Shared posts

29 Dec 01:14

Unsubscribe Confirmation

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

I donated to the Doug Jones campaign, and that got me on a whole bunch of other email lists. Check out the hilarious choice of banner photo on one of these groups' unsubscribe page:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AOMVjWTBpbWadUdGBXZG-8X5sZQUSDzN/view?usp=sharing

The email address joel.t.dahl@gmail.com has been removed from all future mailings
23 Dec 13:57

Forget what they say — House Democrats are readying for impeachment

To fill their top spot on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats had a choice between experts in two critical policy arenas — a constitutional-law ace with firsthand experience battling Donald Trump, and an architect of sweeping immigration legislation.

By a wide margin, they chose the constitutional-law expert. Why? To ready themselves for a battle with President Trump that could end with impeachment proceedings.

The selection of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) as the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee was the clearest sign yet of how seriously House Democrats consider the possibility of a full-blown constitutional showdown with Trump.

You wouldn’t know it from how many of them talk. When it comes to the i-word, most Democrats have walked a tightrope — with even Nadler hesitant to mention impeachment in interviews before votes were cast Wednesday.

Leaders have cautioned the rank and file not to push for impeachment, because the public might view it as an overreach. The House’s few remaining moderate Democrats from swing districts have regularly warned the party’s liberal flank against making the 2018 midterm elections about Trump or the investigations into his presidential campaign.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), alongside House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), left, on Capitol Hill last month. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

“Look, Robert S. Mueller III is on the case,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), from a western Illinois district that swung to Trump last year. “We’ve got to let him do what he’s going to go and let the facts go wherever they’re going to go. In the end the truth comes out, but I don’t think we need to rush anything more than that.”

Bustos had a one-word reply when asked what issues Democrats need to focus on in the next 11 months: “Jobs.”

Yet Nadler anchored his candidacy for his new position, vacated with the resignation of Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), on the 13 years he has spent as chairman or ranking Democrat on the panel’s Constitution subcommittee and, more recently, its courts subcommittee.

He also politely reminded Democrats in recent days of his efforts, beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing into last decade, to impede Trump’s efforts to develop portions of New York’s Upper West Side, which Nadler has represented in the New York State Assembly, and subsequently the House, for more than 40 years.

Nadler won a secret ballot 118 to 72, demonstrating that this caucus wants to be ready to clash with Trump if it vaults into the majority after next year’s midterm elections.

“There is nobody better prepared, if the president messes around with the Constitution, to handle it than Jerry Nadler,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said after the vote.

Schumer, a confidant of Nadler’s since the 1970s, did not have a vote in the race, but he echoed the sentiment of many House Democrats.

It was not meant as a slight to the importance of immigration, an issue that Nadler’s opponent, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), had argued was the party’s main focus.

And these internal elections for leadership posts and top committee slots often turn largely on personal relationships that lawmakers build over decades in office. This race was no different.

Nadler had the backing of most, if not all, of New York’s 18 Democratic lawmakers, as well as many members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC has long held that seniority (Nadler was elected in 1992 and Lofgren in 1994) should be the most important factor in these posts, rather than qualities such as the ability to raise money. That’s because many of its members come from poorer, urban districts and do not have the wealthy donor bases of some of their colleagues.

Yet Lofgren hails from a state with 39 Democrats, and with more than 60 women casting ballots in the Democratic leadership races, she was considered a strong challenger for a post that Conyers vacated amid sexual harassment allegations.

One Democratic handicapper familiar with recent internal races expected Nadler to win by about 15 votes. Instead, he won by more than double that margin.

What changed the calculus?

“The constitutional argument,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) said in explaining the broad support for Nadler. Democrats, he said, must “prepare for the coming storm.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) played down any division within her caucus, suggesting that the race was spirited but helpful in highlighting key issues. “It was a good, healthy race,” said Pelosi, who stayed neutral. “I thought they both made a very good showing.”

Schumer said he first met Nadler when he “a West Side kid, one of the leaders of the West Side political movement.” The Brooklyn Democrat won his first assembly race in 1974, and Nadler won his two years later.

After a failed 1985 mayoral bid, Nadler won his House seat in 1992 and became a force on the Judiciary Committee, particularly as a top defender in 1998 of President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings.

“History and the precedents alike show that impeachment is not a punishment for crimes but a means to protect our constitutional system,” he said then in his opening statement during the committee’s proceedings. “And it was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a president for personal wrongdoing not related to his office.”

A fairly doctrinaire liberal, Nadler represents a district where Trump received just 19 percent of the vote last year. He refused to attend Trump’s inauguration, saying that he was “legally elected” despite allegations of Russian interference. Instead, Nadler said then, Trump’s actions inflaming racial tensions made him “not legitimate” as president.

By May, after the firing of James B. Comey as FBI director, Nadler told CNN that there might be a “very strong case” for obstruction-of-justice charges against Trump.

Democrats are careful to say that Nadler will not push too far or too fast on any impeachment proceedings. “He doesn’t rush to judgment about anything, very deliberative,” said Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a friend of more than 25 years.

Such cautious statements aside, it’s hard not to conclude that Nadler was given his new job for a singular reason.

“It’s something I think he was made for,” Crowley said. “He’s at the right place at the right time and when we need him most.”

Read more from Paul Kane’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

20 Dec 18:10

Bald Eagle Forest Order 05-01-17-10

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

Oh, cool! There are some nesting bald eagles in the Angeles National Forest! And from the map, it looks like the next is pretty close to SR38, so you could just pull to the side of the road and wait, and you'd probably see one fly overhead eventually.

Bald Eagle Forest Order 05-01-17-10
14 Dec 01:21

National Fire Situational Awareness

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

One of the better maps of the fire areas I've seen.

13 Dec 13:42

Congratulations, Steve Bannon, you just elected a Democrat in Alabama

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

OK, everybody root for Steve Bannon, and everybody hope that Mitch McConnell doesn't succeed in having Bannon poisoned first.


Former White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon. (Brynn Anderson/AP)

Stephen K. Bannon and his alt-right movement have helped accomplish something no one in a quarter-century has been able to do: get a Democrat elected in the state of Alabama.

Alabama is one of the most reliably Republican states in the country. The last time a Democrat was elected was in 1992, and no Democrat has won more than 40 percent of the vote in a Senate race there since 1996. The closest election in recent memory was in 2002, when Jeff Sessions won reelection by a razor-thin margin of 19 points. Sen. Richard Shelby has won his last three elections by 35 points, 30 points and 28 points, respectively. So it takes a special kind of stupid to pick a candidate who can lose to a Democrat in Alabama.

Not just any Democrat, but an uncompromising pro-abortion Democrat. Alabama is one of the most pro-life state in the union. According to the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Alabama voters believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while only 37 percent disagree. And yet the Democrats won with a pro-abortion extremist on the ballot. How extreme? In September, “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd asked Jones what limitations he would support on abortion. He could not name one. “I am a firm believer that a woman should have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body,” he said, “and I’m going to stand up for that and I’m going to make sure that that continues to happen.” When pressed if he would support a ban on late-term abortions after 20 weeks, Jones said, “I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose,” adding that he supports the right to life “once a baby is born. . . . That’s where I become a right-to-lifer.”

Yet despite these radical views, Jones won in pro-life Alabama. Why? Because Bannon and his allies forced Alabamians to choose between a pro-abortion Democrat and an alleged sex predator. Bannon helped nominate a man who was credibly accused of pursuing and sexually molesting teenage girls — and then stood by him when his loathsome alleged conduct was exposed. Bannon counted on distrust of the mainstream media and conservative voters’ repulsion at the Democrats’ pro-abortion views to put his man over the top. It didn’t work. Because while the state’s evangelical Christian majority is appalled by abortion, they are also appalled by grown men who prey on high-school girls.

Now Bannon wants to replicate his disastrous Alabama strategy in Republican primaries across the country. He has announced that he is seeking Moore-like challengers to take on every GOP incumbent except Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.). Bannon is busy taking the GOP back to the glory days of 2010, when Republicans nominated such terrible Senate candidates that they lost very winnable senate races in places such as Delaware and Nevada — losing the chance to retake control of the Senate. The difference is, back then, the stakes were not so high. Barack Obama was president, and unless Republicans could win 60 votes, a few more GOP Senate seats would have made little difference.

But today, a few GOP Senate seats can make all the difference, because Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. President Trump was already struggling to get his agenda passed with a narrow 52-seat GOP Senate majority. Thanks to Bannon, that majority has been whittled down to 51. That makes it harder for Trump to advance any of his remaining agenda next year and complicates his ability to confirm judges and get other nominees through the Senate.

Jones’s victory also put the Democrats within striking distance of taking back control of the Senate in 2018. If that happens, the Trump presidency is over. The “resistance” will control Congress, and Trump’s ability to pass conservative legislation and continue appointing conservative judges — especially another Supreme Court justice — will be gone. Moreover, Democrats will run the Russia investigation and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), as majority leader, will have unbridled subpoena power. Trump could face impeachment proceedings.

That is the future if Trump does not learn the lesson of Alabama and tell Bannon to back off. The goal in 2018 should be to expand Trump’s governing majority, not lose it. Instead of targeting vulnerable Democrats and strengthening the Trump presidency, Bannon is busy destroying the Trump presidency. Trump may want to suggest he stop.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

12 Dec 15:21

‘People are freaking out.’ Will electric vehicles doom your neighborhood auto mechanic?


A significant amount of a car dealer’s income comes from repairs from customers loyal to the brand or dealership. Electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and rarely break down, eliminating much of the maintenance that repair shops rely on. (Andrew Spear for The Washington Post)

Craig Van Batenburg began his career as an auto mechanic in 1970 after falling in love with the internal combustion engine.

But for several years, the 67-year-old from Massachusetts has been warning about its imminent demise. As a wave of electric vehicles quickly approaches, experts say, it could wash away a large portion of a skilled labor group that has been around for decades — the neighborhood auto mechanic.

The reason is simple: Unlike gas-powered engines, electric engines don’t require oil changes, have far fewer moving parts and rarely break down, eliminating much of the maintenance that repair shops rely on. The latest electric vehicles can be serviced using parts purchased online or fixed remotely through over-the-air updates.

The U.S. auto repair industry employs about 750,000 workers, nearly four times the number of people employed by the coal-mining industry. Though they are increasingly skilled and tech-savvy, many experts say, they are not prepared for the end of gas-powered transportation.

“People are freaking out,” Van Batenburg said, noting that some of the resistance to change is strongest in the Midwest and propelled by unfounded rumors of technicians being electrocuted by electric vehicles. “Ninety percent of our industry has done nothing — absolutely nothing to prepare. They just turn the hybrids and EVs away and say, ‘We don’t work on those cars, go back to Ford or Toyota.’ The fear factor is huge.”

Whether it’s Volvo and GM’s decision to stop making gas-powered cars, Uber’s rush to develop a fleet of autonomous vehicles, electric cabs or Tesla’s rise to relevance, the future appears to be coming into greater focus with each passing month. Van Batenburg thinks that Volvo’s announcement was the unofficial “point of no return.” He said he’s not the only one who felt the ground shift beneath his feet. Van Batenburg, who also owns a career-development company that prepares businesses for the arrival of electric and hybrid vehicles, said that before the announcement, his schedule was booked about three months in advance — now it’s more than a year.

Independent auto shops — of which there are more than 160,000 in the United States — have always relied on minor repairs, such as oil changes and new tires, to get customers in the front door. To many a car owner’s surprise, one minor repair often leads to a series of others, giving auto shops a chance to make more money and establish a rapport with customers that can serve them for years.

Electric vehicles threaten to upend this income stream.

Unlike gasoline cars, electric vehicles require no traditional oil changes, fuel filters, spark plug replacements or emission checks. In most cases, you can wave goodbye to changing timing belts, differential fluid and transmission fluid. EV brake pad replacements are less frequent because regenerative braking returns energy to the battery, significantly reducing wear on mechanical brakes because they’re used less to slow the vehicle.

Analysts estimate that the repair bills for EVs would be lower and less frequent than the tabs of their gas-guzzling counterparts.

The Chevy Bolt’s maintenance schedule requires owners to rotate tires every 7,500 miles, replace the cabin air filter every 22,500 miles and have the coolant flushed every 150,000, according to Chevrolet. “And . . . yeah, that’s it,” as one writer recently mused. Some of those parts can be purchased online for less than $20.

Van Batenburg said that during the seven years he’s owned a Nissan Leaf, the car has required about one hour’s worth of maintenance total, which he performed himself. His maintenance costs, however extraordinary sounding, aren’t unusual, according to a random sampling of EV owners.

Over the past six years that he’s driven a Nissan Leaf, Ron Swanson, president of the Electric Auto Association’s North Texas chapter, has had his tires rotated and had a single air filter replaced, spending less than $50, he said.

“We will always need technicians for electric vehicles because all cars have accidents and sustain damage,” he said. “But I think there will be job losses among technicians because there’s just not enough maintenance to go around.”

What does that all mean? There aren’t official estimates, but Van Batenburg predicts that in the next 20 years, two-thirds of the nation’s auto technicians will fall victim to the electric and hybrid revolution — a “mass die-off” in biological terms. But others are far more optimistic about auto technicians chances for survival.

Over the past decade, they reason, vehicles have become better built and far more complex, with dozens of computers interacting on board and millions of lines of computer code. The most progressive auto shops and franchises are already immersed in tech, using iPads, laptops and Google Hangouts to streamline work and keep up with a rapidly changing industry. Businesses that have already begun retraining their employees, they reason, should be able to make the shift to electric. There will always be some work, they say, because tires can last only so many miles, shock absorbers and struts have only so many movements of life in them — and even Tesla batteries don’t last forever.

“We already do a lot more work with a laptop than we do with a wrench anymore,” Bill Moss, the owner of EuroService Automotive, a family-owned repair business in Warrenton, Va., that has begun training employees to work on electric cars. “Some of this is nothing new.”

Jeffrey Cox, vice president of the Automotive Maintenance and Repair Association, believes auto repair shops will be ready for electric vehicles because they have another 10 or 15 years to prepare. 

“I think the introduction of electric vehicles into the mainstream is a longer road than most people think,” he said. “The market share that they’re going to have will be small for the first five years and then it will be another five years before their warranties end they start being resold and needing work.”

But to thrive, optimists like Cox say, the auto technician of the future will need to become some combination of your company’s IT support guy with a car-lover’s mind, someone with the ability to change tires and operate diagnostic and scanning equipment to root out problems involving computer networks and data processing.

Even for repair shops on the cutting edge — often in urban areas where hybrid cars are already commonplace — survival may not be a matter of willingness to adapt, but by how quickly a business can reasonably do so. Though he doesn’t foresee his industry being wiped out by electric cars, Moss said he expects electric technology to arrive much faster than most analysts predict. “Technology compresses time,” he likes to say, which is why he thinks people should be worried about 2025 — not 2040.

His bold prediction: Some neighborhood service stations will still exist then, but he expects them to be filled with more charging ports than gas hoses. The implications of that rapid transformation, of course, are hard to predict.

“It wasn’t 10 years ago that automakers thought they had to put phones in cars and then they would build the car and by the time the car was sold the phone was outdated,” Moss said. “Don’t forget: Technology compresses time.”

MORE READING: 

Uber paid off their hackers — and they’re far from the only ones

Tesla’s latest creation: An electric big rig that can travel 500 miles on a single charge

For decades, the blind have used canes to get around. Now a special wristband gives them a ‘sixth sense.’

11 Dec 14:22

Breast-feeding Houston mom says she was kicked off Spirit Airlines flight

Spirit Airlines stood by the decision to take Mei Rui and her family off the plane. (Larry MacDougal/AP)

The flight was already shaping up as a classic holiday season travel headache, and the plane had not even left the ground.

Mei Rui, an acclaimed concert pianist and a cancer researcher, was supposed to catch a Spirit Airlines flight from her home in Houston to Newark on Friday. The trip was for a recording connected with a clinical cancer study in New York City. The plans were made months ago. Rui’s elderly mother and father were along for the ride, as was her 2-year-old son.

But the 6:30 a.m. flight was repeatedly delayed due to weather, stranding passengers in the cabin, she said, a fact confirmed by flight data. When it finally seemed like the jet was ready to go, she began breast-feeding her son, hoping it would put him to sleep — and keep him from crying — on the three-hour ride.

“Every parent with a young child can image, you don’t want to be that parent on the plane,” she told The Washington Post. “It would be very embarrassing. I was just trying to avoid that.”

According to Rui, while the plane’s door was still open and people were moving about the cabin, a few flight attendants walked by without saying anything. Then one approached Rui and said her baby had to be in his seat for takeoff.

“I asked for just a couple more minutes to finish because if he woke up at that point he would have made a lot of noise,” Rui said. “I said, ‘I promise I’ll finish before you close the plane’s door.’”

The flight attendants conferred at the front of the plane. Rui stopped feeding her son, and as she predicted, the baby began crying. That was when the crew instructed Rui she needed to get off the plane, she told The Post. With her cellphone camera rolling, Rui asked why she was being asked to leave if the baby was strapped in.

“It’s not like I was resistant, I put him in the seat,” she said. “If they had shown a little compassion, it wouldn’t have happened, they didn’t have to let it escalate.”

Eventually, the crew announced all the passengers had to get off their phones. At the end of the Jetway, police officers were waiting as the mom struggled along with her crying son. A Spirit Airlines representative told her she would not be allowed back on board.

“I just want to know why we were kicked off the plane?” Rui asked the airline representative as he and a handful of uniformed officers blocked her from the plane gate.

“Because you were not compliant.”

“Could you tell me which part of the instruction we were not compliant with?” she asked as her son continued to cry. “I think we deserve to know that.”

But the airline representative declined to give more details.

“If this happened to your family.” Rui said.

But the airline representative cut her off. “It wouldn’t happen to my family, I can assure you.”

According to Rui, her mother and father, Chinese natives who lived through the traumatic experience of the country’s Cultural Revolution, were already terrified from the run-in with plane authorities.

But the day got worse, she says. The family waited for an hour for their luggage, but the items were never returned. Then, after riding back home, Rui’s father, who suffers from heart ailments, collapsed and had to be rushed to the emergency room.

In a statement to Houston’s KHOU, Spirit stood by the decision to take Rui and her family off the plane.

“Our records indicate a passenger was removed from Flight 712 after refusing to comply with crew instructions several times during taxi to runway and safety briefing. To protect the safety of our guests and crew, FAA regulations and airline policies require all passengers to stay seated and buckled during takeoff and landing. We apologize for any inconvenience to our guests. As a courtesy, we’ve issued a full refund to the passenger in question.”

Rui never made it to New York. The run-in with Spirit was another blow in an already tough year, Rui said. Her family lost their house and possessions (including her piano) in Hurricane Harvey, she said, and they are still living in temporary housing.

Rui, a Yale graduate, holds degrees in molecular biophysics and biochemistry and music. She’s been performing classical piano since the age of 10 and received a Grammy nomination in 2015, according to her biography. 

“They treated us like we were criminals,” she told The Post. “A baby crying is not a crime.”

More from Morning Mix:

Megyn Kelly’s dismal ratings rise with focus on sexual harassment. Next up: Trump accusers.

6-year-old made $11 million in one year reviewing toys on You Tube

One of Japan’s few female Shinto priests was killed in a Samurai sword attack. Was it sibling rivalry?

11 Dec 14:02

New York Explosion Empties Port Authority and Subway Stations

Firefighters arrived on Eighth Avenue near the scene of a reported explosion on Monday morning in Manhattan. David Scull/The New York Times

An explosion Monday morning caused the authorities to evacuate one of the busiest transit hubs in New York City as the workweek was set to begin.

The Police Department said in a tweet that it was responding to reports of an explosion of unknown origin at 42nd Street and 8th Avenue, where two subway stations, Times Square and Port Authority, are connected by a tunnel. The Port Authority bus station was also evacuated.

One person was in custody, the Police Department said. He may have been carrying a device that could have been a pipe bomb, which exploded.

The official emphasized that the information was preliminary and investigators were still arriving at the scene. The explosion occurred in the passageway between the two subway stations.

A senior city official who declined to be identified because of the continuing investigation said that the suspect had been wearing an explosive device strapped to his person and that the police had stripped him naked to remove it.

The suspect was alone and the device went off prematurely. The explosion was recorded on surveillance video, the city official said. The man who was in custody was in serious condition at Bellevue Hospital.

The police said that no other injuries had been reported and advised people to avoid the area.

Soon after the explosion was reported, the commutes of New Yorkers miles away from the blast became chaotic. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority reported that 1, 2, 3, A, C, E, N, Q, R, W and 7 trains were skipping 42nd Street.

Commuters underground near 40th Street and 8th Avenue began to flee after a loud, muffled sound was heard in the Port Authority subway station. Police officers, firefighters and Port Authority counterterrorism officials tried to clear commuters from the bus station and the west side of 8th Avenue as sirens blared.

Andre Rodriguez, 62, a caseworker at one of the city’s shelters, said he heard an explosion shortly before 7:30.

“I was going through the turnstile,” he said. “It sounded like an explosion, and everybody started running.”

Alicja Wlodkowski, 51, said that she had been in a restaurant inside the Port Authority when she suddenly saw a crowd of people running.

“A woman fell, and nobody even stopped to help her because it was so crazy,” she said. Then it all slowed down. I was standing and watching and scared.”

01 Dec 14:42

Roseanne - Johnny Galecki returning

by Klutzy_girl
Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

Seriously? They're bringing back "Roseanne?" Is there anything that isn't a remake anymore?

Roseanne definitely had a few awesome seasons, but it was definitely also a show that should have ended about five or so seasons before it actually did. There is absolutely no need for more of it.

Unless they bring back Joss Whedon to its writing staff (Whedon started there as a baby writer), in which case I'm in for whatever they do.



While Johnny Galecki had been in talks to return to the blue-collar sitcom family, the Big Bang Theory star was confirmed for a role by executive producer Whitney Cummings.

Cummings shared an Instagram story from production, which featured a snapshot of Galecki’s seat on set.

Source:
More at EW
28 Nov 17:07

The Bad News on ‘Good’ Girls

Photo
Credit Rose Blake

At a backyard barbecue when I was about 10, my little sister and I overheard my dad talking to another father. “You know, I think if they were boys, I would probably let them play a little farther down the street,” my feminist-minded dad said, in a moment of father-bonding frankness. My sister and I were incensed, and when we got home, we let him have it — how dare he suggest he would treat us differently if we were boys?

Like many middle-class millennial daughters, my sister and I embodied a new model of the “good girl”: well-behaved, college-bound A students who played sports, had a full roster of extracurricular activities and were expected (by our parents and ourselves) to be moving toward successful careers.

What girls like us didn’t realize — what too often our own parents didn’t realize — is that the entrenched and often invisible gender biases of the adults around us would indelibly shape our paths and often set us on a different (harder, less fruitful) course than the boys in our orbit.

Girls today receive two conflicting messages: Be mighty and be good.

Now-pervasive “Girl power” messaging declares that girls can be anything they want. But in practice, the more subtle rewards for compliant behavior show girls that it pays to be sweet and passive. The sexual harassment revelations that have come to light over the past few months show just how dangerous this model can be.

Routinely, victims of harassment and assault didn’t challenge their abusers or immediately file complaints not just because they didn’t want to endanger their own careers (although there was that, too), but because women have been conditioned for acquiescence to authority and male power their whole lives.

Continue reading the main story

Recent Comments

tk

"Men, on the other hand, have been raised to embrace risk-taking and aggression"Yes indeed, but the question is why?The answer is...

Adalbert Lallier

Just wondering about the relationship of Weinstein, Franken, Rose, and the many other predators, especially with their mothers ... mainly...

Elizabeth Carlisle

Go into any girls' clothing section and you'll find scores of dresses that include sparkly-tulle princess outfits to lacy/leopard print...

  • See All Comments

Men, on the other hand, have been raised to embrace risk-taking and aggression. Girls are taught to protect themselves from predation, and they internalize the message that they are inherently vulnerable; boys move through the world not nearly as encumbered and certainly not seeing their own bodies as sources of weakness or objects for others’ desires.

While girls are being told to protect themselves, too many boys are growing into the men they need to be protected from.

This is not the world most parents want for their children. But ideas of how girls and boys (and men and women) should be run deep. Fathers today largely say that they want their daughters to be intelligent, independent and strong, but many men also seem to prefer sons. Although they may not mean to, parents and other adults do treat girls differently from boys — often to the long-term detriment of daughters.

Girls are more likely to be praised for being good, while boys are commended for making an effort. Being a “good girl” today means sitting quietly at school, following instructions, completing tasks and getting good grades. At that, girls have largely succeeded, which accounts for much of the gender achievement gap in education — if a decade-long pattern holds, more young women than young men will walk out the doors of their college in the spring with a degree in hand.

Girls are also generally raised to be more emotionally intelligent and verbal than boys. Dads sing to daughters more than sons, and the language they use with their girls is more analytical and emotive, something researchers suspect contributes to girls’ higher achievement in school. With boys, dads are more physical, and more likely to roughhouse. And at the toy store, girls are still tracked toward the “pink aisle” of baby and princess dolls suited for quiet, care-taking play.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box.

Invalid email address. Please re-enter.

You must select a newsletter to subscribe to.

Sign Up
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

Thank you for subscribing.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

View all New York Times newsletters.

This good behavior gives girls an advantage inside the classroom, but it can cost them outside of it later on, especially in high-earning fields like technology that value assertiveness and creativity and entrepreneurial roles that reward risk-taking. Biology certainly plays a role in development and may also influence gendered preferences, but we are fundamentally social creatures who form identities in relation to our families and communities; whatever natural differences do exist are magnified, and often totally invented, by how we’re nurtured.

While girls are being taught to be emotionally competent, they also learn to be responsive to the needs of others — not a bad thing in theory, except that it can cross over into subservience. When boys aren’t learning the same, it’s adult women who end up serving as caretakers for adult men, both in their homes and in their workplaces.

In the workplace, being seen as helpers rather than bosses undercuts women and their perceived competence. These gendered expectations cut the other way as well: Women who refuse to take on the helper role are seen as difficult, which also impedes their success.

And then, of course, there is the harassment too many women endure at work, a dynamic largely driven by male power and entitlement, and enabled by expectations of female obedience.

So what are parents to do if they want to raise both their sons and their daughters to avoid, or dismantle, these traps? Raising children without gendered roles and expectations seems to serve those children well, but that’s tough to do outside of Sweden — in an age of “gender reveal parties” and the princessification of American girlhood, asking a sales clerk for help buying a baby shower gift brings the automatic response, “For a boy or a girl?”

One place to start is looking within. Many parents say they want their sons and daughters to be treated as equals in and outside of the home, but their actions don’t seem to match their words. In more than a quarter of American families, the mother is the full-time caregiver for the children; the husbands in these families are less likely to promote female co-workers, and when the sons of stay-at-home moms grow up, they’re less likely to pitch in around their own homes. Young men seem to have gotten the message: Nearly half of them think it’s better if men are breadwinners and women stay home.

When children see the men around them in positions of power in the office and relaxing at home while the women are packing lunches, planning birthday parties and scheduling appointments, they internalize the message that men lead and women help. According to one study, nearly a quarter of teenage girls and 40 percent of teenage boys said men make better political leaders than women; just 8 percent of girls and 4 percent of boys said women are better leaders. But both boys and girls preferred women in traditional female roles, such as caring for children.

What could make a big difference is raising boys more like our girls — fostering kindness and caretaking, not just by telling them to respect women, but by modeling egalitarianism and male affection and emotional aptitude at home. While parents and other adults teach girls to protect themselves against the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, that doesn’t do much to stem the tide of Weinsteins. Raising our boys differently would.

Parents should also shift the ways they teach girls to protect themselves. When we’re young, many of us were told to tell Mom and Dad if anyone ever touched us in a way that felt icky; as we grow up, we are armed with pepper spray and rape whistles, with instructions to always carry cab fare, not leave our drinks unattended at a bar, that no should mean no.

This is an understandable impulse, and some of the advice is good. But what girls don’t learn is how to be the solo aviators of their own perfect, powerful bodies — to happily inhabit their own skin instead of seeing their physical selves as objects to be assessed and hopefully affirmed by others; to feel entitled to sex they actively desire themselves, instead of positioned to either accept or reject men’s advances. Nor are we allowed full expressions of rage or other unfeminine emotions when we are mistreated. No wonder we try to politely excuse ourselves from predatory men instead of responding with the ire that predation merits.

Write A Comment

One of the most important ways to move forward at this moment is to simply be aware that these assumptions and prejudices exist, and to deal with them head-on instead of pretending they aren’t there. Here, daughters of conservative men are at a particular disadvantage: Three-quarters of Republican men say that sexism is mostly a thing of the past.

Which is why, 20 years later, I appreciate my father’s candor, even if it wasn’t meant for my ears. First, he named his own bias out loud, recognizing that despite his best intentions, he was perhaps predisposed to treat his girls differently from how he would have treated boys. And then he worked not just to protect us, or tell us to protect ourselves, but to push us to walk a little farther out in the world.

Jill Filipovic is the author of “The H Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness” and a contributing opinion writer.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

28 Nov 17:05

John Boehner Unchained

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

Long, and doesn't ultimately tell us all that much that we didn't already know or could infer, but interesting nonetheless.

Former House Speaker John Boehner tinkers with his lawn mower.

WEST CHESTER, Ohio—He swings the golf club like a right-hander, which he is, but putts as a southpaw. Maybe it’s a metaphor for a conservative politician who often turned to liberals in crunch time, but I’m too busy losing $20 on this hole to appreciate it. We’re on the green now, surveying his 10-foot par attempt, a modest breeze transporting his tobacco cologne. With a posture as unique as his personality—back hunched over nearly parallel to the turf, left shoulder dipped well below the right, fingers interlocked around a grip of blue rubber—he gazes downward and shuffles his feet. The veins are still dancing in his muscular, leathery legs as the blade retreats from the ball, and it’s apparent within moments of their reunion that something isn’t right. As the Titleist Pro V1 finds its resting place, several feet shy and slightly west of its final destination, he can’t mask his frustration. “Nice one, Boner,” he mutters.

To play golf with John Boehner is to learn there are unwritten rules governing the use of the word Boner. When spoken by his close friends—“Thatta boy, Boner!”—it’s almost always to congratulate him on a good shot. When the former U.S. House speaker uses it—“Aww, Jee-sus, Boner!”—it’s almost always to rebuke himself for a bad one. Today he is saying it with ruinous frequency.

Story Continued Below

We’re on Boehner’s home course, the Wetherington Golf and Country Club, on a Monday afternoon in early June. Tucked away in West Chester, Ohio—an affluent enclave of suburban Cincinnati, part of his old district—the club is hosting a charity fundraiser, dubbed the “Boehner Classic,” benefiting a nearby Boys & Girls Club. The former speaker is one of two star attractions; the other is his friend, the professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller, a character known more for his off-color jokes than his two major championships. With wealthy donors ponying up to play alongside them—but some of his old buddies also in town—Boehner decides to form a group of nine players, myself and Zoeller included, and creates a team scramble that pits five golfers against the other four.

But something isn’t right with the former speaker’s game. Long considered one of Washington’s finest golfers, he is spraying shots left and right with choppy, self-doubting swings. Sensing my surprise, Boehner says his handicap has skyrocketed since leaving Congress two years ago. After he misses that 10-foot putt, and we climb into our cart, I ask why. “You have to concentrate while you hit the ball,” he tells me. “That’s my biggest problem in golf these days. I just can’t concentrate. I could always concentrate on what I had to do. But these days … ” Boehner pauses for several seconds, then pulls hard on the Camel 99 wedged between his knuckles. “I just can’t concentrate.”

***

To outsiders, Boehner might just be the happiest man alive, a liberated retiree who spends his days swirling merlot and cackling at Speaker Paul Ryan’s misfortune. The truth is more complicated. At 67, Boehner is liberated—to say what he spent many years trying not to say; to smoke his two packs a day without undue stress; to chuckle at the latest crisis in Washington and whisper to himself those three magic words: “Not my problem.” And yet he is struggling—with the lingering perception that he was run out of Congress; with his alarm about the country’s future; and with the question of what he’s supposed to do next. After leaving office, Boehner says a longtime family friend approached him. “You’ve always had a purpose—your business, your family, politics,” the friend said. “What’s your purpose now?” Boehner says the question gnaws at him every day.

Boehner-Secondary1-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

We met three times over the summer, his most candid and revealing series of interviews since a third attempted coup on his speakership led him to say to hell with it and retire early. The first interview was in June at Wetherington; the second in July at Burning Tree Club, a private, all-male establishment in Bethesda, Maryland; the third in September following a joint fundraiser with Ryan at the Bengals vs. Packers game in Green Bay, Wisconsin. In the whole of our conversations, he asked only five or six times for something to remain off the record. In those instances, I agreed. Everything else was fair game—and he did not disappoint. From his text messages with George W. Bush, to his scathing critiques of conservative media and his former antagonists on Capitol Hill, to his disgust at America’s being stuck with a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the former speaker held little back.

What I discovered from 18 hours on the record with him, and dozens more with his friends, is that for all the talk of Boehner living the dream in retirement—mowing and manicuring his lawn, fiddling around at his workbench, spending time with his grandson—he is lacking a certain peace. It’s the type of tranquility that accompanies the knowledge that your life’s work won’t be remembered as a failure; that the party and the institution you gave everything to aren’t collapsing because of mistakes you might have made.

Boehner is a fascinating and paradoxical figure in his own right. He was the brilliant salesman who couldn’t get his own members to buy. The back-slapping creature of K Street who never took a single earmark. The gruff chain-smoker who weeps at the mere mention of schoolchildren. The Midwestern everyman who won’t be seen in public without a clean shave and an ironed shirt. The bartender’s son who became speaker of the House.

But the story of Boehner’s 25 years in Washington is also the story of the Republican Party, the Congress and American politics in the post-Ronald Reagan era: an account of corruption and crusading, enormous promises and underwhelming results, growing ideological polarization and declining faith in government. The same centrifugal forces that made Boehner’s job impossible have bedeviled his successor, Ryan, and kept the GOP majorities in Congress from passing any landmark legislation in 2017. Now, as the revolutionary fervor that swept Boehner into the speakership degenerates into a fratricidal conflict centered around Trump, the former speaker’s frontline view of the Republican civil war is essential to understanding what went wrong.

***

On the eve of his golf outing, I find myself on Boehner’s back patio. He’s hosting a barbecue for friends who came to Ohio for the fundraiser, and we get acquainted as Boehner works several outdoor grills, Camel in his left hand and tongs in his right. Among others seated around the table, sipping Maker’s Mark 46 from blue plastic cups and smoking cigars, are Dick, who owns a winter home near Boehner’s on Florida’s Marco Island; Ed, who also spends winters on Marco Island but still runs a business out of western Ohio; and Mick, the longtime chief of staff in Boehner’s personal office who lives nearby. All three promise that I’m in for a treat. They aren’t lying: Boehner has prepared a feast of teriyaki-marinated flank steaks, his specialty; chunks of seared beef tenderloin; grilled chicken breasts; a salad of avocado, tomatoes and fresh mozzarella; au gratin potatoes; a sweet corn skillet; and baked crescent rolls. As we eat, someone jokes that the only thing missing are hot dogs. Boehner looks up from his plate. “I’ve never had a hot dog for dinner in my life,” he says, stone-faced.

After we eat, Boehner sits across from me, reaches for a lighter and indicates he’s ready to talk. Boehner smokes two packs a day and has a habit of pinching off the smoldering end of his cigarette, rolling the butt into a ball and shoving it into his pocket. (On the back nine a day later, Boehner stops at a receptacle and scoops from his pocket some two dozen smoke-stained balls.) Of his 11 siblings, one has passed away. It was lung cancer. Boehner says this doesn’t concern him—“If I was going to die from smoking cigarettes, I’d already be dead”—but I notice that his laughs, which come often and easy, are almost always accompanied by coughs. Ah-heh. Ah-heh.

Breaking the ice, I mention some news of the day—that Trey Gowdy appears likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The previous chairman, Jason Chaffetz, had abruptly announced his resignation from Congress; House conservatives had hoped that Jim Jordan, a senior member on the committee, might pursue the chairmanship. Boehner grins. “Gowdy—that’s my guy, even though he doesn’t know how to dress,” he says. Then Boehner leans back in his chair. “Fuck Jordan. Fuck Chaffetz. They’re both assholes.”

And away we go.

Boehner-Secondary10-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

Boehner’s beef with Chaffetz, who would later join Fox News as a paid contributor, is not personal—just that he’s a “total phony” who possessed legislative talent but focused mostly on self-promotion. “With Chaffetz,” Boehner says, “it’s always about Chaffetz.”

His problems with Jordan, the founding chairman of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, run much deeper. To Boehner and his allies, Jordan was the antagonist in the story of his speakership—an embodiment of the brinkmanship and betrayal that roiled the House Republican majority and made Boehner’s life miserable. Although he would tell me in later conversations that he holds no grudges against anyone, today Boehner unloads on his fellow Ohioan. “Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner says. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”

If he sounds exasperated, it’s because this is the central irony of his career: A quarter-century before the conservative insurgency stormed Washington and derailed his speakership, John Boehner was the conservative insurgency.

***

ACT I

Boehner’s pursuit of national office was his first rebellion against the establishment.

When the news broke in 1989 that Ohio Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens, a Republican, had paid a 16-year-old for sex—and was trying to get her mother a government job—the party bosses tried pushing him out. Lukens wouldn’t budge. So they coalesced around a challenger: former GOP Congressman Tom Kindness, who had held the seat prior to Lukens. Months went by before Boehner, a state representative who had made himself wealthy selling corrugated boxes and injection-molded plastics, jumped into the race—much to the displeasure of party leaders. Boehner didn’t have insider connections or family favors to cash in; one of a dozen kids who grew up in a two-bedroom home and cleaned floors in his father’s shot-and-a-beer saloon, he worked as a janitor to pay for college and first took elected office as a township trustee before later winning a statehouse seat.

Armed with little name recognition and even less support, Boehner poured his own money into the race—nearly emptying his family’s bank account by spending $150,000 on the campaign. “It was too much money,” Debbie Boehner, his wife, tells me. Her husband nods. “I put it all on the line.” Money wasn’t Boehner’s problem; it was his name. Almost everyone in the district pronounced it Boner. “Think about this,” Mick tells me on the patio, laughing so hard he can barely finish. “You had a guy named Kindness running against a guy named Boner.” Defying expectations, Boehner won the primary and gained the party’s support. That included help from Paul Ryan, a local college Republican who volunteered that fall. “I didn’t know him,” Ryan says. “I thought his name was Boner.”

BOEHNER ON ... CONGRESS

“We’ve got some of the smartest people in America who serve in the Congress, and we’ve got some of the dumbest. We have some of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet, and some that are Nazis. Congress is nothing more than a slice of America.”

By then, the Democrats’ post-Watergate zeal for reform had long since faded, and the House was widely seen as the oozing center of the Washington swamp—an out-of-control legislative slum that invited malfeasance and vice. It was against this backdrop that Boehner, a newcomer, made it his mission to clean up Congress. “He indicated he wanted to be very aggressive and very much involved in reform efforts, and he brought a lot of energy to it,” Newt Gingrich, who was then the second-ranking House Republican, remembers of the freshman lawmaker.

Almost from the day he arrived on Capitol Hill in January 1991, Boehner found himself arguing with employees of the House Bank—a financial institution for members of Congress only—who explained that his paycheck could be deposited only with them. These rules vexed the rookie legislator. Months later, he spotted a statistic from the Government Accountability Office audit of the House Bank: more than 8,000 of its checks had bounced. “They needed all of us to keep our money in those accounts so they could have a big enough float to keep the bank alive,” Boehner recalls. After discussing this realization with six of his fellow freshman Republicans, they agreed to expose the rot. As they did so, in the form of a privileged resolution, Boehner tells me, Speaker Tom Foley and Majority Leader Dick Gephardt—both Democrats—approached him on the House floor, as did Bob Michel, the Republican minority leader. “All three of them said essentially the same thing,” Boehner remembers. “‘We didn’t do anything wrong, and we won’t do it again.’” As Boehner and Co. dug deeper, probing the bank’s finances and pushing for the disclosure of members whose accounts were overdrawn, they earned a nickname: the Gang of Seven. Less than a year into his first term, as Americans seethed over the improprieties exposed by these freshman renegades—with Democrats, the majority party, shouldering the blame—the House Bank was closed. And Boehner’s star was born.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The Gang’s work wasn’t finished. Over the next several years they turned their attention to other targets, including the scandal-plagued House Post Office, leading to the indictment and imprisonment of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, a powerful Illinois Democrat. Sensing an opportunity to seize Washington’s moral high ground and win back the House after 40 years in the minority—President Bill Clinton’s own troubles would be icing on the cake—Gingrich enlisted Boehner to help draft the “Contract with America,” a list of promises to voters.

As he helped guide the party’s midterm strategy, Boehner’s high-profile role made him a hero to reform-minded conservatives seeking office across the country in part of what would later be dubbed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. Richard Burr, who today is the senior senator from North Carolina, was campaigning for a House seat that year and remembers hearing about Boehner. “I think John was probably the first one that actually intended to drain the swamp. He was a radical,” Burr says. “The closest example would be a Freedom Caucus guy today.” Jordan, running his first race for the statehouse that year, recalls fawning over his future nemesis. “Here’s a guy who’s fighting to clean things up in Washington.”

Boehner-Secondary4-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

Republicans won the majority, and Boehner, leveraging his newfound celebrity, ran for the No. 4 spot in House leadership: conference chairman. Gingrich had become speaker with Michel’s retirement, and he had a different person in mind for conference chair. But Boehner won anyway, cashing in on favors he had accumulated by virtue of his status as a prodigious young fundraiser.

At freshman orientation following the 1994 midterms, Boehner, now a four-year veteran of the House, sat with three incoming members—Burr, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Tom Latham of Iowa—and discovered they had much in common. The four would become inseparable. “There’s a very small cadre of things that makes John Boehner like you,” Burr says. “We all liked red wine. At the time most of us used tobacco products. … John had his, let’s say, peculiarities about him. He was not shy to be critical of one’s hair or one’s dress if in fact he found it to be outside of what he perceived to be appropriate or the norm. And I think we were the only three people that were willing to put up with his crap. So, we became his best friends.”

Boehner’s fastidiousness would become legendary among colleagues. Friends say he would iron virtually every piece of clothing—shirts, undershirts, boxer shorts, pants, suit jackets, ties. Patrick McHenry, currently the chief deputy whip, recalls how, on his first day in Congress in 2005, Boehner walked into the cloakroom and spotted him eating an ice cream sandwich. They had never met. Boehner lit a cigarette and scowled at him. “Don’t do that,” he said, pointing to the frozen snack. “Why?” McHenry replied. “You’re gonna be a fatass,” Boehner told him.

BOEHNER ON ... THE HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS

“They can’t tell you what they’re for. They can tell you everything they’re against. They’re anarchists. They want total chaos. Tear it all down and start over. That’s where their mindset is.”

This is Boehner’s way of showing affection; after he calls me “shithead” for the umpteenth time on the golf course, his buddy Dick leans over. “You know that means he likes you, right?” (His buddies have the same towel-snapping style. At one point, I hit a low, screaming drive. “You know what your problem is?” Fuzzy Zoeller asks me. “L.O.F.T.” I nod, saying I should tee my ball higher. “No,” he shakes his head. “Lack of fucking talent.” Boehner howls with approval.)

Having watched Gingrich stalk the halls of Congress, rarely making eye contact with colleagues—much less greeting them—Boehner knew he needed to engage members while still being himself. “You grow up in a bar and you learn to mix it up with people,” Boehner says. “It was a way of building relationships, as goofy as it sounds. And if you’ve got a relationship with people, you’ve got a chance to move them.”

Those relationships failed to save him from what looked like a political death sentence.

***

The year 1994 didn’t just usher in new leadership to the House and the GOP; it marked a profound shift in Washington’s partisan relations. Gingrich, a master messenger with a zero-sum approach to ideological warfare, perfected the art of launching poll-tested attacks on Democrats as “radicals” who threatened liberty. With a penchant for turning personal disagreement into political Armageddon, Gingrich weaponized the speakership as never before.

“The beginning of the scorched-earth policy really began with Gingrich winning in the mid-’90s, the Gingrich revolution, and the enormous pressure put on moderate Republicans to walk away from anything remotely approaching a compromise,” says former Vice President Joe Biden, who was then a senator from Delaware.

Another change, one that would later inform some of the opposition to Boehner’s speakership, was the consolidation of power at the expense of committee chairmen and rank-and-file members. “Gingrich basically created a process where the speaker was the epicenter of the House,” says Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute.

As the fourth-ranking House Republican—behind Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay—Boehner could see the toll these institutional transformations took on GOP members, who felt disempowered by Gingrich’s imperial style. After Clinton won reelection in 1996, Republicans grew restless. The GOP had suffered terribly from Gingrich’s handling of a lengthy government shutdown from December 1995 to January 1996—a lesson that informed Boehner’s aversion to such tactics years later—as well as his constant public feuding and a barrage of ethics charges against him. In January 1997, Gingrich became the first speaker ever reprimanded for an ethics violation.

That summer, several members of the extended Republican leadership huddled to discuss a coup against Gingrich; when the speaker learned of their plotting, they scrambled to protect themselves and Gingrich remained in power. It has long been considered fact that Boehner and Armey joined this mutiny. But Boehner insists he was never involved. He claims that DeLay and Republican leadership chairman Bill Paxon were the masterminds, both eyeing promotions, and that “when it all blew up, they dragged me and Armey into it with them.” He sighs. “DeLay and I were never close. Matter of fact, half the stab wounds in my back are from him.” The one person who believed Boehner’s story was Gingrich. “John is a very honest guy. He’ll be honest with you negatively and he’ll be honest with you positively,” Gingrich says. “I never doubted him.”

Boehner-Secondary5-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

Whatever role Boehner played, the damage was done. Gingrich stepped down after Republicans lost five seats in the 1998 midterms, and when heir apparent Bob Livingston shockingly announced that he would decline the speakership—amid swirling reports of extramarital shenanigans—Dennis Hastert, the chief deputy whip, became speaker. Armey and DeLay kept their posts. But there was blood in the water, and Boehner became “the sacrificial lamb,” Chambliss says, losing his job as conference chair to J.C. Watts of Oklahoma.

“Most people thought I was going to leave,” Boehner says of his humiliating defeat. Instead, he recalls telling his then-chief of staff, Barry Jackson, as they left the vote: “I’m never going to let ’em see me sweat. They’re never going to see an ounce of disappointment on my face. We’re just going to earn our way back.”

***

Two years later—on the heels of George W. Bush’s 2000 election—the chairmanship of the House Education and the Workforce Committee opened up, and Boehner saw his chance. Roy Blunt, a Missourian and the chief deputy whip, remembers Boehner’s presentation to the Steering Committee: He brought metal lunchboxes personalized with members’ names, and folded up inside were his education policy papers. Boehner lacked seniority, but “it was the right thing to do to bring him back into a more active role in the House,” Blunt recalls.

The timing was serendipitous: Bush wanted to show the American people that Washington was still functioning after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and signing a major, bipartisan overhaul of education would be just the thing. Boehner, a golfing buddy of the president’s, found himself paired with Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, crafting the most ambitious K-12 bill in American history. “Ted Kennedy was a great compromiser. Everybody thought he was rigid, just wanted his way. That is not Ted Kennedy,” says Harry Reid, who then served as Senate majority whip. “And for Boehner, Ted was perfect, because he was always willing to do a deal.”

BOEHNER ON ... A 2011 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

“I’m smoking a cigarette, and they bring me a glass of merlot. And we’re sitting there a little while, and here’s the president drinking iced tea and chomping on Nicorette. What else do you need to know about the two of us?”

The result, No Child Left Behind, was the linchpin to Boehner’s political reclamation project—even though the federal government’s intrusion into state and local education policymaking spawned a conservative backlash still felt today. Boehner blames “the implementation” of the bill, but makes no apology for breaking with party orthodoxy in writing it. Passage of NCLB might have been the genesis of the right’s caricature of Boehner as a spineless centrist, but it also cemented his reputation as an effective dealmaker. “To some members that probably defined him as more moderate than they would like,” Blunt says. “To others it defined him as a guy with capacity to get hard things done.”

By 2006, the party was reeling—two prolonged wars, ballooning deficit, skyrocketing debt—and Democrats were threatening to take back the House. DeLay had been promoted to majority leader, and Blunt to majority whip; both men loomed as obstacles for Boehner’s designs on climbing back into the leadership. But DeLay’s indictment in late 2005 opened the door. His resignation sparked an intense five-month period of jockeying for the role of majority leader: Boehner, Blunt and John Shadegg, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, all wanted the job. Blunt tallied 110 votes on the first ballot, shy of the majority he needed; ahead of the second ballot, Paul Ryan, a member of Shadegg’s operation, informed Boehner’s team that they would throw their votes to him. The comeback was complete: Boehner was elected House majority leader in what he describes as the best day he ever had in Congress.

Boehner had made the leadership election a referendum on the GOP’s ethical lapses—fittingly but ironically, considering he was bludgeoned in 1995 for distributing Big Tobacco’s campaign checks on the House floor. Having apologized and pushed to ban that very practice, Boehner preserved his reputation as a reformer and was now working to fulfill a campaign promise nobody thought he could keep: banning earmarks.

The funding of pet projects in lawmakers’ districts helped leadership to keep members in line, but fueled a culture of venality and waste; boondoggles like the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a 2005 project calling for a $223 million earmark to construct a bridge to a remote, sparsely populated Alaska island, became symbols of congressional excess. Boehner never accepted an earmark in Congress—and he enjoyed railing against those who did. His heckling once provoked Don Young, an Alaskan himself, to pin Boehner against a wall inside the House chamber and hold a 10-inch knife to his throat. Boehner says he stared Young in the eyes and said, “Fuck you.” (Young says this account is “mostly true,” but notes that the two became good friends, with Boehner later serving as his best man.)

Boehner made good on his promise. He rolled the powerful Appropriations Committee and rid the House of earmarks, claiming a watershed victory for good government. History will judge it as perhaps Boehner’s most significant achievement—and one that made running the House all the more difficult.

***

ACT II

He wasn’t majority leader for long.

With public opinion turning sharply against Bush—his handling of the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and the economy, specifically the early stages of the housing bubble—Democrats took advantage of a demoralized Republican base and won back the House in 2006, picking up 31 seats and handing Nancy Pelosi the speaker’s gavel. It wasn’t all bad for Boehner: Hastert’s retirement cleared the way for him to become the top House Republican.

Although nobody knew at the time, Hastert would become another in a long string of prominent congressional Republicans to be disgraced by scandal. In 2015, Hastert reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, acknowledging that he had delivered hush money to one of several male former high school students he had sexually abused. The Boehners, like others who knew him, were dumbfounded. “Denny Hastert was the nicest guy,” Debbie says. “But you know what? His wife never came to D.C.” Did they ever notice anything unusual, I ask? “Only his staff,” Boehner tells me. “He had more gay staff than anybody I knew—at a time when it was a bit unusual.” He pauses. “OK, fine. I didn’t care. But when all this stuff broke a couple years ago, it took my breath away.”

BOEHNER ON ... WHETHER HE EVER SAW OBAMA SNEAK A CIGARETTE

“Oh no. No no no. He’s scared to death of his wife. Scared. To. Death.”

Now minority leader, Boehner spent much of 2008 corralling difficult votes to prop up a sinking economy and an unpopular, lame-duck president. Jordan, who arrived in the class of 2006, remembers watching during his freshman term as the leader straddled a line between his inner conservatism and his loyalty to the president and the party. This reached a memorable climax in late September 2008, when two-thirds of the House GOP voted against a bailout package requested by Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson—sending global markets tumbling and Boehner scrambling to find votes. A revised bill passed four days later, averting catastrophe, but the uprising had officially begun.

Republicans, having spent and borrowed extravagantly during the Bush years—and expanded the reach of the federal government with No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, and the bailouts—now faced a conservative backlash. Pivoting sharply, GOP lawmakers greeted the election of Barack Obama in 2008 with unified opposition to his stimulus package. This brought accusations of hypocrisy. “People thought we had spent too much. Thought the tax cuts were too much,” Boehner says. “OK, fine—we need to look ahead. We’ve got a spending problem.”

With Democrats controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2009 and 2010, Boehner felt obligated to hold the line and galvanize the party faithful who had failed to mobilize behind Senator John McCain, the centrist-leaning 2008 nominee. He led the charge against the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank financial regulation, and cap and trade, and his leadership was unquestioned in the GOP conference; Boehner’s fiery floor speech denouncing the ACA shortly before its passage was his high-water mark among colleagues. “Look at how this bill was written,” the minority leader said on the House floor in March 2010. “Can you say it was done openly?” Republicans and Democrats shouted in response. “With transparency and accountability?” The shouts continued. “Without backroom deals struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell no, you can’t!”

Out in the provinces, however, the party was transforming, with implications that would prove fateful for Boehner: Rallies nationwide featured Paul Revere imitators waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, and candidates for Congress were aligning with the so-called Tea Party in denouncing both Obama’s overreach and the excesses of the previous GOP administration in equally strident terms. They promised to come to Washington as a new breed of Republican—revolutionaries promising ideological purity rather than partisan achievement. “It was very appealing in running for Congress to say that you would never settle for less than 100 percent,” recalls Blunt, who left the House and won a Senate seat in 2010.

Boehner-Secondary6-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

The uprising put Boehner in a predicament as Republicans stampeded back into the House majority that November, flipping 63 Democrat-held seats. The new speaker had campaigned on a generic but effective message—“Where are the jobs?”—that revealed a traditional sensibility about how to oppose the president. Boehner wanted Obama gone, but he wasn’t much for stunts and gamesmanship; his goal was to prove in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans could be trusted once again as a responsible governing party, thus aiding Obama’s defeat in 2012.

“When I saw that Boehner was becoming speaker, I thought that was a positive thing,” Biden tells me. “I thought there could be actually some work together, some collaboration together, and we could actually get some things done. But I thought, most of all, he was going to treat the president with more respect than some of his colleagues had.”

The class of 2010 wasn’t interested in collaboration. These rowdy freshmen lawmakers saw Boehner’s “Hell no” speech as a blueprint for their slash-and-burn strategy. When they realized after arriving in D.C. that he would not lead accordingly, dozens of them gravitated toward someone who would: Jordan, the newly installed chairman of the Republican Study Committee. When I ask about those factions forming in 2011, Jordan cites the “Hell no” speech and shrugs. “That’s the John Boehner we were hoping for.”

***

The Republican Party’s incipient civil war moved quickly from the campaign trail to Capitol Hill. The fundamentally irreconcilable approaches of Boehner and Jordan, and the members who followed them, produced an increasingly volatile series of intraparty collisions during the new GOP majority’s first term in 2011 and 2012.

Some of this owed to Boehner’s not taking the campaign rhetoric of his new colleagues at face value. “These were people who ran against Washington and planned on voting that way,” explains Tim Huelskamp, who was elected in the 2010 wave and then lost his Kansas district’s Republican primary in 2016. Boehner rejects the notion that he was ill-prepared to deal with these rookie legislators, but his allies concede there was a blind spot. “He thought of himself as someone who was of the Tea Party mentality before the Tea Party was a thing … so I think there were some assumptions made that he got these people, and that they would see he was one of them,” says Anne Bradbury, Boehner’s former floor director. “But that really never came together.”

Some of the freshmen took one look at Boehner—the golf-tanned back-slapper who wore handsome, tailored suits and rented his D.C. apartment from a registered lobbyist—and saw the embodiment of everything they were sent to destroy. “They never gave him a fair shake,” says Kevin McCarthy, the California congressman who was then Boehner’s majority whip.

One thing everybody agrees on: The debt-ceiling negotiations that summer of 2011 marked the beginning of the end of Boehner’s speakership.

BOEHNER ON ... WHY JOE BIDEN SHOULD HAVE RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016

“He would have won. For a guy who always wanted to be president, I guess that’s a big deal.”

Facing an August deadline to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, which gave conservatives occasion to take a symbolic stand against fiscal irresponsibility, the speaker appeased his members by declaring that every new dollar of debt must be offset by commensurate spending cuts. The speaker hoped this “Boehner Rule” would project strength from his young, untested conference, but it backfired: Conservatives repeatedly balked at potential compromises being discussed by Boehner and Obama, believing they had leverage to hold out for a better deal.

They rallied around a plan called Cut, Cap and Balance, which required a hike in the debt ceiling to be accompanied by a cut in federal spending, a cap on future levels of spending and an amendment to the Constitution requiring Congress to balance its budget. The proposal, which Boehner privately derided as “Snap, Crackle and Pop,” passed the House in mid-July but was rejected out of hand by Obama and the Reid-run Senate. Boehner, staring down the August deadline, moved on; conservatives were irate that leadership had caved. “It was the most popular Republican vote we had taken,” Huelskamp says. “And 18 hours later he caved to Obama on some stupid deal and we all went home dejected for the August recess.”

Jordan and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who helped craft the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation, urged the GOP leadership in both chambers to force the issue—to “fight,” as conservatives loved to say, and let the public decide which party was right. To Boehner, this was a futile strategy—Democrats controlled the White House and the Senate, leaving him with few cards to play. But the debt-ceiling mess was only a taste of things to come—DeMint would later haunt Boehner as president of The Heritage Foundation, whose lobbying arm, Heritage Action, pressured GOP lawmakers into defying the speaker at every turn. “He ran Heritage into the ground,” Boehner told me after DeMint was fired this summer. “Heritage was a respected conservative think tank, and he turned it into some half-assed political operation.”

The rising influence of Heritage and other “outside groups” on the right—Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Tea Party Patriots—made the speaker’s job infinitely harder. Egged on by an angry GOP base, they repeatedly cornered Republicans into fights they couldn’t possibly win. The defining implosion of their first year in the majority came in late July when it was revealed that Jordan’s staff had been conspiring with outside groups to pressure RSC members—Jordan’s own members—to vote against Boehner’s debt deal. It was a stunning breach of decorum and a confirmation of what Obama had already figured out: that Boehner wasn’t dealing from a place of strength. Jordan apologized profusely to the conference, but it was too late. Whatever trust once existed between the warring GOP factions had vanished, never to return—and it destroyed Boehner’s credibility with Democrats.

“He could practically never deliver his votes,” Pelosi tells me. When I ask Boehner about this, during a rain delay at Wetherington, he smirks. “It’s hard to negotiate when you’re standing there naked,” he says. “It’s hard to negotiate with no dick.”

***

It didn’t help that Boehner spent part of that summer negotiating the biggest deal in modern political history—and keeping his members entirely in the dark about it.

Boehner’s conservative foes criticized him as cautious at best and gutless at worst, but he is better understood as a calculated gambler. For instance, he greenlit Ryan’s controversial, safety-net-slashing budget proposals at a time when many party leaders were running away from them, because he felt voters would reward the GOP for taking a stand on entitlement spending. The speaker wasn’t afraid of going big. But the circumstances had to be right. And in June 2011, they were.

What began as a bipartisan photo-op—18 holes at the Andrews Air Force Base course with Obama and Boehner teaming against Biden and Ohio Governor John Kasich—ended with a suggestion from Boehner that the debt-ceiling predicament actually gave them the chance for a once-in-a-lifetime deal to address America’s longer-term crisis: the retirement of the baby boomer generation and the strain it placed on the country’s finances. Republicans might agree to increased revenue via eliminating tax deductions and loopholes (violating conservative orthodoxy) if Democrats could agree to spending cuts and entitlement reforms (violating liberal orthodoxy). Obama signaled his openness to the idea, and for the next five weeks their teams worked in secret to hammer out a compromise, knowing that fury awaited in their respective bases.

On Sunday, July 17, it appeared they had a deal. Boehner and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor—whom the speaker had reluctantly brought into the negotiations, knowing the majority leader’s distrust of Obama could poison the talks—worked out some final details that morning at the White House. When the president returned from church, Boehner says, he invited them both into the Oval Office and shook their hands. Some fine-tuning remained, but in Boehner’s mind the so-called grand bargain was done. The framework included reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending; and $800 billion in new revenue. “I was one happy son of a bitch,” Boehner tells me.

Boehner-Secondary7-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

The next 48 hours changed everything. On Tuesday morning, the so-called Gang of Six—three senators from each party who had been discussing their own sweeping fiscal agreement—announced a briefing for their colleagues at the Capitol. They unveiled a separate framework, totally unaware of what Obama and Boehner had agreed to. This deal included significantly more revenue. Chambliss, by then a senator, was one of the GOP Gang members and had no idea—because Boehner had been negotiating with the president in private—that their announcement would kill the speaker’s deal with the White House. Obama saw that Republican senators were endorsing a deal that included far more revenue, and knew there was no way he could sell the grand bargain to his liberal base. When he came back with a counteroffer, seeking a higher revenue number, it validated Cantor’s warnings about not trusting the president. And by that point Boehner’s members had heard enough about the grand bargain to know they didn’t like it—with the $800 billion revenue figure, much less something higher.

So the deal fell apart, and the two sides peddled their competing versions of events: Boehner’s team said the White House moved the goal posts, while Obama’s allies said the speaker couldn’t sell his own members on the deal. “The White House tried to spin this a million different ways,” Boehner tells me. “But we had a deal. They walked away from it.” When I ask Biden about this, he takes a long pause. “I think they had a genuine misunderstanding,” he says. “I think John is completely sincere, but … we had this Rubik’s cube we were constantly struggling with as to whether or not what was being sold by John in the House was going to be able to be delivered, and what was being sold in the Senate was able to be delivered.”

BOEHNER ON ... BERNIE SANDERS

“He’s the most honest guy who ran for president. He really believes all that crazy stuff he talks about.”

Harry Reid insists his caucus would have provided enough votes for passage, despite deep reservations among Democrats. And he says to this day he blames the Gang of Six for scuttling the grand bargain by releasing a framework that had no chance of becoming law. “They may get mad at me now, I don’t care. I knew it would never work,” Reid says of the Senate proposal. “It was a doomed failure. I told them that. So, I was hoping Boehner and Obama would move forward.”

There is truth in both arguments: that Obama walked away and Boehner couldn’t convince his people. That said, knowing how his career ended, Boehner counts the grand bargain as his “biggest disappointment”—not only because the national debt just blew past $20 trillion, with no hope of entitlement fixes on the horizon, but also because at least there would be something big to show for the heartburn he endured as speaker. “If I could have pulled this deal off, they could have thrown me out the next day,” Boehner says. “I would have been the happiest guy in the world.”

***

Having lost the faith of the White House as an effective partner, and the confidence of his right flank to do its bidding, Boehner approached the remainder of the term warily in hopes of avoiding self-inflicted wounds that would hurt GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s chances of defeating Obama. Instead, after the president won reelection, Boehner was soon back at the negotiating table dealing with yet another crisis. This time, it was the so-called fiscal cliff, in which the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and harsh, automatic spending cuts agreed to in 2011 (following the grand bargain’s collapse) would take effect simultaneously in 2013—risking to send the country back into recession.

Obama had campaigned in 2012 on the proposal that tax rates should jump for individuals making more than $200,000 annually. After weeks of haggling following his victory, the president offered a concession: $400,000 for individuals. Boehner made a counteroffer of $1 million. Had the entire House GOP rallied behind that idea, they might have forced Obama’s number higher. But a larger number of Republicans, having pledged to an outside group never to raise taxes, period, refused to go along. A dejected Boehner conceded defeat in a private conference meeting, and, in a remarkable moment of vulnerability, recited the Serenity Prayer used in 12-step addiction programs.

Boehner was running out of patience. The day before, Reid had blasted him from the Senate floor, saying he ran the House like a dictator. “I don’t do angry. Nobody on my staff has ever seen me angry,” Boehner tells me. “But that little son of a bitch got under my skin.” When he arrived at the White House for a meeting with the president and congressional leaders, Boehner spotted Reid talking with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “I walked right up to him and said, ‘Harry, you can go fuck yourself. You ever listen to that shit that comes out of your mouth?’” Boehner imitates a flustered Reid, then adds: “I thought McConnell was going to have a heart attack.”

(Reid adds an interesting detail. “Then he said, ‘We’ve got to get along better,’” Reid recalls, grinning. “That’s one reason I like him. He’s not a phony. … He wanted me to know that he wanted us to get along. So that was his way of telling me.” Boehner agrees; he says they became “really good friends” after the incident, and today construction is underway on a new think tank at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, which they will co-chair. Boehner visited in August and Reid tells me they went sightseeing together like an old married couple; he even put down the car window so Boehner could smoke as they drove.)

Boehner-Secondary8-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

The fiscal cliff further diminished Boehner’s standing on the right. When the new Congress convened in January 2013, some two dozen House conservatives plotted to overthrow him. Any speaker needs a majority of votes cast on the House floor on the first day of a new Congress; Huelskamp and others concluded that if 17 Republicans voted against Boehner, that would force a second ballot—and he would step aside out of shame. Huelskamp says the coup participants “signed their names in blood” the night before the vote—not literally—and he was stunned the next day to see just 12 of them follow through. Boehner survived, but was embarrassed by the revolt. It was the first attempt on his speakership, though not the last.

The resentment toward Boehner was rooted in many grievances, some more legitimate than others. Without question, he ran the House in a top-down fashion inherited from Gingrich, centralizing the policymaking process in leadership offices and spurning input from back-bench members. He would also anger conservatives by allowing deadlines to creep up, refusing to state the conference’s strategy because he knew they would disapprove—and then he would jam them at the last minute. There also was outrage at his punitive tactics. In late 2012, he had kicked Huelskamp and several other conservatives off key committees as punishment for their votes against leadership initiatives. It was predictable: The earmark ban had robbed Boehner of his best tool to incentivize on-the-fence members, leaving him to lead with all sticks and few carrots. With outside groups actively recruiting primary challengers, members in red districts often saw no political upside in voting with the leadership—a dynamic Boehner could not counter.

Things improved somewhat after the 2013 speaker vote, when Boehner privately assembled a group of five House conservatives—Ryan, Jordan, Tom Price, Jeb Hensarling and Steve Scalise—to discuss a cease-fire. This temporarily ended the hostilities. But by summer, Republicans were engaged in another brutal internecine conflict—this time over immigration.

BOEHNER ON ... A 2012 MEETING WITH FOX NEWS CHAIRMAN ROGER AILES

“I never went to New York without seeing Ailes. He and I were friends. But it was the most bizarre meeting I’d ever had. He had black helicopters flying all around his head that morning. It was every conspiracy theory you’ve ever heard, and I’m throwing cold water on all this bullshit.”

A bipartisan group of eight senators had crafted a comprehensive immigration bill that appeared to have support in the House GOP. But in June, when the Senate passed it—68 to 32, with 14 Republicans voting yes—House members found themselves under siege from constituents and conservative groups. The fatal flaw: It provided a path to citizenship, albeit a winding one, for people in the country illegally. Many conservatives could support a path to legal status but not citizenship; Democrats, on the other hand, essentially took a citizenship-or-nothing approach. Boehner was boxed in: He wanted immigration reform, and personally didn’t mind citizenship—especially for minors brought to the U.S. unwittingly. But putting the bill on the floor meant it might pass into law with perhaps as few as 40 or 50 of his members voting yes. Conservatives would never forgive him for overruling the vast majority of his membership. Looking back, Boehner says not solving immigration is his second-biggest regret, and he blames Obama for “setting the field on fire.” But the former speaker doesn’t mention the nativist voices in his own party that came to dominate the debate, foreshadowing the presidential campaign three years later. Ultimately, the speaker’s immigration quandary boiled down to a choice between protecting his right flank and doing what he thought was right for the country—and Boehner chose the former.

It wasn’t the only time. That summer, conservatives were also getting an earful about the Obamacare exchanges opening on October 1. House Republicans had voted repeatedly to repeal the law but the Senate refused to act, and their constituents, justifiably, wanted to know why Obamacare still existed when they had been promised otherwise. “Somehow, out on the campaign trail, the representation was made that you could beat President Obama into submission to sign a repeal of the law with his name on it,” Cantor says. “And that’s where things got, I think, disconnected from reality.” (In Ohio, listening to his pals groan about Obamacare, Boehner explains why his former colleagues haven’t repealed it: “Their gonads shriveled up when they learned this vote was for real.”)

Republicans’ penchant for overpromising and underdelivering would ultimately enable the ascent of Donald Trump, who positioned himself as a results-oriented outsider who would deliver where politicians had failed. In the shorter term, it invited something less dramatic: a government shutdown. Eager to demonstrate that all options were being exhausted to defeat Obamacare, Ted Cruz in the Senate and conservatives in the House concocted a plan: Because the government needed new funding on October 1, the same day the exchanges would open, they would propose funding the rest of the federal government—while defunding Obamacare.

Boehner objected. Not only would Democrats never go for it; Republicans would be blamed for the resulting government shutdown. “I told them, ‘Don’t do this. It’s crazy. The president, the vice president, Reid, Pelosi, they’re all sitting there with the biggest shit-eating grins on their faces that you’ve ever seen, because they can’t believe we’re this fucking stupid.’” (Boehner, at one point, surprises me by saying he’s proud of Cruz—whom he once called “Lucifer in the flesh”—for acting responsibly in 2017. Do you feel badly about calling him Lucifer, I ask? “No!” Boehner snorts. “He’s the most miserable son of a bitch I’ve ever had to work with.”)

After railing against the defund strategy, however, Boehner surveyed his conference and realized it was a fight many members wanted—and some needed. Yielding, he joined them in the trenches, abandoning his obligations of governance in hopes of strengthening his standing in the party. But the 17-day shutdown proved costly. Watching as Republicans got butchered in nationwide polling, the speaker finally called a meeting to inform members that they would vote to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. “I get a standing ovation,” Boehner says. “I’m thinking, ‘This place is irrational.’”

***

By spring 2014 it appeared Boehner’s days were numbered. A bigger bloc of members—not all of them troublemakers—told me at the time they would vote him out at the end of the year, replacing him with a new speaker for the next Congress. What they didn’t know is that Boehner had already decided to step down, having instructed his three most trusted staffers to lay out his options for retiring at the end of 2014.

In a digital-time-stamped memo written in November 2013, titled “The End,” those staffers—chief of staff Mike Sommers, deputy chief of staff Dave Schnittger and personal office chief of staff Mick Krieger—presented Boehner with three choices. “Option 1” meant announcing in January 2014 his plan to leave at the end of the year. “Option 2” meant announcing that plan in August. “Option 3” meant announcing it in November, after the midterm elections.

BOEHNER ON ... GOLF

“When you play golf with somebody, they can’t hide. You know who they are, you know how they are, you know what they’re capable of, you know whether they’re being honest with themselves. It exposes everybody.”

Boehner ruled out Option 1, deciding that yearlong leadership races would invite further discord and make legislating hopeless. But he never had the chance to decide between Options 2 and 3. That’s because on June 10, 2014, as Boehner dined at Alberto’s, his favorite Capitol Hill ristorante, Sommers called him with stunning news. Cantor—his majority leader and heir apparent—had lost his primary in Virginia’s 7th District to a little-known challenger whose campaign was boosted by Tea Party groups and right-wing radio hosts. “I was pissed,” Boehner tells me. “Because in my mind, I was done.” (“That was the worst campaign ever run,” Boehner adds of Cantor’s defeat. “I never saw anything like it.”)

Boehner’s next call was to Ryan, asking him to become majority leader and slide into the speakership the following year. “He called me that night and said, ‘You’ve got to do this job,’” Ryan tells me. “And I was like, ‘There’s no way I’m doing this job. You’ve got to stay.’” Boehner consulted with friends and determined there was only one course of action. “I remember telling him, ‘You don’t have a choice. This conference falls apart if you leave now,’” Chambliss says.

Cantor’s loss triggered a leadership shuffle: McCarthy was promoted to majority leader, and Scalise was elected whip. The new chief deputy whip, McHenry—who admits to being “a bomb-thrower” his first three years in Congress and viewing Boehner as a nincompoop—tells me his view changed upon joining the speaker at his daily management meetings. “I’m in there and it’s this realization—Oh, wait a second. Boehner does actually care about policy. He understands the dynamics of the conference. He understands where all these different groups are.” He laughs. “Like, who is this guy?” McHenry wishes other conservatives had his vantage point. “He could see through opportunities without having to make the 50 or 75 phone calls that I made.”

On the golf course in Ohio, Boehner singles out McHenry as an example of how some lawmakers mature after initially acting like “anarchists.” He also makes a prediction: “McHenry’s going to be the speaker one day.”

***

Republicans took back the Senate in 2014 but little changed. If anything, conservative voters grew angrier at the lack of results. “There were a lot of no-win situations,” Scalise says. “You go and pick fights with the Senate, but in the end, they’ve got a totally different set of rules that made it hard for any of our reforms even to get to the president’s desk.” McCarthy adds, “I remember telling Mitch McConnell one time, ‘Your rules are gonna get the speaker thrown out.’”

Boehner was unenthused about returning in 2015. Convinced that he was taking one for the team by staying, he was more anxious than anyone had ever seen him in January, when conservatives organized a second mutiny on the floor. “He was puffing cigarettes faster than usual, and that’s hard to do,” says Chambliss, who sat with Boehner during the speakership vote. “It obviously worked out. But from then on, I think it was only a matter of time for John to make the decision that this wasn’t worth it.”

Boehner-Secondary9-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

Wounded by that January uprising, and seeing no light at the end of the tunnel—Jordan that same month had co-founded a new group, the House Freedom Caucus, designed to push leadership even harder than the Republican Study Committee had—Boehner plotted a new exit strategy. He would announce his retirement on his birthday, November 17.

But Boehner’s plans were thwarted once again. Mark Meadows, another co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, sent shock waves through Congress on his birthday—July 28—by filing a “motion to vacate.” The idea was to force another floor vote on the speakership, gambling that this time Boehner would either lose or step down to avoid the spectacle.

When news broke of Meadows’ move, Boehner’s allies were furious. They implored him to call up the motion and hold the vote immediately, in a show of strength. Boehner wanted to think. And after meeting the next day with Jordan and four other Freedom Caucus members, the speaker decided against it. They had urged him not to hold the vote before August recess, since the Republicans who supported him would then spend the month getting pummeled back home. Boehner found himself agreeing. “He’s like, ‘I don’t want to make members take that vote,’” Ryan, who urged a same-day vote, recalls Boehner telling him. “Totally selfless. Always thinking about protecting the membership.”

To be clear: Boehner was never going to lose the speakership. In another internal memo—this one digital-time-stamped September 16, 2015, and titled “Save the Institution”—Sommers explained to Boehner that his survival would be ensured if Pelosi had Democratic members vote “present” when the motion came up. If they did, Boehner could win with a simple majority of Republican votes cast—which was never in doubt, as the number of GOP defectors was between 20 and 40. In a subsequent meeting, Boehner broached the idea with Pelosi and she agreed. “You can’t have 30 people in your caucus decide they’re going to vacate the chair,” she tells me. “He knew I had—not his back, but the institution’s back.”

And yet the maneuver didn’t sit well with Boehner—especially since he was dead set on leaving in November anyway. “It would be awful for the institution. We hadn’t gone through this in 100 years,” he says. “All these Republicans were going to get crap at home for supporting me, only to have me leave soon after that.” Boehner is still angry with Meadows, who canceled an interview for this article, for putting him in that position: “He’s an idiot. I can’t tell you what makes him tick.”

On September 24, Pope Francis addressed Congress—a visit Boehner had worked for years to secure—and he says everything clicked. “I never saw members happier than they were the day the pope was there. Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate. Everybody was happy.”

In his D.C. apartment that night, Boehner told his wife what he was thinking of announcing. “And then I went to bed and slept eight hours. Like a baby. It was unbelievable.” The next morning, after his customary breakfast at Pete’s Diner, “I looked at that statue of the Virgin Mary next to St. Peter’s Church, and I decided, all right, today’s the day,” Boehner recalls. “And as soon as I decided that, I thought, you know, the press is going to think I got forced out of here. I just want them to understand there’s not one moment of trepidation in this. So, I’m going to walk out there singing ‘Zip-a-dee-do-dah.’ I made those decisions at the same moment.”

Boehner was not forced out—at least, not in any technical or parliamentary sense. And there is no question he felt unburdened by the decision to finally throw in the towel. But the singing routine betrayed the fact that he was hardly his normal, cheerful self in those final months. “He was just kind of emotionally done,” says Bradbury, his former aide. “The fact that he felt like he’d given and given to the conference and the country, and this is how he was rewarded, when he didn’t want to be there anyway—” she stops herself. “It was very disheartening for him.”

***

ACT III

“Nothing good happens after 10 p.m.”

These are words Boehner lived by throughout his career. In a capital city where booze flows freely and parties run late and lawmakers live away from spouses, he decided long ago it would behoove him to be in bed by 10 o’clock. This also allowed him to rise early, take his long walk for coffee, wolf down some eggs at his favorite greasy spoon and read the newspapers before work. Retirement has meant adjustments—Boehner makes his own breakfast and spends his days dialing into conference calls, giving paid speeches or doing housework—but one constant remains: asleep by 10. On my first night in Ohio, just as the conversations were getting loose and the cocktails were getting stiff, Boehner informed the patio crowd he was turning in. It was 9:45.

But the next night was different. After the golf outing, and a reception in the clubhouse, Boehner hopped in his customized golf cart—a retirement gift from his congressional colleagues—and zipped across three moonlit fairways and into his driveway. I figured it was time to say goodnight. But Boehner invited me in for a nightcap. What followed, over bottomless glasses of wine, can only be described as Boehner unshackled. On several occasions, Debbie warned him to stop telling me things; when he ignored her, she would put a couch cushion over my recording device. The highlight was Boehner telling me a story about George W. Bush—and prefacing it by saying, “I shouldn’t tell you this.” Debbie, opening a bottle of red in the kitchen, barked: “Then don’t!”

Boehner leans back in his favorite recliner, retrieving a glowing cigarette from its ashtray. “So I get a text from 43 about a month ago, maybe six weeks ago.” Boehner’s close friend Ed, who joined our nightcap, interjects: “Off the record?” Boehner waves him off: “It doesn’t matter.” He lets out a thick cough, smoke escaping his mouth, and continues. “So 43 says, ‘Hey, are you talking to Ryan? Are you giving him advice?’ I said, ‘Yeah, if he calls I give him advice.’” Boehner takes a long, satisfied drag. “And he texts me back: ‘He needs to call you more.’”

Boehner erupts into a long, uncontrollable cough-laugh. It is 10:40 p.m.

The anecdote underscores how Boehner and Bush are “two peas in the same pod,” as the former speaker says, a pair of even-keeled gents who tried to ignore the stresses of their respective jobs and who enjoy commiserating now that they are both retired. (Boehner tells me that when Bush, while in office, refused to join Burning Tree—due to the optics of a president golfing someplace women aren’t allowed—he told the commander in chief, “You’re a pussy.” Years later, when Bush became a member after leaving the White House, Boehner says he told Bush: “You’re still a pussy.”)

But the story also speaks to a concern for Boehner these days: the well-being of his successor. Ryan never wanted the job; it took Boehner more than a year to convince him, and there were drastic measures involved. When McCarthy abruptly decided he would not run for speaker, everyone knew Ryan was the only unifying choice. And Boehner knew which buttons to push: The speaker called Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, asking him to pressure Ryan. Dolan obliged, phoning the congressman and piling on more of the “Catholic guilt” Boehner had employed.

BOEHNER ON ... VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE

“If you watched him during the campaign, when all that craziness was going on, he was the loyal soldier. And he’s still the loyal soldier. But he and his team, they’ve got their eyes open.”

It worked, of course. But it’s clear Boehner feels a little guilt himself. Ryan now holds the thankless job he was desperate to escape, and finds himself buffeted by the same internal forces. “And then there’s the White House,” Boehner tells me, rolling his eyes. “Dysfunction is a relative term. Right now it looks like I was a genius.”

Even before Trump was elected, Boehner was back in the Capitol one day and visited the speaker’s office. Ryan, he says, looked at him wearily: “This job is a lot harder than I thought.” When I ask Ryan about this, he confirms the story and laughs. “And I wanted to say, ‘You ass, you stuck me with this sh—’” He stops himself. But it’s been a tough day, and the speaker needs to vent. “Just getting people to agree on how to do things that are in their own interest is hard to do. Getting people to agree, getting to consensus, on things that are basic and axiomatic, is really hard to do,” Ryan tells me. “You need more of a degree in psychology than you need in economics.” (Ryan has, however, found comfort in torturing Boehner: The speaker inherited his predecessor’s security detail, and whereas Boehner demanded they be freshly shaven every day, Ryan let them grow unruly beards—pictures of which are often texted to their former boss, code name “Tan Man.”)

The Freedom Caucus has begun to squeeze Ryan, much as it did to Boehner—warning him that without changes his tenure could be similarly endangered. And Ryan, as Boehner did, is telling friends that he’s losing patience with the job. When I tell Jordan about Boehner’s description of him—“a legislative terrorist”—and ask about whether he’s holding the speakership hostage, he flashes surprise and eventually irritation. “Oh, my goodness. I feel sorry for the guy if he’s that bitter about a guy coming here and doing what he told the voters he was gonna do. Wow. I feel bad for him,” Jordan says. “But in the end, we were not doing what the voters elected us to do and what we told them we were going to do. We just weren’t. And I would argue the same thing is happening now.”

Jordan’s veiled threat only partially explains the frustration written all over Ryan’s face when we meet: Earlier that day, after Ryan scoffed at a Democratic proposal to pass a short-term extension of the debt ceiling, Trump met with Pelosi and Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer and gave them exactly what they wanted. “Um, yeah, that one—yeah, that’s kind of par for the course these days,” Ryan tells me, his tie loosened and a sense of resignation in his voice. “This is a presidency that offers some surprises.” Weeks later, when I ask Boehner about Trump’s deal with the Democrats, he erupts into a cough-laugh. “My guess is that he thought he was doing everybody a favor. He had no idea he was cutting off McConnell and Ryan’s legs.”

Trump himself is less a source of apprehension for top Republicans than what he represents: a fracturing of the party and a corollary decline in its ability to govern. “We basically run a coalition government without the efficiency of a parliamentary system,” Ryan complains.

When I ask Boehner whether the Republican Party can survive this, he cuts me off. “There is no Rep—.” He stops himself. “You were about to say, ‘There is no Republican Party,” I tell him. He shrugs. “There is. But what does it even mean? Donald Trump’s not a Republican. He’s not a Democrat. He’s a populist. He doesn’t have an ideological bone in his body.” So who, I ask, is the leader of the party? “There is nobody,” he says.

I ask Boehner what he thinks historians will make of his speakership. “They’ll be talking about the end of the two-party system,” he replies.

***

In our months of conversations, Trump was the lone subject about which Boehner seemed reluctant to speak freely. Timing was partly to blame: Weeks before I came to Ohio, Boehner in a paid speech had described Trump’s presidency as “a complete disaster.” It brought angry voicemails from then-chief of staff Reince Priebus, who carried stern words from Trump himself. “The White House isn’t real happy with me right now,” Boehner said at the time. His caution faded somewhat as summer wore on. When I saw him six weeks later at Burning Tree—fresh off a blockbuster report that Donald Trump Jr. had met with a Russian government official during the campaign in hopes of gaining compromising information on Hillary Clinton—Boehner greeted me in the parking lot with a knowing grin. Before I said anything, he shook his head and muttered, “What a shit show.” But our most interesting exchange came in Green Bay, after a hearty meat-and-potato breakfast, when I raised the matter of this summer’s march in Charlottesville, and Trump’s equivocations. “I do not believe that he is a racist. I do not believe that he is a white supremacist,” Boehner tells me. “He has clearly done some things to lead people who never liked him to say those things about him.” So, I ask, how can Trump fix that? Boehner arches an eyebrow. “Is it fixable?”

Boehner worries about the deepening fissures in American society. But he sees Trump as more of a symptom than the cause of what is a longer arc of social and ideological alienation, fueled by talk radio and Fox News on the right and MSNBC and social media on the left. “People thought in ’09, ’10, ’11, that the country couldn’t be divided more. And you go back to Obama’s campaign in 2008, you know, he was talking about the divide and healing the country and all of that. And some would argue on the right that he did more to divide the country than to unite it. I kind of reject that notion.” Why is that? “Because it wasn’t him!” Boehner replies. “It was modern-day media, and social media, that kept pushing people further right and further left. People started to figure out … they could choose where to get their news. And so what do people do? They choose places they agree with, reinforcing the divide.”

He continues: “I always liked Rush [Limbaugh]. When I went to Palm Beach I would always meet with Rush and we’d go play golf. But you know, who was that right-wing guy, [Mark] Levin? He went really crazy right and got a big audience, and he dragged [Sean] Hannity to the dark side. He dragged Rush to the dark side. And these guys—I used to talk to them all the time. And suddenly they’re beating the living shit out of me.” Boehner, seated in his favorite recliner, lights another cigarette. “I had a conversation with Hannity, probably about the beginning of 2015. I called him and said, ‘Listen, you’re nuts.’ We had this really blunt conversation. Things were better for a few months, and then it got back to being the same-old, same-old. Because I wasn’t going to be a right-wing idiot.”

2-grid-Boehner-Secondary3-ByMarkPeterson.jpg

Boehner believes Americans are ill-informed because of their retreat into media echo chambers, one of two incurable causes of the country’s polarization. Another is inextricably related: the unwillingness of lawmakers to collaborate across the aisle, for fear of recriminations from the base. Boehner says the fact he and Obama golfed together only once—and agreed that it was usually better for him to sneak into the White House—speaks to how the two parties punish compromise. He doesn’t foresee this toxic political climate improving, ticking off potential fixes—term limits, redistricting reform—that he says won’t make a bit of difference. “It’s going to take an intervening event for Americans to realize that first, we are Americans,” he says. An intervening event? “Something cataclysmic,” he responds, gazing upward.

Boehner often felt more welcome among Democrats than he did within his own party. When he made his retirement announcement, he told me, Obama called him and said, “Boehner, you can’t do this, man. I’m gonna miss you.” Biden feels the same way. “The only way we’re going to get this back together again,” he says, “is with some more John Boehners.”

The starkest divide in recent Washington has been between longtime pols like Boehner and Biden who yearn for a more amicable time, and newcomers who view the bitter acrimony of the Bush and Obama years as normal. The fever might have broken in 2016, Boehner says. But the parties chose the two most polarizing nominees in modern history. “The only Republican who Hillary Clinton possibly could have beaten was Donald Trump, and the only Democrat that Trump possibly could have beaten was Clinton,” Boehner smirks. “Three hundred and thirty million Americans, and we got those two.”

***

Boehner spent six hours getting photographed around the Capitol in September. He wore a salmon-colored tie for certain shots and a blue tie for others; the photographs will inspire his official portrait, which will probably be hung in the speaker’s lobby in late 2018—around the three-year anniversary of his departure. The ceremony will give Boehner occasion to see his old friends, as well as the “assholes.” It will also serve as an opportunity to consider his legacy.

As a young House member, Boehner was instrumental in cleaning up Congress. As a committee chairman, he wrote and ushered through one of the premier policies of the Bush administration—even if the results were not what he envisioned. And as speaker, Boehner accomplished more than conservatives will ever give him credit for: winning significant spending cuts under a Democratic president; protecting the overwhelming majority of Americans from a tax hike; keeping earmarks banned despite having every reason to bring them back; and his proudest accomplishment, finding a permanent “Doc Fix,” which solved a nagging problem with the Medicare payment formula and could produce nearly $3 trillion in savings over the next three decades.

“He came to Congress wanting to burn it to the ground,” says Sommers, his former chief of staff. “And by the time he left, he was the ultimate institutionalist.”

BOEHNER ON ... ASKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA TO BE BOB DOLE’S RUNNING MATE IN 1996

“We get to the end of lunch, and Nini says, ‘Hey John, can I call you next week?’ He calls me and he says, ‘You’re not a lawyer. I want you to write this down.’ And it’s a non-denial denial. The lawyers read it, and they say, ‘That means yes.’”

Yet that assessment will be overshadowed by posterity’s more existential observations: that Boehner’s 25 years in Washington saw the dissolution of a party, the vandalizing of a government and the splintering of a nation. That Boehner watched as the GOP transformed from the party of George H.W. Bush into the party of Donald Trump. That Boehner funded and helped recruit a class of majority-makers who ended up driving him from office and destabilizing the Congress he cares deeply about. The triumph of John Boehner is that he achieved reform and ascended to the speakership and often rose above the uncompromising dogma of both parties; the tragedy is that he came to Congress an insurgent only to be swallowed by the insurgency, and that he wasted key opportunities, as with the shutdown and immigration battles of 2013, to lead in a way that might have quelled it. “At times,” Sommers admits, “we fed the beast that ate us.”

Boehner’s own district is the ultimate case in point: His successor is Warren Davidson, who was endorsed by Jordan in the GOP primary and has since joined the Freedom Caucus. “He’s one of these guys that’s caught in two worlds,” Boehner says. “They helped him get elected, he felt allegiance to them, he signed up with them. But I’m not sure he’s really one of them.”

I didn’t see the famously weepy Boehner get emotional during our time together, with one exception. The night of the golf outing, Ed tells me that toward the very end of Boehner’s speakership he called his friend to share a poem called “Builder or Wrecker.” Debbie asks Ed to recite it. He obliges, and I glance over at Boehner. His face is contorted. By the end of the poem he is sobbing and unable to speak. “He’s a builder,” Ed whispers to me. “Not a wrecker.”

***

“Have you found your purpose?” I ask him outside the breakfast joint in Green Bay. Boehner shakes his head. “It will become clear. But you can’t force the big guy to give you an answer,” he says. “Just do the right things for the right reasons, and good things will happen.”

With that, we prepare to part ways. The two House speakers enjoyed an overtime thriller at Lambeau Field the day before. Now Ryan has flown back to Washington, where a circular firing squad awaits. As for Boehner, he’s jumping in a rental car and pushing farther north in Wisconsin, where Mick, his former staffer, owns a massive wooded property. There, the two will do what retirees do best—sit around and tell stories about the old days. It would make for a more restful experience if Boehner weren’t thinking, in the back of his mind, about his story being written—here and in the history books. It’s no wonder he can’t concentrate.

Boehner shakes my hand and smiles softly. “Be nice to me,” he says.

Tim Alberta is national political reporter at Politico Magazine.

28 Nov 14:27

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Forgetfulness

by tech@thehiveworks.com


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Holy crap, am I a talking skeleton?! Weiiiiiird.

New comic!
Today's News:
15 Nov 12:49

The Zizek Maneuver

by Paul Campos

I’m definitely going to give this a try soon (In academia, nobody can hear you scream):

The other night, I pretended I didn’t know who Slavoj Žižek, the Slovenian Hegelian Marxist and cultural critic, was. I’ve done this before, but never to such triumphant effect. This Marxist bro I was talking to made a reference to Žižek that he obviously assumed I would get, and my heart sank. He was a nice guy, actually, but I saw the conversation stretching out in front of us, and I saw myself having to say things about Žižek and listen to him say things about Žižek, and I saw that I really did not want this to happen. “This is a bar,” I wanted to say, the same way that my grandmother might have said “This is a church.” A bar is not the appropriate venue for a loud, show-offy conversation about The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology.

At first, I thought I might be able to get away with ignoring the reference. Not so. He made another one, and then another one, and then said, sort of desperately, “Žižek argues that…” I saw the gap, and I took it. I asked him who that was, and he assumed I hadn’t heard him over the music. “ŽIŽEK” he shouted. “SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK.” I told him I’d never heard of such a person, and his eyes widened. His attempts to explain were met with the same denials. Celebrity philosopher? Nope. Lacan? Nope. Hegel? Nope. I stopped short of saying I had never heard of Karl Marx, but only just. This guy couldn’t believe it. How could I have never heard of Žižek?

He moved through the stages that everyone moves through when they have fallen prey to the Žižek Maneuver: disbelief, defiance, and finally, dizzy irritation. Maybe even a bit of actual anger. I could see that he thought I might be messing with him, but he could not prove it. He gave up on me shortly afterwards, and ignored me for the rest of the night. Later I saw him talking to his friends and pointing at me. I imagined what he was saying: “That girl over there, she doesn’t even know who Žižek is. ŽIŽEK.” I smiled at him and waved.

This is the Žižek game, and I am going to teach you how to play it. Think of these instructions as the opposite of the ones offered in “How to Be Polite,” Paul Ford’s beautiful essay about graciousness and its effects on other people. Ford’s advice is meant to be lived by. My advice is intended only for special occasions. It is for when you have an itch to scratch, and that itch is called, “a puerile desire to get on other people’s nerves.” All you do is stonily deny any knowledge of a person or cultural touchstone that you should, by virtue of your other cultural reference points, be aware of. These will of course be different for everyone, but my favorites include:

Žižek, John Updike, MORRISSEY (only for experts), Radiohead, Twin Peaks, David Lynch in general, Banksy (only for streetfighters), Withnail and I, Bauhaus (movement), Bauhaus (band), Afrika Burn, the expression “garbage person,” A Clockwork Orange, Steampunk (this one is really good), Jack Kerouac, “Gilmore Girls,” Woody Allen, the expression “grammar nerd,” the expression “grammar Nazi,” cocktails, bongs, magical realism, millennials, Cards Against Humanity, trance parties, bunting, many comedians, William Gibson, burlesque, the Beats, The God Delusion, sloths, anarchism, Joy Division, CrossFit, “The Mighty Boosh,” and Fight Club.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

14 Nov 01:06

Louis C.K.’s ‘I Love You, Daddy’ Advance Ticket Buyers Gripe They Haven’t Been Reimbursed

by Anthony D'Alessandro
After The Orchard canceled the November 17 theatrical release of Louis C.K.’s I Love You, Daddy due to the comedian’s alleged sexual misconduct, some of C.K.’s fans are complaining that they haven’t received word about being reimbursed for the movie tickets they purchased in advance. Essentially, the comedian set up an interface through his fan website louisck.net whereby fans could buy advance tickets to I Love You, Daddy. In a note sent out to fans well in advance of…
25 Oct 13:59

Trump’s Attack on Insurer ‘Gravy Train’ Could Actually Help a Lot of Consumers

Trump’s Attack on Insurer ‘Gravy Train’ Could Actually Help a Lot of Consumers

Photo
President Trump signing an executive order on health care on Thursday. He later decided to cut off federal funding to insurance companies for subsidies that help people afford their health care. Credit Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency

All year, President Trump had threatened to release a metaphorical bomb into the Obamacare markets — canceling a certain type of payment to health insurers. Everyone was convinced it would destroy the marketplace.

Late last Thursday, he carried out his threat, later saying that “the gravy train ended the day I knocked out the insurance companies’ money.”

Congress is responding. Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, announced on Tuesday that they had reached a deal on legislation that would undo the president’s order and bring back the subsidies.

But now it looks as if Obamacare markets won’t face wholesale devastation, regardless of whether that legislation passes. In 2018, at least, insurers may be made whole and consumers protected — even without the subsidies.

How could that be? The details are complicated, but the crux is that insurers and state regulators worked together to find a way to funnel more federal money into the Obamacare insurance markets.

Continue reading the main story

The insurer-regulator hack will mean that navigating the Obamacare marketplace will be more complicated for consumers (more on that later). And the change will cost taxpayers more money — perhaps $21 billion more in 2018 alone. But, in the end, most customers will be unharmed by the president’s decision, and a substantial fraction will be better off, able to buy plans for about the same price they pay now, yet with lower deductibles.

The president’s move was to cut off a form of Obamacare funding known as the cost-sharing reduction subsidies. Those were payments the government made to health insurers to compensate them for lowering the deductibles and co-payments for low-income customers.

But he didn’t cut off another, more important form of subsidy. The Affordable Care Act also includes tax credits that help low- and middle-income Americans pay their insurance premiums. Those tax credits increase in value along with the price of a certain midlevel insurance plan, known as silver. If you qualify for a subsidy, you can never be asked to pay more for that plan than a set fraction of your income.

Insurers in more than 40 states have decided to compensate for the missing cost-sharing subsidies by making hefty increases to the prices of this silver plan — but small or no increases to their other plans. Consumers who qualify for subsidies are still asked to pay the same fraction of their income toward a health plan, and the federal government pays the insurers the rest of the higher silver-plan premium. So consumers are no worse off, and insurers make up for the loss of the cost-sharing subsidies canceled by Mr. Trump.

And for many Obamacare consumers, there’s also a silver lining in these pricier silver plans. There are other kinds of plans being sold on the marketplace: high-deductible plans called bronze and low-deductible plans called gold and platinum. Consumers can use their subsidy to buy any color plan they like. And, with the price of silver plans rising faster than the other categories, most consumers with subsidies will now be able to buy a lower-deductible health plan for the same price as the silver plans that are currently most popular on the exchanges. (They can also choose to buy high-deductible bronze plans for very low prices, or in some cases get them free.)

“This was a backdoor, unintended way of increasing premium subsidies for some people,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group.

25 Oct 12:04

10/23/17 PHD comic: 'End Times'

Piled Higher & Deeper by Jorge Cham
www.phdcomics.com
Click on the title below to read the comic
title: "End Times" - originally published 10/23/2017

For the latest news in PHD Comics, CLICK HERE!

17 Oct 14:03

Carrie Fisher’s gross but supremely satisfying warning to a Hollywood sexual harasser


Carrie Fisher, right, poses with her mother, Debbie Reynolds, at the 2015 Screen Actors Guild Awards in Los Angeles. (Mike Blake/Reuters)

In the wake of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein scandal, countless women across the world have stepped forward to share their stories of sexual abuse and harassment.

Heather Ross, also known as Heather Robinson, is a television and movie industry vet who recently told a morning radio show in Tucson about an ugly run-in she had with an overly aggressive unnamed Oscar winner. Her story, however, took a surprise twist because of the actions of the late Carrie Fisher.

Ross, a screenwriter and producer, told 94.9’s Morning Mix this Hollywood tale: In 2000, she moved to California, a bright-eyed hopeful eager to make it in the entertainment business. She already had connected with some industry folks on AOL, striking up a friendship with the “Star Wars” actress, she told the station. She also connected with an unnamed Oscar-winning producer — not Weinstein — who agreed to take her to lunch.

Ross said she did not have any qualms or worries seeing the A-lister. Their talk online had been all business. “It wasn’t anything romantic at all,” she told the morning show, according to a recording. “And I was overweight . . . I felt safe thinking, ‘Okay, I’m overweight, I’m not attractive to these people, I’m not looking to become an actress.’ ”

But when the producer picked Ross up in his car, within two minutes he pulled over, dropped down the passenger seat, and climbed onto her. She fought him off.

“He said, ‘You’ll never make a movie in my town, and get the F out of my car.’” Ross told the show. “It happened so quickly, I felt ashamed. I felt like I had done something.”

Ross, shocked, stayed quiet for some time. Eventually she confided in Fisher. “She was more very protective of me and more scared of my safety than anything.”

A few weeks later, Fisher told her friend she had seen the producer.

“She said, ‘I just saw blank at Sony Studios. I knew he would probably be there, so I went to his office and personally delivered a Tiffany box wrapped with a white bow,’” Ross recounted to the show.

When Ross asked what was inside, Fisher said: “It was a cow tongue from Jerry’s Famous Deli with a note that said, ‘If you ever touch my darling Heather or any other woman again, the next delivery will be something of yours in a much smaller box.”

“That’s just how she was,” Ross said. “She stood up for people.”

More from Morning Mix:

Women’s Convention faces backlash after Bernie Sanders lands a prime speaking slot

Amid Sonoma’s ashes, family is overjoyed to find their dog Izzy — alive, well and wagging her tail

13 Oct 19:53

State Borders

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

Scott, as a rabid Mass-hole, how do you feel about the XKCD guy wanting to cut Massachusetts' dick off, and give it to Rhode Island so that it can be a competitor to Florida as most-phallically-shaped U.S. State?

A schism between the pro-panhandle and anti-panhandle factions eventually led to war, but both sides spent too much time working on their flag designs to actually do much fighting.
13 Oct 14:22

Why you should stop blaming gerrymandering so much. Really.

Gerrymandering is an easy punching bag, and it deserves its reputation. Every 10 years, Republicans and Democrats across the country draw the most favorable districts for their own political purposes, sometimes leaving contorted maps in their wakes.

But gerrymandering is also blamed too much for too many things — especially for our political polarization and for Republicans' strong advantage in the House. Just last week, an op-ed in The Washington Post blamed gerrymandering for breeding the conservative Freedom Caucus, which thwarted the GOP health-care bill.

Some new data from the Cook Political Report shows how overwrought this is.

In their report debuting Cook's famous Partisan Voting Index (PVI) ratings for all 435 House districts, David Wasserman and Ally Flinn also reflect upon the decline of the swing district. Twenty years ago, 164 districts had a PVI of between Republican +5 and Democratic +5 — basically what you'd consider a swing district. Today, it's less than half of that: just 72 districts.

Just look at this chart:


Courtesy: Cook Political Report

Gerrymandering! Right!? Not so much.

If you look at the bottom of the chart, the biggest declines in competitive districts happened between elections — not after rounds of redistricting. In fact, 83 percent of the districts that moved out of the “swing” category — again, R+5 to D+5 — did so without being redrawn.

Only 14 districts moved from swing seats to solidly Republican — R+5 or greater — after redistricting, while 33 did so through the normal political evolution of the American voter.

Here's how the numbers break down:


Courtesy: Cook Political Report

Now, it's true that Republicans had a big advantage in redistricting last time around, by virtue of their huge wins in 2010. And it matters to this day. Of the 16 former swing districts that have moved to one side or another because of new maps, all but two went toward the GOP. That's going to help Republicans hold their House majority whenever if comes under attack — including possibly in 2018.

But it's also clear that there's something larger happening here — namely, our own natural, political sorting. And that's a much bigger reason for our polarization and Republicans' House advantage than anything else.

As the South and other more rural areas such as Appalachia moved from Democrat to Republican, Democratic voters became more and more packed into smaller, urban areas. So the blue team tends to spend (for lack of a better term) more of their voters on fewer districts, because there just aren't many Republicans nearby.

Republicans, meanwhile, gained a natural — though smaller — advantage in a majority of districts across the country. I like to think of it this way: If there are 50 Democratic voters and 50 Republican voters spread across 10 cities with 10 people in each one, four of those cities would have an 8-to-2 Democratic advantage, while six would have a 7-to-3 Republican advantage.

And even without gerrymandering, this would hold true. Gerrymandering helped solidify the GOP's majority, no doubt, but it didn't make it.

It's also somewhat faulty to argue that House Republicans are more conservative — and hence join the Freedom Caucus — because of gerrymandering. The point of gerrymandering is to draw as many safe or winnable districts for your side as you can. Often, that means spreading your voters pretty thin rather than simply making districts as red or blue as possible. And as noted, these districts would be similarly safe/conservative just because of our own natural sorting.

So it's okay to think gerrymandering is bad for a whole host of reasons. But let's not blame it for all of society's ills, please.

13 Oct 11:30

Logical

It's like I've always said--people just need more common sense. But not the kind of common sense that lets them figure out that they're being condescended to by someone who thinks they're stupid, because then I'll be in trouble.
10 Oct 13:02

Trump proposes ‘IQ tests’ face-off with Tillerson after secretary of state calls him a ‘moron’


Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, right, looks on as President Trump speaks at a luncheon during the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 21 in New York. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

President Trump proposed an “IQ tests” face-off with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after the nation's top diplomat reportedly called the president a “moron” and disparaged his grasp on foreign policy.

In an interview with Forbes magazine published Tuesday, Trump fired a shot at Tillerson over the “moron” revelation, first reported by NBC News and confirmed by several other news organizations, including The Washington Post.

“I think it's fake news,” Trump said, “but if he did that, I guess we'll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win.”

Trump's challenge is the latest evidence of what White House officials have described as a breach of trust between the president and the secretary of state.

Reporters asked Trump over the weekend about his relationship with Tillerson.

“We have a very good relationship,” Trump said Saturday. “We disagree on a couple of things. Sometimes I'd like him to be a little bit tougher. But other than that, we have a very good relationship.”

Trump plans to meet for lunch Tuesday with Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in the president's private dining room at the White House.

In the Forbes interview, for the magazine's cover under the headline “Inside Trump's Head,” the president teases upcoming economic-development legislation “nobody knows about” that would penalize companies that move operations overseas and offer incentives for those that stay in the United States.

Trump previewed what he called “an economic-development bill, which I think will be fantastic. Which nobody knows about. Which you are hearing about for the first time.” The president said the policy is “both a carrot and a stick.”

Trump also told Forbes that he has purposefully not filled many jobs throughout the federal government, including at the State Department, where many of the top positions remain vacant.

“I'm generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be — because you don't need them,” Trump said. “I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it's totally unnecessary. They have hundreds of thousands of people.”

29 Sep 21:54

Dad Learns Why You Shouldn't Say The F Word In Front Of Your Toddler

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

My bookmarklett isn't actually bookmarking the right page. Here's the link.

http://digg.com/2017/kid-learns-the-bad-word

The father's expressions in the video are priceless. "My bad."

http://digg.com/2017/kid-learns-the-bad-word

This is totally my (fucking) future.

"Handbook for Mortals" author Lani Sarem on scheming her way to the top of the list, and why she'd probably do it all over again.

Escaping the uncanny valley is the holy grail for human animation in video games, and this new Unreal Engine demo gets pretty damn close.

"It's been incredible. The results that we've had with respect to loss of life."

Wikibuy is a Chrome extension that automatically finds the lowest price, best coupon, or cash back offer for whatever you’re shopping for — on Amazon and a ton of other major sites. It’s a free tool, so there’s literally no reason not to get it.

All the Trump news you need to read today.

A few rough examples to help you wrap your mind around ludicrous speed.

This stealthy leopard ambushed the weakest member of an unsuspecting group of impala in Kruger National Park, South Africa. RIP little guy.

Thanks to the rise of platforms like Facebook and Google, a growing amount of information being created for Americans is coming from overseas.

The repeal votes may have failed, but the ACA is being dismantled internally.

And while we appreciate the guide's explanations of how the tiles work, maybe he should have mentioned that you're only supposed to touch the cube by its corners way sooner?

Investigations into the massive breach aren't complete, but the intruders used techniques that have been linked to nation-state hackers in the past.

I think I'm going insane.

21 Sep 21:05

Facebook To Share Russian Ads With Congress, Implement New Policies On Political Advertising

by Patrick Hipes
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said today that the company will share ads with Congress that the social media giant discovered in an internal probe this month – ads that were likely operated out of Russia and could have been used as part of a wider Russian plot to disrupt the 2016 election. The internal probe, according to Facebook VP Policy and Communications Elliot Schrage in a blog post today, found approximately 470 accounts and Pages “identified by our dedicated security…
19 Sep 14:43

09/06/17 PHD comic: 'Page Limits'

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

Does it surprise anyone that panel #2 was my problem as an undergrad?

Piled Higher & Deeper by Jorge Cham
www.phdcomics.com
Click on the title below to read the comic
title: "Page Limits" - originally published 9/6/2017

For the latest news in PHD Comics, CLICK HERE!

18 Sep 14:10

Trump’s Popularity Has Dipped Most In Red States

by Harry Enten

There are no national elections for president in the United States. Democrats relearned that lesson the hard way in 2016, when President Trump won the Electoral College despite earning fewer votes nationally than Hillary Clinton. Of course, we still mostly talk about the president’s popularity nationwide in non-election years. It’s simpler, and job approval polls for all 50 states are harder to come by. But it’s worth checking in on Trump’s state-by-state strength when we can, and that’s now possible thanks to two polling firms, Gallup and SurveyMonkey22, which recently released Trump’s state-by-state approval and disapproval ratings.

Although Trump is quite unpopular, the political map hasn’t changed much in the eight months since Trump won (not surprisingly). Compared to his standing nationally, Trump is still strong in key swing states.23 He has, however, experienced a disproportionate drop off in his popularity in red states, suggesting the president’s base isn’t as solid as it once was.

Overall, Trump’s relative popularity in each state tracks very closely24 with how well he did in each state in November. Here’s an average of Gallup and SurveyMonkey’s net approval ratings25 compared to Trump’s margin over Clinton in each state:

Trump’s best net approval ratings are in West Virginia (+21 percentage points) and Wyoming (+20 points). Those were his two strongest states last November. His lowest net approval ratings are in Vermont (-41 points) and Massachusetts (-38 points), two of his worst states in 2016.

Trump’s also still more popular in key Midwestern swing states than he is nationally. His net approval ratings in the states that helped put him over the top in 2016 (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) ranged from -10 percentage points to -12 percentage points. That’s slightly better than his net approval nationally (-15 percentage points) during the same period.

Trump’s continued popularity in the Midwest (relatively speaking) is important because (i) there are a ton of Electoral College votes in those states, and (ii) it shows that Democrats still have a problem there. That may also mean that Clinton didn’t lose the election because she was uniquely unpopular in key swing states. (She likely didn’t lose Wisconsin, for example, because she didn’t campaign there, as some have argued.) Trump may just have outsized appeal in the Midwest. Or perhaps the region — which used to lean slightly more Democratic than the nation as a whole — has simply become more Republican-leaning relative to the country. That trend could have little to do with Clinton or Trump.

Instead, Trump has seen a disproportionate decline in his popularity in red states. Let’s compare Trump’s net approval rating in each state to his 2016 margin there. In doing so, we’re basically pretending that the 2016 vote was a big job approval poll, with a vote for Trump being “approve” and a vote for Clinton “disapprove”:

Trump has seen his biggest decline in red states

Difference between Trump’s 2016 election margin and an average of his net approval ratings in 2017 Gallup and SurveyMonkey polls, by state

STATE TRUMP’S 2016 MARGIN 2017 NET APPROVAL CHANGE
Wyoming +46 +20 -26
Oklahoma +36 +12 -24
Idaho +32 +9 -23
Nebraska +25 +3 -22
Kentucky +30 +8 -22
Indiana +19 -3 -22
Utah +18 -3 -21
North Dakota +36 +15 -21
West Virginia +42 +21 -20
Minnesota -2 -22 -20
Tennessee +26 +6 -20
South Dakota +30 +10 -19
Texas +9 -9 -18
Kansas +20 +3 -17
Colorado -5 -21 -17
Missouri +19 +2 -16
Alaska +15 -1 -16
North Carolina +4 -12 -16
New Hampshire 0 -16 -15
Vermont -26 -41 -15
Arizona +4 -11 -14
Arkansas +27 +13 -14
Iowa +9 -4 -14
Maine -3 -17 -14
Mississippi +18 +4 -14
South Carolina +14 +1 -13
Connecticut -14 -27 -13
Georgia +5 -8 -13
Ohio +8 -5 -13
Michigan 0 -12 -13
Virginia -5 -18 -12
Alabama +28 +15 -12
Washington -16 -27 -12
Louisiana +20 +8 -12
New Mexico -8 -20 -12
Montana +20 +9 -11
Wisconsin +1 -10 -11
Pennsylvania +1 -10 -11
Oregon -11 -22 -11
Massachusetts -27 -38 -11
New Jersey -14 -24 -10
Florida +1 -8 -10
Illinois -17 -26 -9
New York -22 -31 -9
Maryland -26 -35 -9
Nevada -2 -10 -8
Rhode Island -16 -23 -7
Delaware -11 -19 -7
California -30 -34 -4
Hawaii -32 -25 7

All numbers are rounded.

SOURCE: DAVE LEIP, GALLUP, SURVEYMONKEY

There’s a clear negative correlation26 between the “change” numbers in the table above and Trump’s margin in each state. In states where Trump won by at least 10 points, his net approval rating is down 18 percentage points, on average, compared to his margin last November. In states that were decided by 10 points or less in November, it’s down only 13 points. And it’s down 8 points in states Clinton carried by at least 10 points.

The fact that Trump has lost the greatest number of supporters in red states is perhaps the clearest indication yet that he is losing ground among some form of his base, if you think of his base as those who voted for him in November

Well … with a couple caveats. It’s possible that the polls are merely underestimating Trump in these red states. Trump most outperformed his polling in 2016 in red states. Maybe that’s happening again. That said, he also beat his polls in Midwestern states, and he’s holding his own (relatively speaking) there, which argues that his red-state decline can’t be written off only as polling error.

But even if this polling is perfect, Trump still might not have lost ground, per se. Trump was able to win in 2016 in large part because he was able to win a decent share of the vote among people who held an unfavorable view of him. That group of voters — we’ve dubbed them “Reluctant Trump voters” — may have been more plentiful in red states.27 In deeply red Kentucky, for example, Trump lost among people who held an unfavorable view of him by just 40 percentage points. In deeply blue California, he lost this same group by 74 points.

So perhaps what we’re seeing isn’t a decline in Trump’s support in conservative states, but rather a reflection of its weakness from the start: Red-state voters who pulled the lever for Trump but didn’t like him, still don’t like him.

What will be interesting to see is how many of these red-state voters who dislike Trump now will be willing to vote for Republicans in 2018 without Clinton on the ballot. Off-year elections, like those coming up in 2018, are usually a referendum on the party in power. We’ve already seen that Democrats have been able to do well in special elections this year, as Trump’s approval ratings have slumped. We’ve also seen that House Republicans are picking up very few supporters among people who disapprove of Trump’s job performance in national polling. That is, there aren’t a lot of voters who dislike Trump and are still willing to say they’re going to vote Republican.

If red state voters who dislike Trump but voted for him in 2016 abandon the Republican Party in 2018, it could lead to some unexpected electoral results. It’s another reason that Democrats, if they want to maximize their chances of winning back the House, should compete in a wide variety of districts.

18 Sep 11:40

betterbooktitles:Hillary Rodham Clinton: What Happened



betterbooktitles:

Hillary Rodham Clinton: What Happened

12 Sep 13:36

As Hurricane Irma bore down, Tesla gave some Florida drivers more battery juice. Here’s why that’s a big deal.

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

"The Model S and Model X vehicles updated Saturday were all built with a 75-kilowatt-hour battery. At full capacity, that’s enough for a Model S to travel about 250 miles. When those cars were first sold, Tesla gave customers the option of a lower-capacity battery at a more affordable price, and some decided to take the savings rather than purchase the full 75-kWh battery.

But downsizing didn’t mean replacing the big battery with a physically smaller one; it just meant using a bit of computer code to restrict how much of the battery the car could access. If the customers wanted, they could later have Tesla lift the software lock by paying an additional fee, which can run into the thousands of dollars."

This *really* squicks me out, that the basic hardware is physically there in the car that people own, but a software block prevents owners from using it.

I get that it makes sense for Tesla to do this in order to offer a cheaper option, but most "cheaper option" cars are also in some way cheaper for the manufacturer to produce. For example, my car lacks power door locks, and was cheaper for Toyota to make, because, uh, they didn't have to build a power door lock mechanism for it.

Imagine if there were an airline which had seats fully as luxurious as First Class seats are, but in coach, the steward unzips and urinates on each passenger during the flight, but not in first class. That's kind of what this feels like.

As someone wiggling his way into the creative industry, I am of course fully in favor of DRM copies of digitally distributed intellectual property. But I think there's an important difference here. With intellectual property, the user who purchased a DRM-protected copy still has full use of the full experience. And if it weren't DRM protected, the user could give it away for free to friends.

Nic having full use of his car's battery capacity does *not* translate into his being able to give all his friends free Teslas identical to his. Or if it does, Nic, where's mine?


Owners of Tesla Model S cars, such as the one above, received updates that enabled them to flee Hurricane Irma. (Paul Sakuma/AP)

As Florida residents fled Hurricane Irma over the weekend, some Tesla owners got a little surprise from the automaker to help them get out of the danger zone.

On Saturday, Tesla began pushing a software update that increased the battery capacity of some Model S sedans and Model X SUVs. All the cars that received the update belonged to those living in what emergency officials had identified as the evacuation area.

The real-time update extended the range of the cars by unlocking extra battery power, meaning the vehicles could now go farther on a single charge. The change will not be permanent; Tesla said the temporary upgrade will be reversed on Sept. 16, presumably once the immediate danger has passed.

The decision reflects a key distinguishing feature of Tesla’s business, one that could divide consumers as they consider the future of car ownership.

The Model S and Model X vehicles updated Saturday were all built with a 75-kilowatt-hour battery. At full capacity, that’s enough for a Model S to travel about 250 miles. When those cars were first sold, Tesla gave customers the option of a lower-capacity battery at a more affordable price, and some decided to take the savings rather than purchase the full 75-kWh battery.

But downsizing didn’t mean replacing the big battery with a physically smaller one; it just meant using a bit of computer code to restrict how much of the battery the car could access. If the customers wanted, they could later have Tesla lift the software lock by paying an additional fee, which can run into the thousands of dollars.

Over the weekend Tesla temporarily lifted that software lock at no cost to owners, after receiving requests for help from customers whose cars were stuck in Irma-related traffic.

The decision highlights one of the most innovative aspects of owning a Tesla. The company’s ability to use software to instantly add range to a vehicle is something no conventional car can achieve. You can’t simply make a gas tank bigger at the click of a button.

This isn’t the first time Tesla has used wireless software updates to expand a car’s capabilities. The total value of all the optional software upgrades Tesla now offers adds up to tens of thousands of dollars, according to some estimates. Nor is the concept of unlocking software a novel one; from video-game expansion packs to premium Spotify subscriptions, software is now commonly used to expand the range of features available in other products.

For consumers, however, this is the first time they’ve seen the practice extended to their cars. And, like it or not, it forces us to think a bit differently about what it means to truly own our own vehicle.

Tesla’s decision to offer lower-priced cars with certain performance compromises could be viewed as expanding consumer choice and giving users flexibility. At the same time, because the underlying hardware remains the same no matter what level of software you’ve purchased, you could say that Tesla has locked the full potential of its vehicle behind an arbitrary paywall.

This is a paradigm shift. When you buy any other car, you get its full capabilities. In many cases, though less so now than in decades past, you can open up the hood and tinker with everything yourself. This has historically been the way we’ve thought about buying a car. When you roll it off the lot, you get the whole thing, and you can basically do with it whatever you want.

In Tesla’s case, it’s not quite the same. Sure, there’s a community of amateur hackers who poke around inside their cars and sometimes make fascinating discoveries, but the company has a significant degree of control over the vehicles, even if it doesn’t exercise it all the time. As we’ve seen, Tesla can remotely install new software, including code that enables and disables features unilaterally.

This can be a gift, such as when getting caught with the “wrong” feature package during a hurricane. At the same time, it highlights the tremendous power your car manufacturer can have over your ownership of the vehicle and poses questions about whether it’s customer-friendly to charge you thousands of dollars to access hardware that takes just a few keystrokes to turn on. The debate has already taken off on Reddit.

11 Sep 11:44

Why Republicans Can’t Govern

by Julia Azari

You might think that securing the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and a majority of seats on the Supreme Court would enable a party to practically dictate laws and policy. But so far, unified government hasn’t worked out too well for Republicans. The GOP has controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency since January but has no major legislative accomplishments to show for it. President Trump finally managed to close a big deal last week, to stave off a government shutdown and Treasury default for the next three months and secure hurricane disaster relief. And yet he cut the deal with Democrats — against the wishes of GOP leaders.

One thing the Republicans have done, however, is demonstrate that controlling government isn’t enough to govern. Since the U.S. system is designed to slow down and complicate attempts at change, even parties in control of the whole government have to learn how to navigate it. What makes that so hard? There are several things that a majority party needs in order to convert political victories into legislative ones, and the GOP doesn’t have them.

A prioritized agenda

This one seems obvious but can be deceptively difficult. Research shows that agenda control is a key source of power for the majority party in Congress. For a party to effectively implement an agenda, it has to (i) agree on what that agenda is, and (ii) how that agenda should be prioritized. The first part isn’t a given; Republicans largely support lower taxes, for instance, but — as the recent healthcare debate showed — they are less unified on health care policy.

Even when there’s agreement on the issues, parties must also decide on which ones to focus. Democrats, for example, controlled the White House, Senate and House in the post-New Deal era, through most of Harry Truman’s presidency, from 1961 through 1969 under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and again from 1977 to 1981 when Jimmy Carter was in office. During this time, they had to decide what policy goals to prioritize: economic reforms, health care coverage, arts and education, rural development, urban revitalization, civil rights? Some leaders, like Johnson, were able to tie many domestic issues together, while others, like Carter, came off as unfocused. Health care reform wasn’t prioritized and it remained on the Democratic to-do list all the way to the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Modern Republicans face an additional problem. Much of the party’s stated governing ideology rests on the premise that “government is the problem,” which makes it difficult to develop a coherent agenda for determining what the government should be doing. And currently, there isn’t much else unifying a party fragmented along lines of ideology, openness to compromise and support for the president.

Trump’s own approach to policy, meanwhile, hasn’t helped the party set priorities. He hasn’t clearly articulated what he wants the GOP to focus on, jumping from infrastructure to taxes to health care to immigration, and from controversy to controversy. He has also promised a number of governing outcomesbetter health care coverage, stronger national security, a better economy – but he’s often short on the details about what kinds of policies might achieve them. Legislation tends to die in the course of working out the specifics, and without a stable, widely shared set of priorities, it can be hard to achieve anything.

Public support

Whatever agenda emerges, it helps a lot if it has public support. Public opinion doesn’t always direct policy, of course. But members of Congress tend to be motivated by an interest in reelection, and don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of a national debate.

The GOP is finding this out the hard way. Some of the few core positions that have been staked out by Republicans in Congress — such as bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act — have proven very unpopular. Trump also ran into this problem with the Russia sanctions bill: He opposed it, but widespread public support translated into veto-proof majorities in Congress.

In contrast, the mid-century Democratic Party had lots of disagreements, but its major agenda items, such as Medicare, were generally popular with the public. Historian Julian Zelizer has explained how Johnson’s extensive agenda — arts funding, fair housing, immigration laws — was successful, in part, because the electorate had voted in a liberal Democratic Congress in 1964, signaling support for a liberal policy direction.

Similarly, the GOP has successfully enacted tax cuts, which are usually popular, on several occasions. But public support for the party’s social agenda has declined; many more people support same-sex marriage nowadays, for instance, and there’s been a recent increase in support for marijuana legalization.

The GOP faces another challenge here: Trump won the Electoral College but not the popular vote. This matters for perceptions about whether he has an electoral mandate for his policies, which can sometimes influence how Congress acts. Some research suggests that members of Congress are more likely to support the White House’s agenda, at least in the short term, when they perceive an election to have been a mandate. As a result, the preferences of Trump’s core supporters are not always in line with the majority of the country.

A way to address internal divisions

Even with a governing agenda and public support, there will be disagreements over specifics, clashes between factions and disputes over resource allocation. Institutions can help resolve these disputes — especially organizational rules in Congress that create incentives for compromise. The strong committee model of the mid-20th Century provided this: Congressional committees enjoyed sole jurisdiction over their issues, and often worked across party lines. Under this system, elected official could be responsive to the needs of their districts, and worried less about party discipline.

This approach wasn’t perfect, of course. There were plenty of conflicts, and critics complained about the lack of party discipline and ideological definition. But it did allow for greater legislative productivity than we see today. Strong committees were replaced after the reforms in the 1970s (and another set of changes in the 1990s) that empowered party leadership, creating a structure that rewarded party loyalty and often discouraged ideological diversity.

Ideological diversity brought its own negatives, of course, including tolerating objectionable viewpoints for the sake of forming a wider coalition. We can’t talk about the mid-century Democratic Party without considering its Southern contingent, which held back progress on civil rights and also pushed back against issues like labor and wage protections that might benefit black workers. Mid-century Democrats compromised with their racist faction, sometimes sacrificing the interests of racial minorities for the sake of moving forward on policy.

The Republican Party now includes the successors to this Southern faction, as well as immigration hard-liners. But the political climate has changed since the 1960s. Many overtly racist attitudes have fallen out of favor. While New Deal Democrats sometimes governed by accommodating racists (a practice with a lasting, damaging legacy), those kinds of compromises may no longer be politically viable.


The U.S. system isn’t set up to let majority parties just do what they want, as I mentioned above. Protections for the political minority are built into the system: The Electoral College and the Senate protect smaller states from being dominated by more populous ones, and part of the role of the judicial branch is to protect minority rights, when necessary, from the will of the majority.

So governing as the majority party requires know-how. Since 1981, however, neither party has held both chambers of Congress and the presidency for more than four years (and then only once). So neither one has had much time to learn the tricks that help majority parties govern.

Instead, both often act like minority parties, engaging in what political scientist Frances Lee calls a “perpetual campaign”: Since most of the time either party stands a realistic chance of winning a majority in the next election, both parties have an incentive to compete rather than cooperate. Refusing to cooperate proved especially advantageous politically for Republicans during the Obama years, when they could rally around opposition to the president’s actions and object to government overreach.

Now, with Trump in office, Democrats are the ones with little incentive to cooperate. And there are still some Republicans behaving as though they’re in the minority. Those dynamics give the GOP very little room for error. The party has only a thin margin in the Senate, with 52 seats, so they can’t afford a lot of defections even on votes where a simple majority is enough. Trump opponents, meanwhile, have also had some success in the courts, which have been especially sympathetic to objections against the administration’s travel bans.

So what’s the outlook for the GOP as a governing majority? Various public breaks between Trump and congressional Republicans — including the most recent one over the debt ceiling — illustrate that the GOP coalition hasn’t yet figured out how to overcome its differences. But that’s a hard lesson to learn, let alone apply for any length of time. The coalition of New Deal-era Democrats eventually fell apart, after all — once they finally addressed the challenge of civil rights, the party’s hold on majority status started to crumble under the weight of disagreements over this and other policies.

An opposition party has the luxury of a unifying objective — pointing out the shortcomings of the majority. As the musical Hamilton tells us, “governing is harder.”

07 Sep 16:09

This Delta flight raced Irma and won


Screenshot of flight radar image showing Delta flight 302 heading back to New York.

A Delta flight from New York’s JFK airport managed to fly into San Juan, Puerto Rico, pull into the gate, and less than an hour later take off full of passengers — all while Hurricane Irma was bearing down on the island Wednesday.

Delta flight status data show Flight 431 left JFK at 8:12 a.m. and arrived in San Juan at 12:01 p.m.; Delta 302 left San Juan at 12:41 p.m. and arrived in New York at 4:22 p.m.

Radar data of the plane’s flight path offered a spectacular show for aviation enthusiasts who followed in real time as Delta Flight 431 headed south right into the dangerous storm before noon.

“Where others have turned back, Delta #DL431 presses on,” tweeted the Flightrada22, which tracks air traffic in real time.  According to the tracking data, the plane landed at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport at 11:58 a.m. and departed at 12:43 p.m. as DL302.

Jason Rabinowitz, a self-described aviation geek tweeted the flight’s trajectory in real time, uploading images of the plane climbing out of San Juan between the outer band of Irma and the core of the storm.

“Amazing stuff,” Rabinowitz said.

Delta officials said the airline operated its last scheduled flight to and from San Juan “armed with the latest forecast from the airline’s meteorology team.” Flight 431 arrived a minute after noon to nine miles of visibility and light rain, the airline said. Winds were well below operating limits for the 737-900ER to safely operate at around 28 mph, and gusts up to 36 mph.  Flight 302 departed San Juan with 173 passengers on board, the airline said.

“Our meteorology team is the best in the business,” said Erik Snell, vice president for Delta operations and customer center. “They took a hard look at the weather data and the track of the storm and worked with the flight crew and dispatcher to agree it was safe to operate the flight. And our flight and ground crews were incredible in their effort to turn the aircraft quickly and safely so the flight could depart well before the hurricane threat.”

The conditions worsened soon after the departure.  Heavy rain and historic winds lashed Puerto Rico’s northeast coast Wednesday as Irma roared through the Caribbean on its way to Florida. The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang reported gust of 62 miles per hour in San Juan late Wednesday afternoon and in Culebra, Puerto Rico, a small island 17 miles east of the mainland, a wind gust registered 111 miles per hour.

The flight was the last one in and out of San Juan, before the air traffic control ceased operations.

This post has been updated.

07 Sep 13:03

Typing Notifications

Joel Thrasymachus Dahl

This is so damned true!

Over the years I've decided I'd rather have them on than not, but I'm glad there aren't "has opened a blank note to compose a reply to you" notifications.