting before. Meanwhile, Obama's "GETTING SERIOUS," planning a 3-day debate prep. And Putin wants Obama to win. What's Michelle winking about? If the kids feel hungry after the lunches she's skimpified, let them eat cake snack.

"It's not surprising that some youngsters will in the middle of the day be hungry," [Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said]... "We understand that change is difficult... Some folks love it, some folks have had questions about it, but that's to be expected..."

Under the new regulations, cafeterias are required to serve twice as many fruits and vegetables while limiting proteins and carbohydrates. For an average high school student, that means two baked fish nuggets, a cup of vegetables, half a cup of mashed potatoes, one whole grain roll and 8 ounces of fat free milk is the fuel that served to get them through their last four hours of classes.

Regardless of how tall you are, whether you're in a growth spurt, and whether you're active and athletic. Everyone must pay — with their own bodies, as they are trapped in compulsory schooling — for the subset of kids who eat more than their bodies need. One size fits all. Uniformity. 

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The main topic is: Everyone's winking. That means: It's all bullshit now, don't you know?

"Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color. And as you can see, she’s not."

You can see?

Live-blogging the Scott Walker/Tom Barrett Wisconsin recall debate.

It starts at 8. Central, of course. It's Wisconsin, baby. The center of the American political universe. The center, where time is Central. So hang on for 15 minutes. The crazy, recall fun is about to begin.

8:00: Live stream here.

8:03: We're going to get "an educated and civil debate focused on the issues" to "move this state forward," says a man in a 3-piece suit. Blah blah blah about the rules. The moderators are from Sturgeon Bay, Green Bay, and Milwaukee Bay... I mean, Milwaukee.

8:05: Walker won the coin-toss, gave the first opening statement. Now, it's Barrett, slowly and dramatically telling us — as scripted — about how Walker "tore this state apart." He assures us this isn't just "a do-over."

8:08: The first question is: Why are we here? (I.e., isn't this just a do-over?) Barrett says Walker started "a political civil war" and now they want an end to it. Walker says: It's about our reforms, which are working.

8:11: Should we can the recall? (I certainly think we should.) Walker says "absolutely." It's a "horrible waste of money." He thinks voters will want it changed.

8:12: Walker says if he could do it all over again, he'd have explained what he was doing, and most people would have agreed. He fixed it [the budget], then talked about it. Barrett says: "Scott, you started this by saying you were going to 'drop the bomb'... and you would use 'divide and conquer' to go after the workers... and tear this state apart... You decided to use a budget crisis to try to divide and conquer this state... and you succeeded." (A strong challenge from Barrett.)

8:16: The question is about how to count whether we've lost or gained jobs. Barrett is using the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate, which says Wisconsin has lost the most jobs of any state. If Walker's numbers are right, it would mean the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made the greatest mistake ever. Walker says, those numbers are based on a sample of 3%. Walker is using the actual numbers from 97% of the employers in Wisconsin, submitted as required by law. (Walker should take some time to respond to Barrett's "divide and conquer" attack.)

8:19: What counts as a tax increase? Walker touts his caps on property taxes and the "change in attitude" affecting business. "I believe in getting government out of the way." Barrett brings up "divide and conquer" again and brings up Walker's record as Milwaukee County Executive (before he became governor). He talks about trust and says Walker pushed some debt onto our children (but I can't understand what he is referring to).

8:24: A question about who their contributors are. Barrett says Walker raises too much money from out of state. Barrett names a whole lot of cities in Wisconsin — places that people from out of state don't care about. Sturgeon Bay, Superior, Stevens Point... you get the point. The people from out of state see Walker as a "rock star." The "right wing" loves him, because he wants this state to be a "prototype" for the Tea Party. "He's pleasing these billionaires." Walker says in February and March of 2011, the out-of-state money flowed in against his reforms. That's where this all started. He complains about "all the union money" — the "special interests." More than 76% of his donations come from people who gave $50 or less.

8:29: The John Doe investigation. Walker says he has integrity. He was an Eagle Scout as a boy. He helped the investigation, he's not a target, and this is a distraction. Barrett points to Walker's criminal defense fund. (The question asked whether these insinuations about Walker are "responsible.") Barrett says he wants to "clear the air."

8:33: What about the flee-baggers? (The Democratic senators who fled the state.) Barrett says he would "seek to work with people" so we won't "face these huge civil wars." He brings up "divide and conquer" again. He'd "set the tone for the organization." [By "organization," he means the government.] Walker "dropped the bomb" — that was "his phrase." Walker makes claims of some bi-partisan actions. Barrett wants to go back to old battles, says Walker, quoting Barrett saying he'd "target" people and "take them on."

8:36: What about encouraging mining (and protecting the environment)? Walker says recall politics stood in the way of legislation that would have enabled the mining operations to go forward. Barrett says Walker isn't willing to "work with people." Barrett would have brought everyone together and asked: "Is there a need for this mine?"

8:40: Gay marriage. Barrett is for it. Young people favor "marriage equality." He shoehorns equal pay for equal work into his allotted time. Enough with the gays; on to the women. Walker says he's sworn to uphold the (state) constitution, and that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, so that's what he supports. As to equal pay, that's the law and he supports it and enforces it. He has nieces, so it matters to him personally.

8:43: Education. Walker (naturally) says he supports education. He has sons. He explains that his reforms have made more money available to avoid laying off teachers and to favor teachers based on merit. Barrett points to the spending cuts. (I'm still waiting to hear where Barrett would make the cuts to solve the budget problems.) Barrett manages to say "divide and conquer" again.

8:46: Access to health care. Barrett endorses all manner of spending. (Where will he cut?!) Walker cites spending that he did make, with reforms "to make sure it's sustainable." Of course, we have "a basic safety net," but if you can get your health insurance elsewhere, we're going to push you out to that. Barrett hasn't told us what he would do to economize.

8:50: What can Walker do to re-unify the state after all this turmoil? Walker says we sure don't want to go back and "rehash" the things we've already done. It's the "move forward" argument. Barrett says "you have to establish trust." He accuses Walker of dishonesty (referring again to those jobs numbers). He accuses Walker of "punishing" his "enemies." Barrett claims that that he, by contrast, would "work with people" and "get things done."

8:53: Walker has an opportunity to ask Barrett a question, and Walker just declines. He says the voters "don't want to hear us bickering," so it's immediately Barrett's turn to speak. Barrett seems pleased, but he speculates about what Walker might have thought he would ask about, and that would be the John Doe investigation. But that's already been asked, so he asks about Walker's traveling and out-of-state speaking and fund-raising. Will Walker disclose the details? Walker says he thinks the people in Wisconsin who've seen him — here, he names a bunch of Wisconsin places — know he's focused on Wisconsin. "I stood up and took on the powerful special interests at both the state and the local level, [which], in the past, had dictated to taxpayers what they were going to do... I put the power back in the hands of the taxpayers." Barrett repeats his question, the request for details about out-of-state donors. Walker repeats his (non-responsive) answer: He's fought for the taxpayers.

8:56: Closing statements. Barrett says he doesn't want to be a "rock star." He's said "no" to his "friends" as well as his opponents. He wasn't the "first choice" of the unions. Walker doesn't "ask for shared sacrifice." Barrett says (again) that he will "end the civil war." Walker says he "often chuckle[s] when [he] hear[s] the word courage, because, to [him] it's amazing that politics is the only profession out there where you're somehow called courageous just by keeping your word." He gets "courage" from the "people [he] meet[s] every day." He wants to "move the state forward" for the sake of the people of Wisconsin and the next generation.

9:05: I'd say the 2 men were pretty evenly matched. No one made any mistakes. They got their points out, and they both spoke fluently, without losing steam over the course of the hour. I doubt if many minds were changed. If there was an opportunity to screw up, it wasn't taken. I was annoyed by Barrett's calling Governor Walker "Scott" repeatedly. Barrett tried to goad Walker and annoy him, but Walker never took the bait. Walker never showed any disrespect. If anyone noticed that, perhaps there was a slight tip for Walker. But Barrett's the one with the uphill battle here.

There was a glaring question that was never asked, which was: What would Barrett do to solve the state's budget problems? He's never been specific, and he totally got away with it (unless the home viewers noticed it on their own).

Falk and Barrett — rivals in the Wisconsin recall primary — are debating tonight.

Says the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which doesn't say where or when. There's absolutely zero information that would give us a chance to see this debate, in a post that's been up for more than 3 hours.

In the comments: "Nice writing JS, you might want to put a where or when in your story." And: "The debate will be at 7PM tonight at the Clocktower motel in Rockford,Il." Ha ha ha.

Here's the Cap Times. It says the debate will be at the Madison Concourse Hotel. I still don't know what time.

So... was Santorum destroyed at last night's debate?

That's what I heard.

The GOP debate tonight.

Any impressions? We just got home from dinner and are catching up, via DVR.

"What I’d love to see at tonight’s debate..."

"... Ashes."

IN THE COMMENTS: Bob says:

Get real. They have to wear stage makeup for the debate, so if Santorum is wearing ashes for the event, it means he either had an aide prepare ashes for it, or has a priest backstage.

"Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here?"

"I think it’s important for people to make sure that we don’t castigate individuals who’ve been successful."

Last night, Romney owned Gingrich.

ADDED: The phrase "Romney owned Gingrich" also appears in this MSNBC piece, introducing this text:

If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, we'll look back and say the first hour of last night’s debate and say that was when he finally put it away. Romney dominated Newt Gingrich -- from the opening barbs over immigration to his effective response to Gingrich on Freddie/Fannie money (“Mr. Speaker have you checked your own investments?”) to squashing Gingrich’s attempt to co-opt the audience once again (“Wouldn’t it be nice if people wouldn’t make accusations somewhere else that they aren’t willing to make here?”). Romney was aggressive without being petulant. He finally looked comfortable sparring. He looked for the first time like he deserved the moniker “front runner” on stage. And it certainly helped that he had a new debate coach. Romney just wasn’t the same guy.

"The most important debate yet" — according to the intro to the CNN debate starting now.

I'm not going to say I'll live-blog, because such promises seem to sap my energy these days, but feel free to talk about it in the comments, and I'll update if I've got anything to say (beyond the mundane descriptions and transcriptions).

ADDED: "I want anguish to be the official language of government," says Newt, or so it it almost sounds, as he pronounces "English."

AND: My son John is live-blogging, and I really do think he's an ace live-blogger.