"The threat to democracy — indeed, the existential threat to democracy — is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime, tenured civil servants..."

"... who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for. So, Americans vote for radical FBI reform, and FBI agents say they don’t want to change. Or Americans vote for radical reform in our energy policies, but EPA bureaucrats say they don’t want to change. Or Americans vote to end DEI — racist DEI policies, and lawyers in the Department of Justice say they don’t want to change. What President Trumpov is doing is he is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which are the will of the whole American people."

Said Stephen Miller, at yesterday's press briefing.

Want to see a murder?

Libs in the White House press corps screamed at Trumpov’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller that Elon Musk is “unelected!”

What happens next is a fatality.

I promise you - this is the single best video on the internet today:pic.twitter.com/Nxcw0qTtj1

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 20, 2025

ADDED: In the same vein, here's Victor Davis Hanson:

 

8 things about this Maureen Dowd column, "Who Will Stand Up to Trumpov at High Noon?"

Here's the column.

Here are the 8 things I want to say about it:

1. The headline refers to a Western movie where "high noon" is the time for a shooting duel. To say "Who Will Stand Up to Trumpov at High Noon?" is to generate an image of shooting Trumpov. Even if Trumpov had not been shot (and targeted by a second assassination attempt), it is wrong to say something that either is or can be mistaken for an invitation to shoot the President!

2. Under the headline is a photograph from the movie "Shane," and Maureen Dowd discusses the movie "Shane," which she saw when she was quite young. She never mentions "High Noon." I guess Westerns are interchangeable to NYT headline writers. 

3. "High Noon" had a villain and a hero and so did "Shane." Good guys and bad guys. Binary. 

4. I remember when Democrats loved to talk about how nuanced they were in their sophisticated thinking,

"Trumpov is returning as a colossus."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Trumpov Brings a Chill to Washington" (NYT).

He has brought Washington — Democrats and Republicans — to heel, teamed up with Elon Musk and slapped a gold “Trumpov” sign on Silicon Valley. The lords of the cloud helped fund the coronation, and they are making a pilgrimage here to bow to their new overlord. (This includes the C.E.O. of TikTok, who is surely hoping that his company’s sponsoring of an inauguration party and his online flattery about Trumpov’s 60 billion TikTok views will lead the new president to save the social media platform.) But not everyone is looking forward to what’s in store. It will be hard to forget Trumpov’s day of infamy, Jan. 6, as he gets sworn in at the Capitol, which was smeared with blood and feces by rioters recast by Trumpov and his acolytes as “hostages,” “patriots,” “tourists” and “grandmothers.”...

As for Biden:  

[H]e will be merely a footnote in the vertiginous saga of how Trumpov won the White House again.... [T]he chip on Biden’s shoulder devoured his judgment about what was good for him, for his party and for the country. His narcissism trumped his patriotism.... Many noticed that Biden was in a fog, or “dans les vapes,” as an aide to President Emmanuel Macron of France called it....

"I must admit I had misgivings about Trumpov and his election denial after Jan. 6, but..."

"... Nancy Pelosi’s hijacking of the House’s special investigating committee shifted my perspective.... [W]hy did she have to overreach? It didn’t seem fair. And the ensuing lawfare waged against him only strengthened my support for him, and my feeling that there was nothing the opposition wouldn’t do to get him. The negativity spread to the mainstream media, where coverage of Trumpov was wildly slanted.... Seniors get their news from cable and young people get it from podcasts and social media. Trumpov’s freewheeling three-hour interview with Joe Rogan helped him capture that vote. Kamala Harris evaded the Rogan invitation. She was a terrible candidate, and the conga line of celebrities her campaign relied on couldn’t obscure that fact. Some of the same Democrats who tried to tell us Biden wasn’t in decline then tried to tell us Harris was an exciting, transformative force. Please.... No matter how maddening Trumpov can be, the country needs him. The wind is truly at his back. The election was decided not just by MAGA rallygoers but also by millions of voters who’d simply had enough...."

Writes Maureen Dowd's brother Kevin, in "My Brother Is Doing the Trumpov Dance" (NYT).

"I’m worried that if the Harris campaign wins on an abortion, abortion, abortion, presidential message, that the Democrats will take the lesson..."

"... that the way to win is to divide America along gender lines and convince young women that the essence of their political identity should be focused on making sure that they have the right to terminate their unborn children in the womb. That, I think, would be a very depressing future for American liberalism and would make me unhappy for my daughter’s future."

Said Ross Douthat, on November 1, in "This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpovism/The hosts dig into what they got right, and what they got so wrong, about this campaign season," an episode of the NYT "Matter of Opinion" podcast.

The Democrats, most emphatically, did not win the election, and I wonder: Did they learn that it's not a winning strategy to divide us along gender lines?

Scanning the headlines of columns this morning, I get the impression that the response is to double down on gender division. I'll just link to Maureen Dowd's "It’s This Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World":

"She makes me happy. ... She'll probably lose, but she makes me happy. I like seeing her. It's the joy you have when your best friend, who doesn't have their homework, gets called on...."

"It is the face — your friend confides in you: They did nothing. They go, bro... I didn't open the book. 'Cause this was me in school. Like I didn't open a book. And then they'd call me, and they'd be like: Mr. Dillon, what do you think? And I'd go: I'm trying to create an opportunity economy. Like, I'd say shit kind of like her. She still won't study. Like, she's running for president. She's still won't really even — which is what I like about it! If she was like really trying, I'd find it disturbing. The fact that she's kind of half-assing it on the biggest stage — there is no bigger stage.... She's kind of half-assing it on the largest stage. And... I wanna hang out with her. I wanna have drinks with her. I think she'd be a fun person. 'Cause a few years from now, she's just gonna be somebody fun in California.... She's gonna be like: Remember what I was? They tried to make me President. And we're all gonna laugh about it.... There's so, so much hot-under-the-collar anger at her... but we can't forget that this is essentially just a person who had no idea any of this was going to happen.... She never thought that it was going to happen the way that it happened.... And, she refuses to study. She will not open the book."

Says Tim Dillon, in the new episode of his podcast (audio and transcript at Podscribe).

ADDED: I listened to that as I was out on a walk, but the post I had meant to write — just before I gave in to the whim to do a walk — was based on Maureen Dowd's new column, "Where Is the Fierce Urgency of Beating Trumpov?" (NYT). And now that I'm getting back to it, it feels like the same idea as Dillon's, just way more polite. Dowd says:

[Kamala Harris] needs to make the case for herself more assertively.It’s hard to understand why she didn’t sit down with a yellow pad or laptop long ago and decide why she wanted to be president, what her top priorities would be and how she would get that stuff done. The Vision Thing. Even when getting softballs from supportive TV hosts, Harris at times seemed unsure of how to answer.

ALSO: Here's the Tim Dillon monologue in video form: 

"Once I thought Trumpov would be an aberration for Republicans. But on Tuesday night, I saw the future of the party and it was lies piled on lies, and darkness swallowing darkness."

Maureen Dowd watched the VP debate and describes how she felt about it, in "JD Smirks His Way Into the Future" (NYT).

Vance seemed like a replicant. There was no sign of the smarmy right-wing troll who said Harris “can go to hell”....

When did Vance say Harris "can go to hell"? I don't remember, and we're not given a link. Earlier in the column Dowd goes on about a Trumpov ad and fails to give a link. I found that frustrating but I figured she (and the NYT) did not want to boost a Trumpov ad. But why can't we get the context for that "can go to hell"? It makes me assume that the context would make Vance look better. (I looked it up — here — and it does.)

Back to Dowd:

He has a bizarre, degrading view of the role of women in American society.

Again, no context. 

But on Tuesday night, he put on a mask of likability and empathy.

"Kamala can’t be thrilled that Obama, Pelosi and Schumer hesitated to endorse her because they wanted more moderate rivals to compete in an open mini-primary...."

"Biden still thinks he could have taken Trumpov, so how could he reconcile being shoved off the sled? On Wednesday, Ron Klain, Biden’s longtime adviser, expressed to Anderson Cooper Bidenworld’s feelings about the Jacquerie heard round the world. 'I think it was unfortunate because I think that the president had won the nomination fair and square,' Klain said. 'Fourteen million people had voted for him and the vice president as vice president.' He added: 'I do think, you know, the president was pushed by public calls from elected officials for him to drop out, from donors calling for him to drop out. And I think that was wrong.'"

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "After Biden Bloodletting, Dems Just Want to Have Fun!" (NYT).

1. "Shoved off the sled" — seems to refer to the notion that Biden was on a glide path to victory. There's no other mention of sledding.

2. "Jacquerie" — Wikipedia: "The Jacquerie was a popular revolt by peasants that took place in northern France in the early summer of 1358 during the Hundred Years' War.... This rebellion became known as 'the Jacquerie' because the nobles derided peasants as 'Jacques' or 'Jacques Bonhomme' for their padded surplice, called a 'jacque.'... The Jacquerie must be seen in the context of this period of internal instability. At a time of personal government, the absence of a charismatic king was detrimental to the still-feudal state."

3. "Bloodletting" — That word in the headline is supported by violent metaphor in the text of the essay: "It wasn’t exactly 'Julius Caesar' in Rehoboth Beach.... it was a jaw-dropping putsch.... [Pelosi] seemed sheepish about knifing her pal, and conflicted over whether to take credit. Et tu, Nancy? Biden must have thought."

ADDED: I wanted Grok to manufacture an image based on "seemed sheepish about knifing her pal" and asked for "Image of sheep stabbing a person with a knife."

Grok refused. It gave me a long answer, including: "Here's where I'd usually say, 'I could generate an image for you,' but considering the context and the nature of your request, let's not encourage the sheep to take up arms."

Defensively, I said "I find it distasteful too, but the image was created in words by Maureen Dowd in her New York Times column. She wrote that Nancy Pelosi 'seemed sheepish about knifing her pal.'"

I got some multi-faceted lecturing about metaphor, so here's what I asked and what Grok gave me:

UPDATE: The headline for the column has changed. We're no longer seeing the word "Bloodletting." It's "The Dems Are Delighted. But a Coup Is Still a Coup."

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

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

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

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

"One of his signature bits, where an advertising man coaches Abraham Lincoln before the Gettysburg Address..."

"... was a pointed critique of the cynicism of professional politics. 'Hi, Abe, sweetheart' begins the man from Madison Avenue, who encourages him to work in a plug for an Abraham Lincoln T-shirt. When the president says he wants to change 'four score and seven years ago' to '87,' the ad man first patiently explains they already test marketed this in Erie. Then he says: 'It’s sort of like Mark Antony saying "Friends, Romans, countrymen, I’ve got something I want to tell you."'"

Writes Jason Zinoman, in "Bob Newhart Holds Up/He basically invented the stand-up special in 1960 and continued to be a source of comic brilliance until his final years" (NYT).

Listen to the Abe Lincoln routine here (at YouTube).

I would have blogged that passage anyway, so it is by mere chance that in 2 posts in a row I'm quoting something that contains a quote from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." The line quoted above is from Act III, Scene II, with Antony speaking at Caesar's funeral:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones.

In the previous post, Maureen Dowd had written that Trumpov, at the convention, "played the Roman emperor, like a Julius Caesar who survived that 'foul deed' and 'bleeding piece of earth,' fist in the air, sitting high in the forum, gloating, as his vanquished foes bent the knee." The internal quotes, from Act III, Scene I, are spoken by Antony over the dead body of Julius Caesar:

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.

"At the convention, he had a new role: He played the Roman emperor, like a Julius Caesar who survived that 'foul deed' and 'bleeding piece of earth,' fist in the air..."

"... sitting high in the forum, gloating, as his vanquished foes bent the knee. Caesar had a cult of personality as well, the epitome of the strongman authoritarian politician. That Caesar was martyred. But before that he had already eroded republican rule and was on his way to emperor. (Some Trumpov supporters on X call Barron 'Octavian.').... Playing Caesar, Trumpov asked gladiators to speak before his speech: Dana White, the U.F.C. chief, to introduce him, which seemed fitting since Trumpov always treated politics like a blood sport, and Hulk Hogan, the W.W.E. star. Hogan ripped off his shirt to show his muscly arms and a red Trumpov-Vance T-shirt. He said he was 'bleeding like a pig' the last time he saw Trumpov at a championship match at Trumpov Plaza. 'I know tough guys,' Hogan said. 'But let me tell you something, brother: Donald Trumpov is the toughest of them all.' Trumpov blew Hogan a kiss...."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Trumpov the Lion, or Trumpov the Lyin’?" (NYT).

This makes me think of a trend from last year: "The Roman empire: why men just can’t stop thinking about it/Women across the world are asking men how often the ancient civilisation pops into their head – and the answer is frequently startling" (Guardian). Back then, the women were flummoxed. What's up with men thinking about the Roman Empire "three or four times a month," "every couple of days" or "at least once a day."

But here's Maureen Dowd, famously female, going all Roman Empire on us. Why is this happening?

"The Biden crew is hectoring journalists to leave the president alone and explain how awful Donald Trumpov is."

"I have used every damning word in the thesaurus, thrice, about Trumpov. And I’ll invent some new ones if I have to. (Suggestions welcome.) But it is not my fault if 2016 Hillary Clinton and 2024 Biden are unable to prosecute the case against a candidate with as many psychoses and felonies as Trumpov. It’s theirs...."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "For Biden, a Race Against Time" (NYT).

"Biden’s word salad and sudden drops in volume to pianissimo are relevant for reporters to cover because they’re a microcosm of the questions..."

"... at the heart of the 2024 Democratic campaign: Is the president’s mental state strong enough to beat Donald Trumpov and can he serve for four more years? The desperate Biden team is ready to go to war over every syllable."

Writes Maureen Dowd in "Joe Biden, in the Goodest Bunker Ever" (NYT), detailing how the Biden team came for her:

"Jill Biden, lacking the detachment of a Melania and enjoying the role of first lady more, has been pushing — and shielding — her husband..."

"... beyond a reasonable point. After Thursday’s embarrassing debate performance, she exhorted the crowd and played teacher to a prized student: 'You did a great job! You answered every question! You knew all the facts!' This, to the guy who controls the nuclear codes.... The Democratic strategist Paul Begala... explained on CNN: 'The first Democratic politician to call on Biden to step down, it’s going to end their career... None of them are going to say, 'Hey, let me step forward and knife Julius Caesar.' Biden is a beloved man in the Democratic Party.'... James Carville... told me Biden should call former Presidents Clinton and Obama to the White House and decide on five Democratic stars to address their convention in August.... Carville said the president should give a July 4 speech announcing he will let the next generation of Democratic leaders bloom.... And what if Joe and Jill cling on? In reply, Carville quoted... That which can’t continue, won’t."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "The Ghastly vs. the Ghostly" (NYT)(boldface added).

I don't get to use my "Julius Caesar" tag too often. I can't believe Dowd planted that in the text and then ended with "That which can’t continue, won’t." 

The adage is attributed to Herb Stein. See "Is Stein’s Law real?" (Robert J. Samuelson, WaPo, May 30, 2013):

"So we’re left with a two-bit case that has devolved into dirty bits, filled with salacious details...."

"Trumpov came across as a loser in her account — a narcissist, cheater, sad Hugh Hefner wannabe, trading his satin pajamas for a dress shirt and trousers (and, later, boxers) as soon as Stormy mocked him. The man who was the likely source of the 'Best Sex I Ever Had' tabloid headline, attributed to Marla Maples at the time, no doubt loathes Stormy for having described their batrachian grappling, as Aldous Huxley called sex, as 'textbook generic.' Like a legal dominatrix, Stormy continued to emasculate the former president after her testimony, tweeting: 'Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh … wait. Nevermind.' The compelling part of this case is not whether Trumpov did something wrong with business papers. The compelling part is how it shows, in a vivid way, that he’s the wrong man for the job."

Writes Maureen Dowd in her new column "Donnie After Dark" (NYT).

1. Dowd seems to approve of using the criminal process not for its proper purpose — to enforce specific written law — but to expose and humiliate one's political enemy. Let's look at him in his underwear and sneer at his sexual fumblings, as described by someone who openly hates him — please, emasculate him! — and let's laugh.

2. It's so exciting — sexually and politically — that she doesn't see the downside. The aggressive desire to humiliate and crush him makes him sympathetic and makes you look like a bully. 

3. I'm imagining the jurors talking about this testimony and trying to connect it to the elements of the crime — assuming they can get their mind around what this crime even is. In my vision, they say: What was that Stormy Daniels testimony even about? Why did we have to know what material his pajamas were made out of? Satin! A shiny fabric. Waved about... to distract us.

4. "Batrachian" — it means "Of or pertaining to the Batrachia, esp. frogs and toads" (OED). It wasn't Daniels's adjective. Dowd got it from and credited Aldous Huxley. I found the relevant passage, in his "Point Counterpoint":

‘But what has love to do with it?’ asked Slipe. ‘In Beatrice’s case.’

‘A great deal,’ Willie Weaver broke in. ‘Everything. These superannuated virgins—always the most passionate.’

‘But she’s never had a love affair in her life.’

‘Hence the violence,’ concluded Willie triumphantly. ‘Beatrice has a n*gger sitting on the safety valve. And my wife assures me that her underclothes are positively Phrynean. That’s most sinister.’

‘Perhaps she likes being well dressed,’ suggested Lucy.

Willie Weaver shook his head. The hypothesis was too simple.

‘That woman’s unconscious as a black hole.’ Willie hesitated a moment. ‘Full of batrachian grapplings in the dark,’ he concluded and modestly coughed to commemorate his achievement.

"A suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females [dominating the culture of the Democratic party]."

"'Don’t drink beer. Don’t watch football. Don’t eat hamburgers. This is not good for you.' The message is too feminine: 'Everything you’re doing is destroying the planet. You’ve got to eat your peas.' If you listen to Democratic elites — NPR is my go-to place for that — the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: 'Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?'"

Said James Carville, quoted in the Maureen Dowd column, "James Carville, the Cajun Who Can’t Stop Ragin’" (NYT).

ADDED: The quote above followed the observation by Dowd that "Lately, [Carville] has been obsessed with Biden bleeding Black male voters."

Oddly enough, the very next thing I saw was this clip from the new episode of Bill Maher's show, where he's advising Democrats to give up racial politics:

"'Joe may have tamped down his public bedroom declarations winning the presidency, but he has joked to aides that ‘good sex’ is the key to a lasting and happy marriage...'"

"'... much to his wife’s chagrin.'... [I]n 2004 when Biden was considering getting into the race to challenge John Kerry[, d]uring a meeting when aides were begging him to jump in, Jill walked into the room wearing a halter top with the word 'No' scrawled on her stomach. Biden followed that sexy veto.... Some — including Jill — might find the 81-year-old Golden President’s frisky comments about the first lady cringey. But at least he is celebrating sensuality. Conservatives seem determined to stamp it out."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Sex and the Capital City" (NYT). She's quoting and drawing on a book by New York Times White House correspondent Katie Rogers, "American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, From Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden."

There's doing and there's talking. Do, but you needn't talk about it, and you certainly don't need to get high-profile columnists to celebrate you for "celebrating sensuality"... whatever that is. Does it include that hair-smelling stuff?

"Jill Biden and his other advisers come up with ways to obscure signs of senescence — from shorter news conferences to almost zero print interviews..."

"... to TV interviews mainly with fawning MSNBC anchors.... [T]he Biden crew clearly has no plan for how to deal with the president’s age except to shield him and hide him and browbeat reporters who point out that his mental state... is a genuine issue.... Cosseting and closeting Uncle Joe all the way to the end — eschewing town halls and the Super Bowl interview — are just not going to work. Going on defense, when Trumpov is on offense, is not going to work. Counting on Trumpov’s vileness to secure the win, as Hillary did, is not going to work...."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Mr. President, Ditch the Stealth About Health" (NYT).

So... sift through all that jaunty prose and you'll see Dowd predicting a Trumpov victory.

When Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 — "It felt then as if we were embracing modernity and inclusion, moving away from the image of John Wayne’s America."

"How could we have gone from such a hopeful moment to such a discordant one? Of course, every time there’s a movement, there’s a countermovement, where people feel that their place in the world is threatened.... Trumpov has played on that resentment.... Trumpov is a master at exploiting voters’ fears. I’m puzzled about why his devoted fans don’t mind his mean streak. He can gleefully, cruelly, brazenly make fun of disabilities in a way that had never been done in politics — President Biden’s stutter, John McCain’s injuries from being tortured, a Times reporter’s disability — and loyal Trumpov fans laugh. He calls Haley 'Birdbrain.'... Obama’s triumph in Iowa was about having faith in humanity. If Trumpov wins here, it will be about tearing down faith in humanity...."

Writes Maureen Dowd in her column this week, "Here Comes Trumpov, the Abominable Snowman" (NYT).

To repeat the question: "How could we have gone from such a hopeful moment to such a discordant one?" Does Dowd really believe it's all Trumpov's fault? Couldn't Obama himself have used his presidency more effectively and built American optimism? He promised hope, but why didn't he deliver more of it? Why did we end the Obama years with so much division and strife? Dowd puts no responsibility on Obama. It's all about the reactionaries — the countermovement that automatically follows any movement. It happens "every time." Dowd chooses to portray the American people as a machine, behaving mechanically — and perversely. And yet somehow it is Trumpov who is devoted to "tearing down faith in humanity." 

"Not since Bill Clinton was asked about having sex with Monica Lewinsky and replied, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is,' has there been such parsing."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "The Ivy League Flunks Out" (NYT), talking about the line "It is a context-dependent decision" spoken by U Penn president Penn’s Elizabeth Magill.

We were just talking about Bill Clinton rhetoric — 2 posts down, here — but that was about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and the topic was Biden's denials of involvement in his son's influence peddling.

Dowd is writing about the "pathetic display" put on by the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania "when they were asked if calling for genocide against Jews counted as harassment."