February 23, 2024

Friday, February 23, 2024. Annette’s News Roundup.

I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.

To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.

Please feel free to share.

Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup

____________________________________________

Joe is always busy.

____________________________________________

Journalist Ezra Klein created an audio lecture - “Democrats Have a Better Option Than Biden: It’s requires them to embrace an old-fashioned approach to winning a campaign.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s brilliant answer to Klein and others about why Joe Biden is and must be our candidate —

And why no one else makes the cut.

Must watch video. You must watch it! Touch to activate. 👇

@lawrence: "The notion that Joe Biden is too old is based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of the work of the presidency. The job is to make decisions, not speeches. History writes about the decisions. That's what matters."

Another response to Ezra Klein.

No. Ezra Klein is Completely Wrong. Here’s Why.

A number of you have written in to ask about Ezra Klein’s audio essay “Democrats Have a Better Option Than Biden: It’s requires them to embrace an old-fashioned approach to winning a campaign.” Is it a good argument? Does it change the equation? What do I make of it? Just for the purposes of cutting to the chase: my answers are “not really,” “no” and “not much.” But Klein is a smart, articulate guy and sitting at the top of the Times op-ed page he has vast influence. So I wanted to break the argument down into its moving parts.

Klein begins his essay by assuring us that he likes Joe Biden and actually thinks he’s done a good job as President. This is to soften the reader up and dispel any notion that he’s got some anti-Biden axe to grind. I don’t think Klein is disingenuous or cynical about this. I think he believes it. He not only doesn’t think age has hindered Biden in doing the job as President so far; he doesn’t think it would in a second term either. The issue for him, Klein says, isn’t about being President but running for President: Biden has slowed down considerably, even from his last run in 2019–2020, and Biden simply is not up to running a vigorous campaign in which the candidate is an asset, not a liability.

The middle part of the essay basically has Klein knocking down a series of straw man arguments, many of which I’ve never heard before. People say this is age-ism! I haven’t heard this stupid argument. But Trump’s also old! People do say this and it’s true. It’s not really an argument though. He knocks down a few other straw man arguments before getting to one of the real and strongest ones: Biden is, for all intents and purposes, already the nominee. It’s over.

It’s not too late at all, says Klein. How can it be too late when it’s February? (Which isn’t a bad point.) Biden may get all the delegates, which he certainly will. But if he steps aside and releases his delegates then you have an open convention in which party activists and delegates pick the nominee with a free choice. He then outlines a scenario in which a strong bench of possible alternative nominees vie for nomination, generating positive press and party enthusiasm which leads to a vigorous campaign and, hopefully, a general election victory.

This is the gist of Klein’s argument, his “old-fashioned approach” to winning a campaign which is essentially, in his accounting, not to drift into the general election unprepared but have the convention come up with a specific plan for victory. There’s a huge amount of wishful thinking and razzmatazz in this concluding third of the essay. But let’s zero in on two key pivot points.

First, will convention-chosen candidate X do better than Biden? As I notedon Friday, polling evidence makes that assumption at least highly questionable. That’s not the only question. Is early 21st century America really ready for a party nominee literally chosen by a few thousand party insiders and activists? I have real doubts about that. Will the convention not become a forum for litigating highly divisive issues like Gaza, Medicare for All and the broader contest between progressives and establishment-oriented liberals? The last half century of American politics has been based on the idea that the convention is a highly scripted unity launch event. This alternative would mean a free for all, in which the choice between a number of quite promising candidates will be made by a group whose legitimacy will likely be highly suspect. Not good!

Then there’s another issue. Okay, say you’ve convinced us. The thunderdome convention scenario is the better bet. How do we get there? Klein is refreshingly candid about this while somehow not being remotely realistic about how wildly improbable it is. You do it by mounting a public campaign to convince the people in Biden’s inner circle — Mike Donilon, Anita Dunn, Steve Ricchetti, maybe Barack Obama and whoever else — to convince Biden to step aside. That’s almost word for word the plan. Let’s drill down on what that means. Your plan is to convince the people who are pretty much by definition the most loyal to and invested in Biden — more than anyone in the entire political world — to abandon the plan they’re already two-thirds of their way through and convince Biden to step aside. We can add the more cynical point that this also means ending their own political careers at the top of the political game. As of today, the right-leaning RCP Average shows Biden 1.1 points behind Donald Trump. Are you really going to point to that and convince them that it’s hopeless? That to me is not remotely a serious plan. It’s not a serious anything.

And what exactly is the plan while you’re executing that plan? Unless I’m missing something, this plan means spending the spring perhaps not campaigning but in the midst of a public intervention trying to make the case that the party’s nominee is too old and frail to be President. On the off chance this plan doesn’t work, that seems pretty damaging to the nominee.

Many people I have this conversation with end the conversation here with a simple “the best thing is for Biden to step aside.” This, I confess, is where my brain generally freezes up. There is clearly a big sense of psychic release from arguing this. I share all the anxieties expressed by those anonymous Democratic insiders and campaign strategists who apparently can’t stop calling reporters and telling them how worried they are. I just don’t see the point of going down this path or, more accurately, waving vaguely toward that path, if there is no plan or likely scenario in which anything like it happens. Maybe I lack imagination.

Which brings me to my final point. Klein’s essay has been the top conversation of the political set since it was published three days ago. It’s garnered many responses like the one from Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe who wrote on Twitter that while he didn’t agree with Klein, “we ignore this problem at our peril. Pretending that enough voters will be motivated by the catastrophic results of a second Trump presidency just won’t suffice. This is a crisis.” This is like others who’ve said that even though Biden is the nominee, “we have to address” the issue, or “can’t ignore” the issue, or have to “discuss” the issue.

(I should be clear: I’m not picking on Tribe. It’s just the last example I saw. It’s relevant because it’s like so many others.)

Given where we are in the calendar, we’re way past the time for general statements of concern. As far as I can see we are talking about it. A lot. Are we ignoring it? We seem to be giving it quite a lot of attention. The only way to “address” or do something about Biden’s age is to replace him with someone else. Of course there are course corrections you can make within the campaign. Jon Alter says the campaign should stop trying to insulate Biden from press availabilities because he might flub some words and put him out more. Accept the flubs, even embrace them. He’s right. But I don’t think that’s what any of these people are talking about.

The right answer to anyone making these kinds of open-ended statements of concern is to say, tell me specifically what course of action you’re advocating and, if it’s switching to a new candidate, how you get there in the next few weeks? Could I end up looking silly if Biden stumbles through the campaign with growing evidence of declining acuity and loses in November? I guess. But I don’t see how that changes the validity of any of the analysis above.

In life we constantly need to make choices on the basis of available options. Often they are imperfect or even bad options. The real options are the ones that have some shot at success. That’s life. Klein’s argument really amounts to a highly pessimistic but not unreasonable analysis of the present situation which he resolves with what amounts to a deus ex machina plot twist. That’s not a plan. It’s a recipe for paralysis.

I think the Democratic Party has thought — or is in the process of thinking — about this, is addressing it, not ignoring it, pick your vague verb. In addition to many strengths, including incumbency, Biden has a big campaign liability: his age. Democrats have decided that even with this liability he’s probably the best shot to defeat Donald Trump. And even if he’s not, there’s no viable path to switching to anyone else. Accentuate the positive, back burner the negatives, and run the campaign. (Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo).

Democratic Strategist Keith Edwards with wise words.

____________________________________________

MAGA Congressional Republicans James Comer and Jim Jordan used Russian disinformation to attempt to impeach Joe Biden.

They won’t stop.

Congressman Dan Goldman said that if members of Congress continue to peddle known lies that are a product of Russian disinformation, THEY SHOULD BE CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATED for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and to interfere in our election.

Keep this in your thoughts. It is an idea that may stick.

____________________________________________

Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn may soon be Congressman Dunn.

____________________________________________

Why is “this” happening in Alabama?

“This” being, of course, the personhood of embryos.

Meet the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Tom Parker.

These folks are all members of the Seven Mountain Mandate. The biblical base for the movement is derived from Revelation 17:1–18, wherein verse 9 reads, "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains". The seven areas that the movement believe influence society and that they seek to influence are family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. They believe that their mission to influence the world through these seven spheres is justified by Isaiah 2:2 "Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains."

Followers believe that by fulfilling the Seven Mountain Mandate they can bring about the end times.(Wikipedia).

Speaker Mike Johnson, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann are all followers of the Seven Mountain Mandate.

To his credit, Mike Pence has spoken against the Alabama court decision.

President Biden released a response of his own Thursday afternoon, saying “the disregard for women’s ability to make these decisions for themselves and their families is outrageous and unacceptable.”

“Make no mistake,” Biden continued, “this is a direct result of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.” (Politico).

____________________________________________

CPAC (The Conservative Political Action Conference) is happening. So scary.

Touch to activate.👇

Jaime Harrison, head of the Democratic National Committee, tells us what this means.

____________________________________________

No delay on Trump Fraud Case.

Judge Engoron to the Trump lawyer.

____________________________________________

Target - the Moon.

US Lands Spacecraft on the Moon for the First Time since 1972.

A camera aboard Odysseus, the Intuitive Machines lunar lander, took a photograph of the Bel’kovich K crater on the moon on Wednesday before it landed in the lunar’s southern polar region on Thursday.

For the first time in a half-century, an American-built spacecraft has landed on the moon.

The robotic lander was the first U.S. vehicle on the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, the closing chapter in humanity’s astonishing achievement of sending people to the moon and bringing them all back alive. That is a feat that has not been repeated or even tried since.

The lander, named Odysseus and a bit bigger than a telephone booth, arrived in the south polar region of the moon at 6:23 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday.

The landing time came and went in silence as flight controllers waited to hear confirmation of success. A brief communication pause was expected, but minutes passed.

Then Tim Crain, the chief technology officer of Intuitive Machines, the Houston-based company that built Odysseus, reported that a faint signal from the spacecraft had been detected.

“It’s faint, but it’s there,” he said. “So stand by, folks. We’ll see what’s happening here.”

A short while later, he announced, “What we can confirm, without a doubt, is our equipment is on the surface of the moon and we are transmitting. So congratulations.”

Later, he added, “Houston, Odysseus has found its new home.”

But with the spacecraft’s ability to properly communicate still unclear, the celebration of clapping and high-fives in the mission control center was muted.

Later in the evening, the company reported more promising news.

“After troubleshooting communications, flight controllers have confirmed Odysseus is upright and starting to send data,” Intuitive Machines said in a statement. “Right now, we are working to downlink the first images from the lunar surface.”

While this venture was much more modest than the Apollo missions that led to astronauts walking on the moon, the hope at NASA was that it could help inaugurate a more revolutionary era: transportation around the solar system that is economical as far as spaceflight is concerned.

“I think it is a smart thing that NASA is trying to do,” said Carissa Christensen, chief executive of BryceTech, a space consulting firm, “which is to essentially create a competitive ecosystem of providers to meet its needs.”

Intuitive Machines is one of several small companies that NASA has hired to transport instruments that will perform reconnaissance on the moon’s surface ahead of the return of NASA astronauts there, planned for later this decade.

For this mission, NASA paid Intuitive Machines $118 million under a program known as Commercial Lunar Payload Services, or CLPS, to deliver six instruments to the moon, including a stereo camera that aimed to capture the billowing of dust kicked up by Odysseus as it approached the surface and a radio receiver to measure the effects of charged particles on radio signals.

There was also cargo from other customers, like a camera built by students at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., and an art project by Jeff Koons. Parts of the spacecraft were wrapped in reflective material made by Columbia Sportswear.

Odysseus left Earth early on Feb. 15 aboard a SpaceX rocket. It pulled into lunar orbit on Wednesday.

The lead-up to the landing included last-minute shuffling.

After the spacecraft entered lunar orbit, Intuitive Machines said it would land on the moon at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday. On Thursday morning, the company said the spacecraft had moved to a higher altitude and would land at 4:24 p.m.

Then on Thursday afternoon, the landing time changed again, with the company saying that an extra lap around the moon would be needed before the 6:24 p.m. landing attempt. A company spokesman said a laser instrument on the spacecraft that was to provide data on its altitude and velocity was not working.

The extra orbit provided two hours for changes in the spacecraft’s software to substitute a different, experimental laser instrument, which had been provided by NASA.

At 6:11 p.m., Odysseus fired its engine to begin its powered descent to the surface. The laser instrument appeared to serve as a suitable fill-in, and everything appeared to be working until the spacecraft went silent for several minutes.

The landing site for Odysseus was a flat area near the Malapert A crater, about 185 miles north of the moon’s south pole. The moon’s polar regions have attracted much interest in recent years because of frozen water hidden in the shadows of craters there.

Getting to the moon has proved to be a tricky feat to pull off. Other than the United States, only the government space programs of the Soviet Union, China, India and Japan have successfully put robotic landers on the moon’s surface. Two companies — Ispace of Japan and Astrobotic Technology of Pittsburgh — had previously tried and failed, as has an Israeli nonprofit, SpaceIL.

In an interview before launch, Steve Altemus, the chief executive of Intuitive Machines, said he hoped NASA would persevere with the moon-on-a-budget mindset even if Odysseus crashed.

“It’s the only way to really go forward,” he said. “That’s what this experiment is supposed to do.”

In the past, NASA would have built its own spacecraft.

Before Neil Armstrong became the first person to set foot on the moon, NASA sent a series of robotic spacecraft, Surveyor 1 through Surveyor 7, to validate landing techniques and examine the properties of the lunar soil. Those robotic landings allayed concerns that astronauts and spacecraft would sink into a thick layer of fine dust on the moon’s surface.

But when NASA designs and operates spacecraft itself, it generally seeks to maximize the odds of success, and its designs tend to be expensive.

The Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 became a paradigm for a colossal program that tackled a problem nearly impossible to solve with a near-limitless budget — the proverbial moonshot — while CLPS seeks to harness the enthusiasm and ingenuity of start-up entrepreneurs.

Thomas Zurbuchen, a former top NASA science official who started the CLPS program in 2018, estimated that a robotic lunar lander designed, built and operated in the traditional NASA manner would cost $500 million to $1 billion, or at least five times as much the space agency paid Intuitive Machines.

NASA hopes that capitalism and competition — with companies proposing different approaches — will spur innovation and lead to new capabilities at lower costs.

But even if they succeed, these companies face uncertain business prospects attracting many customers beyond NASA and other space agencies.

“It’s not obvious who those other customers might be,” Ms. Christensen said.

Intuitive Machines has contracts for two more CLPS missions, and other companies are expected to take their shots at the moon, too. Astrobotic Technology, the Pittsburgh-based company, has a second mission in preparation to take a robotic NASA rover to one of the shadowed regions where there might be ice. Firefly Aerospace, near Austin, Texas, has its Blue Ghost lander mostly ready but has not yet announced a launch date. (New York Times).

____________________________________________