It is where I take a gander at the news stories on the Yahoo front page and have the simple question — why is this getting swamped by headlines on the love life of two millionaire entertainers — a pro athlete worth a few million and a singer worth millions more? It gets surreal at about “Savannah Guthrie’s Daughter Vale, 9, Says Travis Kelce ‘Better Not Break’ Taylor Swift’s Heart“. I have to look up who Savannah Guthrie is, and assume her nine year old daughter isn’t a kid influencer or commenter or something. Though my immediate rebuttal is a “And what are you going to do about it if he does, Savannah Guthrie’s 9 Year old daughter Vale? “

But it may be that this news attention is just as well. It is more relevant to anything than the Republican presidential debate that happened this week. And I want to go back and see what happened in it, as I did thing the first one was worthwhile and despite commentary to the contrary had some sideways relevance to it. I just don’t know that this one does. Leading through fivethirtyeight blog coverage in it, I trip up over a point…

According to a September poll by ABC Newrs and The Washington Post, 74 percent of Republicans said they would blame Biden and the Democrats in Congress if the government were to shut down. Just 5 percent said they would blame Republicans in Congress, and 16 percent said they would blame both equally. Five percent didn’t have an opinion or wouldn’t blame either.

There is a value judgement with the word “blame”. I want to know the percentage that “credit” the Republicans, which might not shuffle the numbers here because we then have a polling problem of figuring monolithic actors — they would blame the Republicans for fouling up the shutdown or inching towards averting it and credit Freedom Caucus and its members for making it happen.

Huffington Post. “Taylor Swift’s Rumored Romance With Travis Kelce Is Already So Different Than Her Relationship With Joe Alwyn. Here’s Everything You Need To Know.” Really, everything you need to know — NEED to know is… This… Here… And that is all.

The National Review surveys the electoral landscape, and gives us this.

I am interested to read the RFK got take, a right now contrarian take which actually might just be accurate — the Republicans settling for a third party over Trump are your “respectables” and Don’t have the Gary Johnson option, the qanon like contingent liable to split off RFKjr / Trump.

On the top headliner — Had De had har. The dastardly Democrats really are fooling the Republicans into nominating Trump. Sure. Just like they did in 2016, right? No. This is your own damnedable fault. But, not being able to see their specifics — er… How? Touting Biden’s low approval ratimgs? Rope-a-dope to the max by emphasizing “senior moments” to give the impression — the one I hear is the reason no Republican voter is entertaining the “electability” argument — that “anyone can beat this guy!”

There have been a few blips in the Republican primary race, such as it is, that look deserving of a pause, stop, look, point. My prior understanding of seeing a way Trump does not win this is passing — that hinge on various unknowns clarifying themselves and the things that need to happen for that to occur are not. So. Election From Hell it is.

Ramaswamy had a viral moment, of sorts. Cynically I almost think it was planted to force a “viral moment of sorts”, but I imagine things happen on the campaign trail by themselves. The Fox News headline catches the gist: WWII vet goes viral at Ramaswamy NH town hall: What you’re saying is ‘exactly what my generation grew up in’. Yep, it is that old one. Do the math and the old man is lauding the character building experience of the Great Depression, which sure — our current era of Technological Soma and Inflation aren’t building real men and real women. The crime increase in our cities? They knew real crime — in their day, you had Al Capone — what do we have now? Shoplifting sprees to feed fentanyl habits scaring Targets away? Poof. Nothing you can make a movie out of!

What I am saying is there are certainly problems and issues that need addressing and can be exploited — but we get this:

“What you’re saying, the words you’re saying, are exactly what my generation grew up in,” Bob said. “Children, adults stood at attention and crossed their hearts when the flag passed by in a parade. School started with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. That’s no longer going on.”

“There was a loyalty and pride in America. Children were leaving school 12, 13 years old and joined the service to protect our country. It was one country. America. And I like your policies. I love to hear it, because it’s what I remember. Thank you very much,” he continued before earning another round of applause and a standing ovation. 

I know there were 16 year olds who eagerly ran into the Army, fraudulent paperwork in hand, and fought Hitler and “the Japs”. I don’t think they got younger — a 12 year old rushing into the recruitment office would probably be sent back to sell war bonds off the back of his wagon. And also I speculate on an old saw which has a high percentage of troops are pretty useless on the battlefield — I speculate that a higher percentage of the eager 16 year olds. But. Hypothetically. A middle schooler announces he is quitting school. He is going to defend Ukraine against Russia in a proxy war that is splitting the Republican Party and has many in this crowd in isolationist stand — I have no idea where this old man stands on the issue, but Ramaswamy has been on various spots with it if I recall right (Largely against). What does this standing ovation crowd think of this middle school drop out?

I have a hazy recollection that someone else’s campaign popped in with something morbidly interesting — but I don’t know what it was. The campaign continues. It is interesting to compare this exchange with the current force the progress now Democrats who chastise anyone who uses the moniker “pro choice” or who glides those politics from a different Venter of gravity as being stuck in the 90s.

I get flummoxed at the reasoning for this here — the first sentence…

Do you think Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas listens to Beyoncé?

The article then hints at improprieties concerning Clarence Thomas attending an event held by members of the Koch family that is not the Coachella festival but is held at the same place and is not attended by Beyonce — at least, I would not think she would be there. Whether or not Clarence Thomas wants to hear her music.

Why the Hell was Beyonce’s name dumped into this article? Unless she is floating in later in this article and is getting alleged to be a conservative attending the gala? Like the other name dropped in the article.

Whether or not there was alternative music or alternative facts, guests schmoozed with some of the most powerful conservatives in the country: The lineup featured right-wing groups, including Americans For Prosperity and NFL star turned college football coach Deion Sanders.

They just tossing Beyonce and Deion Sanders and a random picture of cute hippy chicks in here because they direct traffic to the article? It just does not make any sense.

You have this reasonable enough point of contention against the relaxing of dress codes in the Senate chamber and the obvious culprit number one — Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. The issue comes in as partisan due to both low level ideology — “Conservative” finally has a goddamned meaning — and the matter of who is driving in to take advantage of the loose dress code — a Democrat that Republicans routinely whip up on. I can’t say if it is wholly partisan and what would have happen if the sides were reversed or if that were possible — hypothetical Republicans would have to be desiring accommodation of a populist riding star’s dress eccentricities for the basic ideological issue to be uprooted, and for the Democratic opposition I am immediately remembering the furor that greeted President Trump’s ketchup and well done steak eating habits.

Funny here, I see the battle lines drawn in the headlines and image highlights. So, note the Democratic side highlights the commentary of Lauren Boebert and focus on on Fetterman “burn and complete destruction” comments.

And Republicans run a more general storyline with the news photo of more respectable and not having recently gotten in trouble at a Beetlejuice theatre showing Maine Senator Susan Collins.

One side sidles the dress code foe as Boebert, the other chooses Collins.

There is a 1987 video of Joseph Biden that is interesting, watching his 1988 presidential campaign crash and burn. I do believe I saw it in 2008 at the time of Obama’s selection of him as vice presidential candidate, there posted in a favourable light in the “gotta love the man” with a focus on a different part of the segment, the part Biden was hoping would carry. So it is Biden gets asked what his college graduation rank, which seems to suggest this was a burbling issue, with someone in the crowd shouting where one would hope a candidate Biden would extrapolate for political purposes — “Who cares?”. You see the reporters turn about the crowd in gasped breaking of decorum and Biden move into response, a response that starts with an explanation on circumstances that would lead to finishing near the bottom of his class before pivoting to say falsely – – better to say lie — that after a break he finished strong and finished at such and such a spot. This footage would come to beplaced alongside footage of him repeating speech lines of a Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock in news reports on crisis decimating the Biden campaign. From there Biden moves on to the footage some Democratic Party supporter and blogger was using to sell Biden in 2008 — that sure, we’ll time to compare my seven point plan with Gephardt’s six point plan, but what Democrats seem to be lacking these days in our technocratic lovefest is soul and fire — a bit of an admission that in the Democratic primary debate there really isn’t much difference there.

The question of what, after all these years, you take out of it lands on an uncertainty. I am more interested in a dissection and explanation of what the younger Biden was thinking as he moved into “lie” territory — resume buffering from someone who thinks that the unflattering piece is there for the world to see but the hopes for rest is shrouded away and can be claimed, enough not lies in it that a look into it would see to it that. A burst of on the fly narration creation — something akin to the very progressive dad in the early 60s commenting about love when seeing two men holding hands in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Something else.

Reading through on the case against Joseph Biden as pertains to our new Trump led attempt to impeach the fellow — the point where things get a little bit hilarious in its absurdity is where when Hunter Biden was trading on his famous powerful father (and Joseph was enabling it in standard (crack) addiction enabling manner) by referencing Biden as “The Brand”. Yes. “The Brand”. Trademark protection and all that.

You can’t be serious. It is not Hunter Biden saying “Hey! You know my father!” that comes off as absurd – – that perfectly follows — it is that this is shuffled into a phrase and concept of refracted importance — “The Brand”. Like, when you think “Biden”, you think … — ?

Selling the sizzle, not the steak. All flash and no substance, that Biden. Marketing mania — get the photograph of his with an ice cream cone and another one with dark sunglasses.

Or. Old guy. Just out of a successful trade agreement talks with Pacific Rim nations to check the power in our bubbling cold cold war with China. Rambles on about an old Western movie for no clear reason. To be sure, it is just a mutation of his stint as a younger politician — except the pointlessness gets more exaggerated with age, and he doesn’t have the words of British Labour politicians as guard-rails. The Biden brand borrows from the latter day Reagan brand.

I am seventy percent sure that Biden was the only person beating Trump in 2020, and he at least has good reason to believe it himself. Sitting around this header are revisionisms all around — like, I see a headline “Clinton in 1992 campaigned like a Progressive. Then forces changed him in office” — a drastic revision of the text, and I can point to any number of ads pointing to Clinton / Gore as “A New Kind of Democrat” who were going to have more police on the beat and take down crime and drugs with lots of new prison construction that would really boost our economy. It is liable that the basics of Biden v Trump could get lost in the shuffling of murmuring on changed demographics and generational voting habits and the 70 percent case that Biden was it as you state at 2024. I do not know if this Washington Monthly article takes on Reagan in 1984. It does clearly go to Roosevelt in 1944 — which brings to mind a story I read in someone’s memoir — I have to look it up — where judging a guant Roosevelt waving out of a limo, and having a sinking feeling, someone says to him, ” Take a good look-see over at Harry Truman. He is very going to be out next president.” From that point of view of the historical record, I don’t understand why Bill Scher wants to give us the parallels of Roosevelt 44 to buttress Biden 24. For his part Roosevelt had said privately if the European theatre was won, he would probably lose this election — along the lines of what would happen with Churchill against Atlee. Another wearisome score for Schrer’s at least by his headline premise.

The Biden Brand continues to shift.

I. The court cases and indictments continue for Trump. And per the perennial of the last few years, we see a new slew of “Debs and Larouche” historical mentions as for prisoners running for president. Rare is the Keith Judd, and even rarer is the Leonard Peltier shout-out. It is doubtful we will get to Trump, but there is mention of number five.

Trump wouldn’t even be the only candidate with a conviction to run this year: Joe Maldonado-Passage, a reality TV personality known as “Joe Exotic” who was convicted of attempted murder and animal abuse, declared his 2024 candidacy in March.

This does raise a question of what counts — the Libertarian Party process is in – house — and despite my misgivings in Libertarian Party politics and it’s current basis of being — I feel confident he will not get anywhere and will not appear on your ballot unlike the others. Judd was a primary candidate, the other three were indeed general election candidates — meaning that Peltier ought get more coverage than Judd in this “candidates ran for president from prison” metric. And if you do count “Joe Exotic”, I demand an audit — a deep perusal of that long long long list of presidential candidate filings which don’t amount to anything — because surely this will increase the list.

Until further notice, and he shows up on a state election ballot, I will not count Joe Exotic. My list stops at four.

II. Everybody — Get In Line!

A long listing of three or so organizations who have concocted multiple names. And they met for a rally — either opposed to American and NATO support of Ukraine’s defence of territory against Russian aggression or in support of Putin’s aggressive takeover of Ukrainian territory — depending on the speaker.

Time for everyone here to interview everyone else to amp up view counts to the three digits.

Reddit takes note.

This is another pro-Putin, LaRoucheite red-brown rally like the “Rage Against the War Machine” event.

Almost fell for it until I saw “Rage against the war machine” in the bottom of the image. Can’t wait to see pictures of the Russian imperial flag flying in the rally.

Curious as Jimmy Dore gets Jose Vega on his show discussing them yelling in front of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s door. He does not follow up on the events of the “Rage Against the War Machine” part two. He was speaking at part one, but not two. The relationship is asymetrical. Along with this one place you might expect to give airtime, there is not much coverage. Excepting…

America Emboldened with Greg Boulden – Humanity for Peace is building a unified coalition, above ideologies, to stop this unfolding escalation towards nuclear war. They refuse to let humanity perish at the hands of insanity.

And the Gadfly podcast. An interesting enough listen, though receded in my memory and I do not feel like pulling back into it. I tend to think they have the “Lenny Bruce wannabe” short shift again, he who — whatever else you can say was the one speaker of the long list of droners who cut through. The only other thing I can recall is thinking at the end with the suggestion they will be there with their next event — at a certain point these things have a diminishing returns that they become essentially indistinguishable with such video fare as this.

III. On that score — good to see Drew clarify a removal from the LYM– Oakland or otherwise — contingent as it is with LPAC. I am confused by the messaging on this video, which does seem more in line with LPAC’s Trump politics. An aversion to refugees coming into Portland, Maine — turning the city into a liberal Hell. I guess he can continue his cross country tour, or whatever this is — for whatever this commentary is supposed to mean it for within the Larouche Organization’s policies.

IV. Meantime… LaRouche PAC is launching a campaign to stop—that’s right, to STOP the prosecutions of Donald J. Trump before our Republic is destroyed.

AND It is evident to all who have participated in, or merely observed the mass phenomenon of the movement inspired by President Trump, that there is a profound principle involved. There seems to be a spirit of love; a spirit that exists outside and above the conscious thoughts of any of its participants.

Now looking for support amongst Ken Paxton supporters.

V. Jimmy Dore did do Jose Vega’s show —

The guy on the left apparently tried to participate in an anti-war thing sans Larouche. Was reprimanded and/or axed for it — not sure, but dramatic happenings within the org.

VI. The Varn Blog has a couple episodes interesting in and of itself, but one with a brief mention of Larouche in a listing of famous Trotskyites, the next episode gets at him via George Galloway and via “Maga Communism”.

Some of them seem to be trying to do entryism on this mega communist entryism. But again, other than the then a Center for Political Innovation, there doesn’t even seem to be real organizations attached to these groups. Yeah, I mean, yes, there’s the Ruleru shite. There’s two different Lerushite groups. There’s the Schiller Institute, which I think actually technically in Europe and gets a lot of funding from China not when I say from China, I don’t mean from the Chinese government, I mean from Chinese investors and LaRouche Pac, which is more, it does stop the steal stuff in America. So, but the history of LaRouche is actually opaque. Even the people study it, because it’s not actually quite clear that it’s ever been as influence, like both its clerics and its supporters seem to believe it was more influential than I have evidence for it to be.

VII. Professional History

Dan Rea:

you had like Lyndon Larouche. By the way, now that you mentioned Lyndon Larouche. I want you to know, ken that a series of stories that i did on Lyndon Larouche’s beginning in nineteen eighty four resulted in him being convicted in the Southern District of Virginia court in nineteen eighty six, and he went to prison for ninety true story.
He was nuts. He was flat out nuts. He was a scam artist. He ran a Ponzi scheme, and it just so happened that we found out about it. And I’m very
proud as of the fact that I that my stories on Channel four resulted him
being him and his associates being indicted here in Boston with a superseding indictment.
Now that you mentioned Lyndon Larouche is not mentioned often on here. And I’ll tell you one funny story if I can I think I’ll enjoy this real,
quickly true story. Four or five years the Larouche people hated Henry Kissinger. They accused him of conspiring with Queen Elizabeth
But to bring drugs into America. They were vile. They would stand outside his apartment and when Kissinger and his wife and Nancy Kissinger would emerge from the apartment, they would yell vile things at Kissinger
about being a child and all of that. So fast forward five or six years after Larouche has been convicted. I’m set up to interview Kissinger in
Boston and he had written a book. This is probably in the early nineteen
nineties. So he was speaking to a group I think it was at the
convention center, and we’re in a room all set up waiting for him,
and he’s running late. He shows up about an hour late, and his
press person walks in the room and says to me, I’m very sorry,
but we’re late and doctor Kissinger will not have time for the interview that we had scheduled with you. Well, of course I was pretty upset. It
was a small room, so I raised my voice and I said, so
you’re telling me that doctor Kissinger does not want to be interviewed and meet the reporter in Boston whose stories resulted in Lyndon LaRouche being convicted and sent the President. Larouche rather kissing is in the corner.
He turns around very very slowly and he says, uh, we we we will, we will have time, We will have time to do this interview. Very nice, very first
story. Thanks thanks man, I appreciate it. That is an absolute true
story. Where are we gonna go next.

VII. Two episodes of ‘Schizotopia’ worth a listen — perhaps at increased speed — I am joined by ‘LaRoucheian Operative’ Liam Murphy to discuss his political journey and his work with the LaRouche political movement. Topics include: Christo-Stalinism, Anti Communist Communism, Cosmism, Prometheanism vs. The Bible, Geophysical Humanism, Based Uganda, The Executive Intelligence Review and the Nietzsche-Flat Earther-LaRouche pipeline.

Is what it says. Puzzle to fix generational perspective — “I think Larouche was inspired by the John Birch Society” — and A confusion in the two Presidents Bush.

A tad more coherent is a maybe more diluted Larouchism — Maga Communism discussed with Fox Green.

And at the 50 minute mark or thereabouts here, this podcasters discusses nearly joining the Larouche movement at age 16 or 17 — and, transcripted:

When I was about 16 or 17 years old, I almost became a Larouche Youth. I don’t know how familiar you are with Larouche. I would assume — I’m sure they have Larouche people in Canada, right? He’s basically — you would like this guy, actually. Because he’s almost like if J Ray decided to start an actual political party and was 100% committed to it. Because, he starts off as like a Communist, but then he develops this weird theory of like how all of Western history is Plato vs Aristotle and Plato’s a fascist who wants us to live in a frozen city and there are things that change and evolve um but then he gets this idea that Fabian Socialists are creating rock and roll to make us dumb degenerates so we can’t have Communism and it starts to become rightwing. So he’s like this weird American version of Nazbol. Like, they were really into the idea that if FDR had lived he would have created this super productive social democracy that would have built infrastructure for the entire world, almost like AS Pinksphile(?) or something like that and they wanted to build a super pipeline through Alaska — just all this very wacky edge of politics. But I remember this dude who was trying to — he was becoming my handler and he was indicting me into the Larouche Youth, giving me all this literature — I’m like, 16, 17 years old — it sounds pretty cool — I like all of these weird theories and stuff and I remember this guy told me he dropped out of college to serve the Larouche cause and he told me that all he had done before he had been a Larouche Youth was smile weed in his apartment and listen to Radiohead, that was it, and his life was completely meaningless, but now that he had Larouche in his life,everything made sense. And that freaked me out a little bit, even at my young age that tingled my Spidey senses a little. But after hanging out with him a little more I realized it was a cult and I needed to leave. But one thing I remember — I finally stopped answering his phone ballache left his voice mail on my phone — that was basically like almost a jilted lover. He was saying stuff like I really thought you were different, I thought you were smart, I thought you were special. I thought we would do all these great things. And here’s the thing — there’s no way that that guy stayed in that movement. He had to have burned out of it in a couple of years. Whatever. I’ll probably see him and he’ll be the successor to the guy who died recently but — or move to Alaska in a couple years. But whatever. It seems obvious that he joined this movement because he was just unhappy with his own life and it’s crazy to me especially with internet politics stuff and just a lot of people I have spoken to over the years, almost two years I’ve been doing this podcast, these people who clearly desperately talk their way into things — it’s scary to see that because you realize how much you do that in your own life.

All I can say is I’m very pro-cult, so it sounds like you missed out on a great opportunity.

VIII. Trump? famously more delusional than Col. Kurtz meets Lyndon LaRouche …

So the Smash Mouth lead singer passed away. This is this group I had zero strong opinion on except that I got stuck in a “am I defending something I just find objectively unobjectionable?” question when I started seeing them used as a short hand for … Something cultural, I don’t know what. It was this blasting from a niche online influencer, like a big crochet online hub, who gnabbed some attention by posting that all Trump supporters and voters can go to Hell and I don’t want to hear anything from them ever and they can all be left to their Smash Mouth concerts. To which I scratched my head — why bring Smash Mouth into this? What did they ever do? Later, a back handed praise from The Huffington Post came when Smash Mouth made the lowest of low hanging fruit stage comments on mocking a “straight pride parade” with a response comment along the lines of “who woulda thought Smash Mouth would be socially conscious” — were they ever explicitly not? Am I staring at some Holden Coulfields finding “phoneys” everywhere and when diverging out of their fixed idea on musical and entertainment tastes? What is this? Is this slammed in the same manner something’s are as “angry white boy music” as instead ” happy white boy music”?

There are cultural signifiers tossed out with a fixed understanding that I need to make a reach to understand what it signifiers even as it is stated as a given. It could be a sign of me getting old and out of touch except for the problem that I used to be young and out of touch.

The other day I am caught flat footed with another pop cultural assumption of an adjective. Stephen King annoyed his wife by constant play of the song “Mambo Number Five” (The late 90s lyrical -filled reprise of an old song). Big Variety headline. The article casually refers to the song as “infamous”, leading me to ask “to whom — when — where?”. It has been years — decades — since it was ubiquitous (the one reason it could have been “infamous”) and today if you wish to hear it you have to specifically seek it out. I suppose the casual womanizing and listing of women’s name is an irksome message, and it would not be gauche to play constantly at your significant other in any monogamous relationship. But I don’t think the same adjective is being dropped in as an automatic qualifier for (name of a 50s rock song is escaping me, but it is barely coded and amounts to same thing and ends up dropped in commercials). Is this adjective drop a low level “cancel” attempt to firm up cultural consensus? What is this?

The Time (or was it Newsweek?) magazine cover which placed Obama as the “First Gay President” — because we sort of just drop the actual bonafide homosexual one of James Buchanan — may finally have some meaning to it. He “lusted in his heart“. At that age of experimentation, I guess, in that one cultural environment and setting that may encourage (or not discourage) such. Metro-sexuality gets its undertones overtoned.

I am stuck on the source … a tad. Like, it is the problem of a claim I am indifferent to and is picked up by everyone who is not as indifferent to with different meanings to different audiences — Pink News and Fox News — as fact, but is then followed by warnings of what a non existent threat of a non materializing Supreme Court appointment may mean.

Whether this was picked up on by gays during 2008 as Obama publicly took the stances against gay marriage and gays in the military, I can’t really say. I also do not know if the flip flop, transparently probable at the time — or, if this is your very important die on the hill stance you really ought back McCain / Palin and I would have said as much in 2008 — is something you can have a beef with in 2023, as apparently is had by our big country music sensation has right about now. I do give him this much — is the great issue repositioning I take on all the bozos who view all that two parties as keeping on nothing at all but a rightward march, no position swappings from betwixt the two and redefinitions of terms — why look at all these repositioned Anti-Trump Republicans seizing comfortably into the Democratic Party! At the same time, on his other issue — guns — Obama’s presidency represented the time period where that issue was shelved, so in consideration of Obama from his stated viewpoints here — that should be one against and one for him.

The line we get to a couple sentences in some letters from a college Obama gets extrapolated into derangement. Ticket Carlson speaks of crack. Newsmax hosts retell the one about the Secret Service dropping off rentboys. Edgy fiction writers they.

That sinking sensation of a “Welcome to Hell” I feel when staring at political headlines or stories never abates. No one works in good faith. I have to squint at a Huffington Post story — describing the governor of Virginia as a “so-called Moderate” nonetheless “backing anti-choice” candidates. As near as I can tell, the governor of Virginia never presented himself as anything but a conservative Republican, with his appeals to “moderate” swing-voters an appeal from the right, interpreted by political pundits as “cultural” lines of attack even though it is the fair domain of public school curriculum. “Maga!” shouted his Democratic opponent, incessantly until it has no real meaning. (Similar to the word “woke” losing any meaning.) Now I suppose, the liberals and Democrats now can try and achieve an opposition by appealing to the “moderates” and “swing voters” from the left on Abortion — which depending on how you want to define it is a “cultural” line of attack or the proper domain of medical policy.

The Virginia governor’s campaign did did fall somewhere short on the spectrum of DeSantis’s current policy in Florida, which I guess is what makes it an appeal to moderation. I guess for whatever Republican comes up next to run in “one term limit” Virginia, it is good to have Florida setting something to fall short of in making a right wing pitch on education and moderate against some unpopular liberal education policies. Or maybe it isn’t. It may just mean the Democrat can just run against DeSantis. Which may be proper as — they make the same basic appeal, after all.

Getting to the official fact check on Tim Scott at the Republican debate that the DOJ never called parents yelling at school board meetings “domestic terrorists”, as the report is full of references to the democratic glories of “spirited debate”. I think the organization dubbed such, or maybe it was a “hate group” — was something like “Moms for Liberty”? They fall outside somebody’s Overton Window, and at the very least pepper up parents to yell at school boards. I there for mark the fact checker fact check “false” eating as “false”, whether or not the full backstory justified the memos is an irrelevancy. The best moves on. Find a different market than “false”, like “true, but out of balance”.