Tag: candidate
Surgeon General Fiasco Is A Perfect Trump Story

Surgeon General Fiasco Is A Perfect Trump Story

It's the perfect Trump story, one that tells you everything. It begins, as so many of them do, with a candidate whose qualification for high office is appearing on Fox News, proving once again that talking about something on television — and looking good — is not the same thing as actual experience.

In this case, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a New York family medicine doctor who reportedly practices at an urgent care facility, talked about medical issues as a Fox News contributor, which obviously qualified her to be the nation's leading doctor and health care expert as surgeon general. Put aside the fact that it took her six years to get through a four-year foreign medical school in the Caribbean (what you do if you don't get into an American medical school); in her autobiography, she writes,

"I studied at the University of South Florida where I enrolled in an Army ROTC program. I did basic training in Fort Lewis, Washington, and completed my medical training at the University of Arkansas where I served as chief resident."

She leaves out the part about the University of the Caribbean, as well as the fact that while she participated in ROTC, she was "medically disenrolled" in the program before being commissioned as an officer. And while she holds herself out as the director of the urgent care facility, CityMed, where she works, CBS News could not confirm that; CityMed would say only that she was a doctor there.

All of this was known about Nesheiwat, the sister-in-law of short-lived National Security Adviser and now U.N. Ambassador-to-be Mike Waltz, and none of it was getting in the way of her confirmation hearings, scheduled for Thursday. And then Sunday night, right-wing activist, conspiracy theorist and self-proclaimed Trump-loving "white nationalist" Laura Loomer took up the cause, demanding a new nominee. She unleashed on social media. While noting that Dr. Nesheiwat was a "nepo" (the sister-in-law point), is currently involved in a medical malpractice case, and didn't go to medical school in the U.S., it was her statements about vaccines that earned Loomer's wrath. Loomer posted:

"@DoctorJanette said 'Vaccine hesitancy is a Global health threat.'

"She used her access to Fox News to promote the dangerous Covid vaccine, which is now killing millions of people. She tried to shame people who didn't take the vaccine by calling them global health threats.

"Vaccines are a matter of PERSONAL HEALTH FREEDOM. "Vaccine hesitancy" is a matter of PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!

"It is not a Global Health Threat.

"MY BODY MY CHOICE!

"By her own logic, President Donald Trump and @RobertKennedyJr are GLOBAL HEALTH THREATS because they are challenging the safety of childhood vaccines.

"@DoctorJanette is not ideologically aligned with Donald Trump or his admin's health initiatives. The DOD is now giving back pay to armed service members who were let go because they didn't take the COVID JAB. They are now rightfully receiving back pay reparations for wrongful termination over their refusal to take an experimental DNA modifier. According to @DoctorJanette, these service members are GLOBAL HEALTH THREATS.

"How can she be confirmed in front of the US Senate on Thursday?"

She can't. On Wednesday afternoon, less than 24 hours before her scheduled confirmation hearing, President Donald Trump pulled the nomination. The last time Loomer came to town looking for scalps, supposedly with dossiers of who was and was not loyal on the National Security team, half the staff got purged.

This is who Trump is listening to.

Her position on vaccines was the one good thing about this nominee for surgeon general. It cost her the job.

Terrible things are going to happen. Measles is coming back. Children will die. When the history of this era is written, it will be a public health disaster, a shining example of the rejection of science in favor of know-nothingness, of pigheaded denials. This is how it happens.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

What Wisconsin's Supreme Court Election Could Mean For Abortion Rights

What Wisconsin's Supreme Court Election Could Mean For Abortion Rights

On April 1, Wisconsin voters will elect their next Supreme Court justice. A seat that opened up after Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not seek reelection when her term expires on July 31 will be filled by either conservative candidate Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel or liberal candidate Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. The new justice will take office in August.

If Schimel is elected, he would flip control of the high court from its current 4-3 liberal majority and possibly determine the ruling on the validity of an 1849 statute that could ban abortion in the state.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal constitutional right to abortion in June 2022, Wisconsin’s 1849 law went into effect, and for over a year, it was used to ban abortion in the state.

In December 2023, Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled that the law pertained to infanticide and not to abortion, but challenges to the law continue through the courts. The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2024, and a ruling is expected in the coming months.

Where it specifically mentions abortion, the 174-year-old statute provides exceptions for “therapeutic abortion” performed by a physician and deemed necessary “to save the life of the mother.”

Schimel has said he believes that “life begins at conception,” and in a recent debate with Crawford on March 12, when he was asked about the 1849 statute, Schimel said, “It was passed by two Houses of the legislature and signed by a governor. That means it’s a valid law.”

An expert in health care law and a physician told the Wisconsin Independent that the wording of the law is vague and could put patients’ lives in danger.

Richard Davis, a Milwaukee attorney with the firm Quarles and Brady, said that while the law was being enforced as a ban on abortion, he advised his clients to meticulously document every case in which an abortion was required to save the life of the patient.

“The key there is medical documentation, making sure the physician involved in the procedure or ordering the procedure is able to clearly and accurately state why the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother, and keeping thorough records of that,” Davis told the Wisconsin Independent.

“Just kind of thinking forward from that physician’s perspective, if the state were to try to bring a case here, having that clear documentation of saying, No, this was necessary to save the life of the mother in my medical judgment for X, Y and Z reasons, and the more clearly and effectively they could state that, the lower the liability here is under the statute.”

Davis said that if the 1849 law were to again be interpreted as an abortion statute as opposed to a feticide statute and be enforceable by the high court, his greatest legal concern is a lack of clear parameters guiding physicians in practice.

“From a legal perspective, there’s only so much we can say, this is what the law says, and it really does boil down to the physician’s medical judgment,” Davis said.

Dr. Shefaali Sharma, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Madison, said that she’s concerned that the vague wording of the 1849 statute will result in more maternal deaths.

“When you put in vague wording that scares people in terms of how they practice, and instead of practicing based on the clinical picture in front of them and the science and the data and the evidence and objective standpoints with shared decision-making with the patient after they’ve been counseled, and instead you use fearmongering and political agendas to define what a life is and how on the edge it needs to be before you can intervene to save it, we’re going to see more maternal deaths,” Sharma said..

Sharma said that the 1849 law would devastate the state’s medical system and that patients would seek care from providers outside of the state in crisis situations such as a miscarriage or a desired abortion.

She also said that some physicians might leave the state.

“That means that more women are going to be at risk for complications,” Sharma said. “We’re going to see changes in the quality and the rigor of the training and the caliber of physicians that stay in state, because we’re going to lose those skills, and that’s going to result in so much devastation to the health care of women in the state of Wisconsin.”

Reprinted with permission from Wisconsin Independent.

Russian President Vladimir Putin

'It's Up To Putin': Trump Abandons Campaign Promise To End Ukraine War

On the campaign trail last year, candidate Donald Trump, time after time, not only suggested he could swiftly bring an end to Russia’s unlawful war against Ukraine, but at times even insisted he could—and would—do it before being sworn into office. But with Inauguration Day fast approaching, President-elect Donald Trump has washed his hands of a peace settlement, instead declaring that any resolution is now entirely in the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I would fix that within 24 hours, and if I win, before I get into the office, I will have that war settled. 100% sure,” Trump said on Fox News in March 2024, HuffPostreported.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled — we’re going to get it settled and stop the death,” Trump adamantly told supporters in June 2024.

“I would fix that within 24 hours, and, if I win, before I get into the office, I will have that war settled. 100 percent sure,” Trump vowed as far back as March 2023.

“If I’m president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours,” Trump said again just months later, at a CNN town hall in May 2023, asTIME reported. “It will be over. It will be absolutely over.”

These are just a few of the many times Trump promised to personally end Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Now, he has an entirely different set of promises.

On Sunday night, during an interview with Newsmax, Trump was asked, “You’ve said you want the Ukraine war ended in six months. What is the strategy to do that

“Well, there’s only one strategy,” Trump replied, “and it’s up to Putin. And I can’t imagine he’s too thrilled with the way it’s gone, because it hasn’t got exactly well for him either. And I know he wants to meet and I’m gonna meet very quickly.”

“I would’ve done it sooner but…you have to get into the office. For some of the things, you do have to be there,” Trump conceded, Reuters reported.

At a press conference last week, Trump went from promising peace before he took office, to six months after.

“I hope to have six months,” Trump told reporters, USA Today reported, before adding, “I hope long before six months.”

Trump has named Keith Kellogg to be his Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia.

Kellogg, appearing to attempt to split the difference, settled on a timeline for peace of just over three months.

“Let’s set it at 100 days and move all the way back and figure a way we can do this in the near-term to make sure that the solution is solid, it’s sustainable, and that this war ends so that we stop the carnage,” he said, HuffPost reported.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Voters Wanted Change, And Now That's What They Will Get

Voters Wanted Change, And Now That's What They Will Get

"It isn't a hard choice," we said. On one side was a candidate who would abide by the Constitution and laws of the United States and accept the outcome of elections. On the other was a candidate refusing to accept a 2024 defeat even as memories of his attempted coup in 2020 remain fresh; vowing to punish the "enemy within"; and promising that mass deportations will be "bloody." That was what we meant by democracy being on the line.

Some are coping by pointing out that when an incumbent president is as unpopular as Joe Biden, it's a near impossibility for his party to retain the White House. Perhaps no Democrat could have escaped the Biden undertow, but it was particularly challenging for his vice president.

As to why Biden was so unpopular, some of us (myself included) wrongly attributed it mostly to his age. But exit polls suggest that the economy and the border were also anvils shackled to his — and then Kamala Harris' — ankles. As David Dayen of The American Prospect noted, 2024 saw half the world's population head to the polls, and "with a few notable exceptions ... virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost."

Could Harris have done a better job of blunting the inflation issue? In 2012, the economy had not yet fully recovered from the great recession of 2008-2009. In his reelection bid, Barack Obama shifted blame for the lackluster performance backward toward George W. Bush. Perhaps Harris would have been well-advised to tell a similar story about inflation. Then again, recessions are not as politically lethal as inflation.

As for the border, how could Harris separate herself from Biden? Should she have declared that Biden's approach was a mistake that she would correct once in office? That's a dicey proposition politically. Why would voters upset about the border choose a reformed dove over an aggressive hawk? She might have had a rule-of-law argument — that the Congress must reform asylum law, and until they do, the president lacks the power to address the issue. But when Biden imposed executive orders in June, dramatically reducing border crossings, he vitiated that case.

According to this coping mechanism, the voters were in a sour mood (just consult the right track/wrong track polls) and did what voters always do: punish the incumbent by voting for the change candidate. Nothing more to see here.

But those of us who see a second Trump presidency as a hinge moment of history — a fateful departure from what made us a great nation — think there is a great deal more to see here. To follow Trump's behavior closely is to feel that this election is not like any other. This lying cretin was seen a few days ago pantomiming fellatio on a microphone (which is perhaps preferable to his usual vomit of lies). It's not as if his policy chops somehow counterbalance his vulgarity, cruelty, and self-absorption. His campaign promises consist of ludicrous proposals to magically balance the budget and eliminate the income tax through tariffs, to round up and deport 11 million or more people, and to solve foreign conflicts through his supposed power of intimidation (even as he contradicts this by constantly abjuring war).

The voters have chosen to elevate a cartoon character to the highest office in the land. From that perch, he will close down the federal cases against himself; pardon the January 6 "hostages" or "political prisoners" or whatever he's calling them these days; appoint a series of toadies, fantasists, and low-lives to lead other agencies; and then set about firing most of the capable, responsible civil servants in the government to replace them with the likes of Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Boris Epshteyn, and other loyal goblins.

Trump often derides the United States as a Third World country. Now he will start to transform us into one.

To be sure, many of the people who voted for Trump were not voting for what they will get. And still, it's their fault for not doing their duty to shun him.

Perhaps the voters have never prioritized democracy, the rule of law or fair play. What, then, has changed? This is an elite failure of the first order. The opinion shapers have signally failed to perform their function. In a healthy polity, it falls to entities like political parties, churches, newspaper editorial boards, radio hosts, business executives and news analysts to shape public opinion, not follow it. If not for the excusers and explainers; if not for the whataboutism at places like The Wall Street Journal and National Review; if not for the craven capitulation of Wall Street wizards and Silicon Valley prima donnas, if not for the cowardice of 95% of elected Republicans, ordinary voters would not have felt comfortable voting for a clown with a flamethrower.

If he succeeds in imposing tariffs that spark inflation and a trade war; if his deportations, firings, abuse of the justice system, corruption of law enforcement and degradation of the health care system cause America's quality of life to decline, what then? Will the voters do what voters always do and vote for the change candidate next time? Perhaps. Or will the elites who greased the skids for Trump's second election also excuse and explain away every failure as the work of the "deep state" or "saboteurs"? We are about to find out.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World