There is safety in numbers, Republicans found yesterday. The Congressional Budget Office assessment late Monday that the GOP Senate's "Better" Obamacare replacement plan would take coverage from 22 million Americans allowed Republican lawmakers skittish about the bill's unpopularity to excuse themselves from voting for it. Now it wasn't only Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Dean Heller (Nevada). More of their colleagues joined them, bringing the "no" count to nine. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell beat a strategic retreat, announcing he would delay any vote until after the July 4th recess.
Despite having run on repealing Obamacare, the New York Times reports President Trump appeared neither to care one way or another nor to understand what is actually in the bill:
Until Tuesday’s meeting at the White House, Mr. Trump had spoken with only a few members of the Senate, according to an administration official. The pace was nothing like the dozens of calls he made to help pass the House’s health bill, aides said.
A senator who supports the bill left the meeting at the White House with a sense that the president did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan — and seemed especially confused when a moderate Republican complained that opponents of the bill would cast it as a massive tax break for the wealthy, according to an aide who received a detailed readout of the exchange.
Mr. Trump said he planned to tackle tax reform later, ignoring the repeal’s tax implications, the staff member added.
"Obamacare is a total disaster. It's melting down as we speak," Trump again told Republican leaders gathered at the White House. Nevertheless, he continued, "This will be great if we get it done. And if we don't get it done, it's just going to be something that we're not going to like. And that's okay, and I understand that very well."
With that kind of enthusiasm, Trump-the-Closer won't even win the set of steak knives for his well-done meat.
Everyone continually repeats this idea that GOP base will punish Rs for failing to pass health bill.
Take the concerns of two moderate holdouts. Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia released a joint statement after the vote was delayed demanding changes. “The Senate draft before us includes some promising changes to reduce premiums in the individual insurance market,” Portman’s statement read, “but I continue to have real concerns about the Medicaid policies in this bill, especially those that impact drug treatment at a time when Ohio is facing an opioid epidemic.” Moore had similar concerns, arguing that the bill “as drafted” does “not ensure access to affordable health care in West Virginia, does not do enough to combat the opioid epidemic that is devastating my state, cuts traditional Medicaid too deeply, and harms rural health care providers."
If only there was some massive pool of money out there that could alleviate some of their fears. Indeed, there is! The CBO found that the bill would save the government $321 billion—or $188 billion more than budget rules require it to save. One might read Portman and Capito’s statements as asking that all of that money be used to soften the long-term Medicaid cuts and significantly increase the funds available to combat the opioid crisis.
The conservative holdouts, meanwhile, could be granted more of the market reforms they want—like, say, state waivers for the Affordable Care Act’s community rating rules, which bar insurers from charging sicker people more. “We can rewrite our bill to bring down the price working families pay for health insurance—while still protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions,” Sen. Mike Lee said in a statement. In other words: Deregulate, and allow those with pre-existing conditions to take their rightful place in high-risk pools.
There is still plenty of spreading-around money McConnell can and will deploy, and more room in which to wiggle.
Organizers at numerous “Resistance” groups, chastened by their premature celebrations after the House’s repeal push seemed to stall, said that they’d use the recess to ramp up public pressure on Republicans. CREDO Action, which had organized 45,000 phone calls to Senate offices, planned to increase that number when senators went home. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn and Daily Action were organizing their own phone banks, while Indivisible groups were organizing visits – and perhaps sit-ins – at local offices.
All of that would supplement under-the-radar but attention-grabbing TV ad campaigns from AARP, Protect Our Care and other progressive and industry groups. The goal, said activists, is to educate voters and break through to local media, which had not often put the development of the Senate bill on front pages or newscasts.
The Obamacare repeal has been cut over the eye. Don't let your guard down. Keep punching and work the eye.
The framed copy of Time Magazine was hung up in at least four of President Trump’s golf clubs, from South Florida to Scotland. Filling the entire cover was a photo of Donald Trump.
“Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” the big headline said. Above the Time nameplate, there was another headline in all caps: “TRUMP IS HITTING ON ALL FRONTS . . . EVEN TV!”
This cover — dated March 1, 2009 — looks like an impressive memento from Trump’s pre-presidential career. To club members eating lunch, or golfers waiting for a pro-shop purchase, it seemed to be a signal that Trump had always been a man who mattered. Even when he was just a reality-TV star, Trump was the kind of star who got a cover story in Time.
But that wasn’t true.
The Time cover is a fake.
There was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time Magazine. And there was no issue at all in 2009 that had Trump on the cover.
In fact,the cover on display at Trump’s clubs, observed recently by a reporter visiting one of the properties, contains several small but telling mistakes. Its red border is skinnier than that of a genuine Time cover, and, unlike the real thing, there is no thin white border next to the red. The Trump cover’s secondary headlines are stacked on the right side — on a real Time cover, they would go across the top.
And it has two exclamation points. Time headlines don’t yell.
“I can confirm that this is not a real TIME cover,” Kerri Chyka, a spokeswoman for Time Inc., wrote in an email to The Washington Post.
Keep in mind that Trump has been so obsessed with some nonsense from well known hoaxster and fraud James O'Keefe and CNN firing three reporters after they retracted a story that his staff didn't even bother to tell him what they were doing about a Syrian gas attack. His press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke of almost nothing else in today's press briefing as well.
This isn't Trump's first fake magazine cover controversy. Remember this?
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Donald Trump.
Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter.
Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it
He also, you'll recall, had a couple of fake identities he used to use to call up members of the press and pretend that he was his own press agent.
He's got a problem. And he's had it for a long time.
When the House came back for its second bite of the apple and finally passed their dream legislation to repeal Obamacare and ensure that they make the health care system even worse than it was before, I was on a short hiatus and binge watching The Handmaid's Tale. I had planned to stay away from politics as much as possible but this was a big deal so I had to tune in. Seeing all those white, male Republicans grinning and high fiving each other was a chilling sight and I turned away as quickly as I could, soothed by the nearly unanimous opinion that the Senate, the "saucer that cools the tea" would stop the abomination because they would never agree to a bill as draconian as the House bill. I told myself that I was so bothered by that sight because I was watching a haunting dystopian drama and it was affecting my mood.
Yesterday, when the CBO dropped its expected bombshell report showing that the Senate version of the bill was even worse in some ways than the House bill, I couldn't help but think of this:
We will know soon enough. The target date for a Senate vote remains Thursday of this week and then a quick getaway to hide their heads in shame. As I write this we have a few GOP Senators from the different factions of the party saying they won't vote for it without changes. It's either too harsh or not harsh enough or it's moving to fast or the process was improper. McConnell still has some cards to play and some money to give away so we'll see how all that unfolds.
This is a ghastly piece of legislation. Indeed, it's so appalling that some people suspect that Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell planned for it not to pass just so that he could say he tried and then get it off his agenda. (I don't think that's true and in fact he probably floated that idea himself just in case this thing blows up.)
He couldn't have made it any worse if he tried.
That hasn't stopped the Republicans from defending it. Indeed, a few of them went out over the week-end and appeared on various news programs making the only defense possible: they lied.
Kellyanne Conway is a professional spin artist who has had no trouble transitioning to outright dishonesty in her new job. She was smooth a silk on ABC's This Week claiming there are absolutely no cuts to Medicaid and that furthermore, if able-bodied people are kicked off the rolls they will just get a job that has employer sponsored health insurance like she has. Of course 80 percent of Medicaid households do have someone who works at a job that doesn't provide benefits --- which Conway would be the first to defend as the God-given right of any employer. And the vast majority of Medicaid patients who aren't working can't work, such as the elderly in nursing homes. Sixty four percent of them nationwide are covered by Medicaid.
Her rationale for this insistence that Medicaid wasn't being cut is that it they aren't cutting the budget, merely slowing its growth. This explanation was also taken up by President George W. Bush's former press secretary Ari Fleischer who tiresomely insisted on twitter that you can't call it a cut when the future budget simply isn't as much as promised:
Your salary today is $50k. Your boss promises it will be $100k in 10 years. Instead, u get $75k. Did you get a $25k raise or a $25k cut?
Spending “always goes up" in Washington in part because of this little thing called inflation — as prices go up, government spending has to increase, too, just to keep up.
Fortunately, the CBO's scorecard of the bill has been released to help clarify the waters that GOP allies are so diligently muddying. That report is crystal clear: Between now and 2026, the GOP Senate health-care plan would carve out "a reduction of $772 billion in federal outlays for Medicaid."
“I’m very concerned about … the impact of the Medicaid cuts on our state governments, the most vulnerable people in our society, and health care providers such as our rural hospitals and nursing home, most of whom are very dependent on the Medicaid program … given the inflation rate that would be applied in the outer years to the Medicaid program, the Senate bill is going to have more impact on the Medicaid program than even the House bill.”
Conway and Fleischer may actually more honest than Health and Human services secretary Tom Price who declared on CNN, ”We will not have individuals lose coverage.” In a way, he's right. They won't lose coverage, it is being taken from them so that Republicans can give tax breaks to their rich friends. To put it another way, the tax cuts that 400 wealthy families get from the Senate bill equals the Medicaid expansion for more than 700,000 people.
Former Club for Growth president and current Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey went on Face the Nation insisting that “no one will lose coverage” if they’re on Medicaid and Senator Ron Johnson appeared on Meet the Press and compared people with pre-existing conditions to someone with a bad driving record who has to pay more. Evidently, if you don't have a lot of money you should be very careful that you don't recklessly go out and get cancer.
Johnson, at least, has the excuse that he just really doesn't understand anything. Majority whip John Cornyn of Texas understands very well what he's doing. He tweeted this yesterday:
This one's not a lie. It's true that in 2026 under Obamacare it's projected that 28 million will still be uninsured. He just leaves out the punchline --- the same projections say that if this Senate plan were to take effect, the number of uninsured would be almost 50 million people.
The leading defenders of this grotesque bill are willing to dissemble, obfuscate and blatantly lie to the public about what is in it. They have no choice. It's indefensible on the merits. But I have to say, the fact that there are only a small handful of Republican Senators even prepared to make some phony noises against it says everything you need to know about the moral rot at the heart of this Republican majority.
Graham on Healthcare
“Here’s what I would tell any senator, if you’re counting on the President to have your back, you need to watch it."
It was a wild ride but they delayed the Senate Trumpcare vote until after the July 4th recess. I hope every one of us finds a way to get out there and get in their faces about this. They should go back to Washington knowing in no uncertain terms that they will be labeled monsters forever if they do this thing.
“Although he has only been in office a few months, Donald Trump’s presidency has had a major impact on how the world sees the United States. Trump and many of his key policies are broadly unpopular around the globe, and ratings for the U.S. have declined steeply in many nations. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs.”
“This stands in contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64% expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor to direct America’s role in the world.”
The sharp decline in how much global publics trust the U.S. president on the world stage is especially pronounced among some of America’s closest allies in Europe and Asia, as well as neighboring Mexico and Canada. Across the 37 nations polled, Trump gets higher marks than Obama in only two countries: Russia and Israel.
In countries where confidence in the U.S. president fell most, America’s overall image has also tended to suffer more. In the closing years of the Obama presidency, a median of 64% had a positive view of the U.S. Today, just 49% are favorably inclined toward America. Again, some of the steepest declines in U.S. image are found among long-standing allies.
Since 2002, when Pew Research Center first asked about America’s image abroad, favorable opinion of the U.S. has frequently tracked with confidence in the country’s president. Prior to this spring, one of the biggest shifts in attitudes toward the U.S. occurred with the change from George W. Bush’s administration to Obama’s. At that time, positive views of the U.S. climbed in Europe and other regions, as did trust in how the new president would handle world affairs.
The rest of the world is worried, as it should be:
Confidence in President Trump is influenced by reactions to both his policies and his character. With regard to the former, some of his signature policy initiatives are widely opposed around the globe.
His plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, for example, is opposed by a median of 76% across the 37 countries surveyed. Opposition is especially intense in Mexico, where more than nine-in-ten (94%) oppose the U.S. government erecting a wall.
Similar levels of global opposition greet Trump’s policy stances on withdrawing from international trade agreements and climate change accords. And most across the nations surveyed also disapprove of the new administration’s efforts to restrict entry into the U.S. by people from certain Muslim-majority nations.
Trump’s intention to back away from the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran meets less opposition than his other policy initiatives, but even here publics around the world disapprove of such an action by a wide margin.
Trump’s character is also a factor in how he is viewed abroad. In the eyes of most people surveyed around the world, the White House’s new occupant is arrogant, intolerant and even dangerous. Among the positive characteristics tested, his highest rating is for being a strong leader. Fewer believe he is charismatic, well-qualified or cares about ordinary people.
They'll soon realize he's not a "strong leader" either. He couldn't lead Barron's boy scout troop. But because he bellows like Mussolini they think "strong." In truth the only thing anyone takes seriously about him is that he's dangerous --- like a toddler sitting next to a gas can playing with matches.
The world doesn't hate all of us quite as much, but if we keep these lunatics in power that won't last:
While the new U.S. president is viewed with doubt and apprehension in many countries, America’s overall image benefits from a substantial reservoir of goodwill. The American people, for instance, continue to be well-regarded – across the 37 nations polled, a median of 58% say they have a favorable opinion of Americans. U.S. popular culture, likewise, has maintained appeal abroad, and many people overseas still believe Washington respects the personal freedoms of its people.
Health care is personal, intensely personal, I wrote two weeks ago. I have several friends fighting cancer. If you don't, you will. Two of them made their stories public in the last 24 hours.
Laura Packard, 41, is in chemotherapy. Self-employed, single, and an Obamacare patient, Packard found out she had stage 4 Hodgkin's Lymphoma just months ago. Even at that stage it has a 90 percent cure rate, her oncologist tells her. That is, if Republicans in Congress don't take away her insurance. She writes at U.S. News & World Report:
The various versions of health care reform being discussed in Washington D.C. terrify me and my new cancer friends. (Cancer is the shittiest fraternity, with the best members; everyone that I have met over the past couple months has been unbelievably kind.)
Getting rid of lifetime and/or annual limits? That means many of us will die when we hit those caps and can no longer afford treatment. Getting rid of pre-existing condition protections? Many of us will die, because we won't be insurable anymore. Allowing insurers to remove essential health benefits (such as chemotherapy, or hospitalization, or many of the drugs we need to stay alive) means many of us will die, because our insurance won't cover our treatment anymore.
This is not an academic question for me, because I am undergoing chemotherapy right now. I may need radiation after, or if this fails, immunotherapy. Will I be able to get affordable insurance next year, or will I die?
Joel Silberman, 68, can fight his stage 2 pancreatic cancer because, thanks to Medicare and marriage equality, his spouse's Government Employee Health Association group plan provides secondary insurance that will allow him to fight his illness without wiping out their savings. He writes:
A Congressional Budget Office report released today reveals just how lucky I am to be covered by my husband's plan; 22 million more Americans could go uninsured should the Republican-backed American Health Care Act pass.
Many, many, people were responsible for equality that saved my life. And now we all must come together again and save the lives of many more from healthcare bill that will truly bankrupt or kill people.
But Joel can tell you that himself:
The unbelievable kindness Packard found is in short supply in an America possessed by fear. An America raised on bulletproof heroes in action films and John Wayne westerns (Wayne died of stomach cancer) is shaken to its bones by its own vulnerability. By the September 11 attacks. By the Great Recession. By shifting demographics and globalization. By a collapsing middle class and income inequality. By fear of the stranger, the foreigner, the Other. But mostly by fear of losing power, both personal and political.
In our fear, we have replaced "We the People" and e pluribus unum with travel bans and "I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack."
Humans do a lot of cruel, senseless things when they are afraid. Like trampling each other to death in a mindless rush to escape danger. A conservative movement funded by billionaire ideologues and media magnates created a populist uprising it hoped would sustain Republicans' and their own power in this changing world. Republicans gerrymandered districts across the country and erected barriers to voting to lock in that power by locking out democracy. They promised the faithful, as did their party's self-absorbed leader, to undo all the works of the Kenyan Usurper. Chief among them is the Affordable Care Act, a flawed program, but one that saves lives and protects millions of others.
But these uprisings have a way of getting out of control. Now Republicans in the House and Senate fear the wrath of the very movement they birthed. In their fear, they are close to acceding to the demands of supporters to "Let them die." Them would be any sick American who is not Us. Speaking of cruel and senseless.
"Fear is the mind-killer," Frank Herbert wrote in his famous novel. Republicans in the United States House and Senate would do well to meditate on that as well as the red letters from the King James New Testament before doing any more that is cruel and senseless.
New estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paint by numbers the impact of the Senate healthcare bill. It’s a bill not about repealing “ObamaCare,” but about capping federal health spending and cutting taxes for the richest Americans and corporations.
The scope of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is broad. It expands Medicaid, prioritizes value-based care in Medicare and invests in public health. But Republicans’ criticisms have focused narrowly on the individual market — people purchasing health insurance on their own. Virtually every one of President Trump’s claims that “ObamaCare is dead” is about premiums, deductibles and choices among the ACA’s Health Insurance Marketplace plans.
But the Senate Republican plan does not repeal this part of ObamaCare. Republicans could fully repeal the ACA’s Marketplace financial assistance and have enough to fund every tax cut envisioned in their bill. CBO’s January 2017 baseline assumes $781 billion in Marketplace assistance from 2018 to 2026, compared to the Senate bill’s $701 billion in tax cuts over the same period.
While the Senate bill does not repeal ObamaCare, it does not improve it either. The Senate bill would maintain the ACA’s health insurance tax credits, but at reduced levels, leaving consumers to spend more to get less. Marketplace spending under the bill would be about 60 percent of what is projected with no change according to CBO.
It takes the misguided approach of linking premium tax credits to lower value and higher deductible plans while eliminating financial assistance that reduces cost sharing for consumers. The Senate Republican bill also zeroes out the individual mandate fee, which CBO and insurers suggest will increase premiums by about 20 percent next year. And it lowers the “failsafe” or overall cap on Marketplace financial assistance, potentially rationing Marketplace subsidies like it rations Medicaid.
What’s more, CBO makes clear that Republicans prioritize cutting $772 billion in federal Medicaid spending, an amount that is nearly the same as every dollar spent on Marketplace financial assistance. Medicaid savings include rolling back the ACA’s coverage expansion and capping on federal Medicaid spending for the first time in the program’s history. In fact, over half of the pages in the Senate bill are devoted to Medicaid changes unrelated to the ACA.
In short, the CBO estimates suggest that the Senate bill neither repeals nor repairs ObamaCare. But it does cap federal health spending in order to cut taxes for corporations and high-income individuals. As Senators prepare to vote on this bill, they should be clear-eyed on its consequences.
Obviously the vast majority are fine with it. There might be a few on either end of the spectrum who think it's too cruel or not cruel enough. But the mainstream of GOP elected aren't balking.
The Senate bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act would increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026, a figure that is only slightly lower than the 23 million more uninsured that the House version would create, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday.
Next year, 15 million more people would be uninsured compared with current law, the budget office said.
The legislation would decrease federal deficits by a total of $321 billion over a decade, the budget office said.
The release of the budget office’s analysis comes as a number of reluctant Republican senators weigh whether to support the health bill, which the majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, wants approved before a planned recess for the Fourth of July.
Mr. McConnell already faced a host of reservations from across the ideological spectrum in his conference. Five Republican senators have said they cannot support the version of the bill that was released last week, and Mr. McConnell can afford to lose only two.
Before the budget office released its report on Monday, the American Medical Association officially announced its opposition to the bill, and the National Governors Association urged the Senate to slow down.
Now, the budget office’s findings will give fodder to Democrats who were already assailing the bill as cruel. It could give pause to some Republican senators who have been mulling whether to support the bill — or it could give them an additional reason to come out against the bill altogether.
It is still unclear whether the new budget office projections will be judged against the House’s version, or against the Affordable Care Act’s coverage figures. Beyond the number of Americans without health insurance, the Senate bill’s $321 billion in deficit reduction is larger than the $119 billion total that the budget office found for the bill that passed the House.
Earlier Monday afternoon, Senate Republican leaders altered their health bill to penalize people who go without health insurance by requiring them to wait six months before their coverage would begin. Insurers would generally be required to impose the waiting period on people who lacked coverage for more than about two months in the prior year.
The waiting-period proposal is meant to address a conspicuous omission in the Senate’s bill: The measure would end the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance, but it also would require insurers to accept anyone who applies. The waiting period is supposed to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to purchase a health plan. Insurers need large numbers of healthy people to help pay for those who are sick.
Under one of the most unpopular provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the government can impose tax penalties on people who go without health coverage. Republicans have denounced this as government coercion.
The repeal bill passed by the House last month has a different kind of incentive. It would impose a 30 percent surcharge on premiums for people who have gone without insurance. But the Congressional Budget Office said this provision could backfire. As a result of the surcharge, it said, two million fewer people would enroll, and the people most likely to be deterred would be those who are healthy
They will, of course, say the CBO is lying. And it could be wrong. But that could mean this mutant atrocity of a "health care" bill will actually be worse. In fact, it probably will trigger a death spiral in the whole insurance sector.
But whatevs. They knew it was going to be bad when they did it. They don't care. They want tax cuts for Ivanka and that's all there is to it.
They're taking on the later boomers like me who tend not to vote for them as much. If they can pick off enough of us before we hit Medicare and SS age, properly suppress the vote of blacks and Hispanics they could set themselves up quite nicely for a future lock on the government.
The above chart tracks the increase in premium price for “silver plan” insurance coverage for a hypothetical 60-year-old with income at 350 percent of the poverty line in 2020.
The below chart tracks the decrease in premium tax credits for the the same hypothetical individual, except now the individual has an income slightly above 350 percent of the poverty line, so that they would not receive any federal tax credit to purchase insurance on the individual market.
CBPP took into account the Senate Republican bill’s cuts to tax credits for individuals purchasing insurance; the bill’s re-arrangement of the tax credit schedule, which would disfavor older people; the bill’s elimination of tax credits for individuals between 350 and 400 percent of the poverty line; and the bill’s stipulation that insurers would now be allowed to charge older people up to five times more than young people, as opposed to three times more under Obamacare. The bill would also eliminate Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions, insurer subsidies to help low-income individuals afford care.
Suhweet! Look at all those potential sick, bankrupt and dead old people. It just gets better every day.
2018 is going to be a real thrill. The bully in chief won by raking down 16 other Republicans in a primary and he's going to do the same to members of the party who buck his agenda. Or that seems to be the plan anyway:
A new campaign by top White House allies targeting the GOP’s most vulnerable senator over health care sends a loud message to those resistant to the Trump agenda: We’re coming after you.
America First Policies, a White House-backed outside group led by the president’s top campaign advisers, has launched a $1 million attack against Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who on Friday announced that he opposed the Senate’s recently unveiled Obamacare repeal plan.
That included a Twitter and digital ad campaign targeting the senator, including a video that accuses him of “standing with” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a reviled figure in conservative circles.
“Unacceptable,” the video says. “If you’re opposed to this bill, we’re opposed to you.”
America First Policies is set to expand its campaign early this week with TV ads that will go after the Nevada senator.
The offensive aims both to punish Heller and to sway his vote, and it is a stunning act of political retaliation against a member of the president’s own party — one who faces a perilous path to reelection in 2018. Senior Republicans, many of whom are deeply worried about Heller’s political standing and increasingly nervous about the midterms, were shocked and spent the weekend measuring the possible fallout.
Those close to the White House say the attack is an outgrowth of President Donald Trump’s mounting frustration over his stymied legislative agenda and anger at Capitol Hill Republicans whom he sees as unhelpful.
In a Saturday tweet, Trump hinted at his displeasure after multiple senators expressed concerns with the bill: “I cannot imagine that these very fine Republican Senators would allow the American people to suffer a broken ObamaCare any longer!”
By targeting Heller, America First Policies is telegraphing to recalcitrant Republican lawmakers — even those trying to navigate treacherous political waters at home — that they will be punished if they don’t go along with the Trump agenda. Other Republicans could soon face similar attacks.
Brian Walsh, president of America First Policies, said after Heller’s Friday news conference that the group’s senior leadership — including former Republican National Committee chief of staff Katie Walsh, Trump fundraiser Tommy Hicks, and Nick Ayers, a longtime top strategist for Vice President Mike Pence — determined that “it was time to make a strong statement."
“For the greater part of a decade the GOP has promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, taken dozens of votes to do so, now, with the ability to keep that promise on the horizon, legislators are wavering,” Walsh said. “Sen. Heller's decision to walk away is unacceptable and sends the wrong message to the rest of the senators who are still working to get to ‘yes.’”
Within 90 minutes of Heller’s announcement, the group had mobilized. Determined not to let the news fade on a summer Friday afternoon, Brad Parscale, the digital director on Trump’s presidential campaign who now works with America First Policies, directed an anti-Heller Twitter offensive aimed at ginning up anger among Trump supporters. Spending just over $100,000, the organization encouraged people to tweet at Heller and his staffers, created algorithms that tied Heller with Pelosi, and promoted a “HellerVotesYes” hashtag.
For America First Policies, the move represented something of an about-face. During the House health care debate this spring, White House officials said the group was too passive and should have pressured Republicans who opposed the repeal effort. As Congress entered the summer months, the group promised a more muscular effort to promote the president’s agenda.
The anti-Heller move, however, rankled allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who keeps a close eye on his party’s 2018 plans and is deeply sensitive to attacks on his members. Several McConnell political advisers said they received no warning and vented that it was a serious misstep, especially with the party holding just a two-seat majority.
It sounds like they've got a big fight on their hands. Hooray for the good guys, right?
Heller’s team was also blindsided and infuriated by the barrage, said one adviser to the Nevada senator. But, fearful of further antagonizing the White House, they refrained from hitting back.
Who knows? Maybe they'll push too hard and a whole group of "moderates" will fall out. But that would be a real change of pace for the Republican Party. None of the so-called moderates have ever bucked the leadership.
In the wake of the big Washington Post report last week chronicling the Obama administration's responses to the Russian interference in the presidential campaign, Donald Trump finally admitted that it happened. Well, sort of. He did it the only way he could that would make him feel comfortable: passing the buck. In one of his greatest acts of chutzpah yet, Trump attacked Obama for failing to stop the Russian government from helping him win the election.
Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T!
Then he seemed lose himself for a moment and just tweeted out in all caps MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
It's tempting to think this was all just Trump needing to vent on twitter (not that that is an acceptable practice for the President of the United States) but it appears to be the official White House strategy. Kelly Ann Conway echoed his line on Sunday Morning:
“It's the Obama administration that was responsible for doing absolutely nothing from August to January with the knowledge that Russia was hacking into our election. They did absolutely nothing. They're responsible for this...I have a hacking question for the Obama administration: Why did you, quote, choke, in the name of one of their senior administration officials? Why did you do nothing? Why didn't you inform candidate Trump?”
Trump himself went on Fox and said, “Well I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before the election. … If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? He should have done something about it. But you don’t read that. It’s quite sad.”
That's crazy talk.The whole world knew about it on June 14, 2016 when the Washington Post first reported that Russian actors had hacked the DNC. And Donald Trump certainly knew about it at least as early as July 27th when he said, "They hacked—they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
In the first presidential debate in September, Trump memorably responded to Hillary Clinton's assertion that the Russians had interfered by saying, "I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't—maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?"
And as for Conway's obnoxious question about why the Obama administration didn't inform candidate Trump, well they did. After that contentious debate exchange NBC News reported:
During Sunday’s debate, Donald Trump once again said he doesn’t know whether Russia is trying to hack the U.S. election, despite Friday’s statement by the U.S. intelligence community pointing the finger at Putin –- and despite the fact that Trump was personally briefed on Russia’s role in the hacks by U.S. officials.
A senior U.S. intelligence official assured NBC News that cybersecurity and the Russian government’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties’ candidates, surrogates and leadership, since mid-August. "To profess not to know at this point is willful misrepresentation,” said the official. “The intelligence community has walked a very thin line in not taking sides, but both candidates have all the information they need to be crystal clear."
His rejection of this information has continued for months with tweets about the Russia scandal like this:
These statements were all made since he became president. The only one failing to inform him is himself. And his persistent unwillingness to criticize Vladimir Putin or even admit that it's happening has created an overwhelming suspicion that he's hiding something.
None of this is to say that President Obama and his administration made the right decision by not taking action earlier. The Washington Post article is fairly damning on that count. And as Julia Ioffe observed in this article in the Atlantic, it might have made a difference in another way if the administration had done before the election what it did afterwards:
When Obama did make the attack public, the amount of panic and political dust kicked up by the release of the intelligence report in January, along with the congressional investigations it triggered, proved debilitating for Russian ambitions. The Russians lost their main ally in the White House, Michael Flynn, who was pushing President Trump to unilaterally lift Russia sanctions.
It's doubtful that alone would have altered the outcome of the race. We know that the Republican leadership was happy for the Russian government to help their team get elected and they would have dismissed any public actions as dirty partisan pool. But it is possible that it might have made the Russian government pull back from the brink and think better of making such an audacious move.
It's likely that the administration thought Clinton was a lock and that they could deal with it properly after the election. That was very bad judgment. They should have known that in a year in which the Republican Party had 17 (mostly) qualified candidates and yet they nominated Donald Trump, anything could happen.
Blaming Obama for the Russian hacking will probably convince most of Trump's voters that he's off the hook. They'll believe anything. But that won't solve his problem. Thanks to his own clumsy, self-destructive attempts get the investigation into the interference quashed he's now the subject of a criminal inquiry. Tweeting in so many words, "I know you are but what am I" isn't going to change that.
This is the worst case of "I know you are but what am I" in American political history but it's quite clever. It's leaving Democrats disoriented and the media bewildered.
Haberman claims that this is a technique Trump uses in order to make deals --- be on all sides of an issue.
So... this is your way of telling your cult members you lied to them again when you said it was a "hoax" & "fake news?" #magahttps://t.co/b1gBOSohoK
The country awaits the new scoring from the Congressional Budget Office of Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's Obamacare repeal bill. Expect the report to show millions will lose the protections of health insurance coverage. With opposition mounting to the repeal bill released last Thursday, President Trump cannot understand why Democrats do not join with Republicans and "wrap their arms around it so that everybody is happy with it.” He complained Sunday to Fox News, “Well, their theme is resist. I’ve never heard of anything like this, resist.”
Except that time he "moved on" that married woman down in Palm Beach and failed.
Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana urged Congress to designate a National Day of Civility on July 12. Johnson, a Republican, was responding to the shooting of his colleague Rep. Steve Scalise on a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia. No doubt he is more sincere than the president.
The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch is suspicious, if not of Johnson, of others urging civility. He recalls the 2010 Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity as a good-natured but misguided diversion. Elsewhere, T-partiers were "working their proverbial butts off" to elect a slate of retrograde politicians that would give Republicans control over redistricting in state house across the country. The GOP sweep in 2010 would introduce the country to a slew of voter suppression measures and more:
The truth is that a lot of the people pleading for a return to civility in American politics are actually hoping for something different: Passivity, or inaction. It’s not something completely new — using protests and occasional lapses into violence as an excuse to crack down on dissent and take away the civil liberties that are supposed to be guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights is an old trick.
REPUBLICANS: [want to pass a law that will kill people] PEOPLE: people will die REPUBLICANS: how dare you MEDIA: we are a divided nation
The shootings in Alexandria by James Hodgkinson, an unstable man with a history of domestic violence, while inexcusable, are sadly inevitable in a population of 320 million, Bunch writes.
But while no one should incite violence, there’s also a real danger in too much “civility” and calm at a moment like this, when it’s unfortunately not an exaggeration to say the fate of America as a democracy is hanging by a thread. If you’re not angry about what’s taking place in Washington at this very moment, you’re not paying attention. Which is what they’re going for.
It's easy for people who lie with verve to cow civilized opponents with charges of incivility. Most of the time, they fall for it too. Calls for civility come whenever those in power strive to hang onto it in a system that is "unfair and unequal." Don't fall for it this time, not with "the fate of America as a democracy ... hanging by a thread," Bunch insists. One gathers he has more on his mind than Obamacare repeal.
The people are going to have to do what the politicians won’t do. Fight — with reckless abandon but under control. Violence never solves anything, but meaningful social changes has never come without large-scale resistance and with righteous anger, from Selma to Stonewall and beyond. Reasonableness has its place, but it’s important to understand that there’s a class of folks out there who talk about “civility” when what they really mean is don’t call your senator, don’t circle the Capitol at 5 p.m. Wednesday night to show your outrage, and by all means do not say anything that will interfere with this orderly transfer of $800 billion from the struggling middle class to the already wealthy. Yes, there’s a problem with the level of anger in American politics right now. It’s not high enough.
There's still time to have your voicesheard on the Republicans' Better Care Reconciliation Act (Obamacare repeal). Don't worry if your senators are Democrats and already with you. Don't assume they know what you think. They need ammunition. That's you. If your senators are or Republicans, get loud 24/7.
President Trump gave an interview today. He said this about the health care bill:
"When I ran, I talked about the rigged system because I saw I was winning states that I wasn't getting, the delegates I should be getting. I would look at this and I would say 'what kind of a system?' The whole system is very, a lot of bad things going on. A lot of very bad things going on.
One of the things that should be solved are probably won't be is the Republicans and Democrats don't get together. And I am open arms, but I don't see that happening. They fight each other, they the level of hostility.
And by the way, this isn't just Trump... this has been like this for years. You've been doing this for a long time. It has been like that for a long time. But the level of hostility as an example of the health care bill you are reporting on and everyone is reporting on. It would be so great if the Democrats and Republicans could get together wrap their arms around it and come up with something that everyone is happy with, it's so easy, but we won't get one Democrat vote, not one, and if it were the greatest bill ever proposed in mankind we wouldn't get a vote, and that's terrible thing.
So there is well look their theme is resist. I've never heard anything like this. Resist.
He says thing like this with wide-eyed wonder and then rushes off to tweet some hideously rude comment.
Politics and Reality Radio: Study Finds the Right’s More Divided Than the Left; In MSM, Trump Spoke About Islam 7x More Than Muslims.
with Joshua Holland
This week, we're joined by political scientist Lee Drutman, the author of a new study that finds -- yet again -- that cultural divides between the parties are more consequential than differences over economics and other concrete policy disputes. But what might be a more controversial finding is that the supposed existential battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party is overblown, and those who supported Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in last year's primaries are more similar ideologically than the conventional wisdom would suggest.
Then Joshua Holland takes a quick look at the politics of Senate Republicans' disastrous health care bill.
Last but certainly not least, we speak with Meighan Stone, a fellow at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, about her new study looking empirically at how the mainstream press covers the Islamic community and refugees -- who speaks, what topics are selected and the overall tenor. What she found goes a long way toward explaining why large numbers of Americans' hold negative attitudes about the world's second largest religion.
Pauline Henry: "Feel Like Making Love"
Santiago y Luis Auserón: "Las Malas Lenguas"
Pluto Shervington: "Kung Fu Fighting"
Donald Fagen: "Snowbound"
President Trump’s political rise was built on a lie (about Barack Obama's birthplace). His lack of truthfulness has also become central to the Russia investigation, with James Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., testifying under oath about Trump's “lies, plain and simple.”
There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths. Every president has shaded the truth or told occasional whoppers. No other president — of either party — has behaved as Trump is behaving. He is trying to create an atmosphere in which reality is irrelevant.
We have set a conservative standard here, leaving out many dubious statements (like the claim that his travel ban is “similar” to Obama administration policy). Some people may still take issue with this standard, arguing that the president wasn't speaking literally. But we believe his long pattern of using untruths to serve his purposes, as a businessman and politician, means that his statements are not simply careless errors.
We are using the word “lie” deliberately. Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.
Trump Told Public Lies or Falsehoods Every Day for His First 40 Days
The list above uses the conservative standard of demonstrably false statements. By that standard, Trump told a public lie on at least 20 of his first 40 days as president. But based on a broader standard — one that includes his many misleading statements (like exaggerating military spending in the Middle East) — Trump achieved something remarkable: He said something untrue, in public, every day for the first 40 days of his presidency. The streak didn’t end until March 1.
Since then, he has said something untrue on at least 74 of 113 days. On days without an untrue statement, he is often absent from Twitter, vacationing at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, or busy golfing.
The end of May was another period of relative public veracity — or at least public quiet — for the president. He seems to have been otherwise occupied, dealing with internal discussions about the Russia investigation and then embarking on a trip through the Middle East and Europe.
Trump has retained the support of most of his voters as well as the Republican leadership in Congress. But he has still paid some price for his lies. Nearly 60 percent of Americans say the president is not honest, polls show, up from about 53 percent when he took office.
Apparently Republicans are fine with this. I can't help but recall the endless caterwauling over the fact that President Clinton didn't immediately publicly admit that he had had a consensual affair. It was the end of the Republic. he had to be impeached.
The Department of Homeland Security announced today that it is restarting a $10 million grant program for “Countering Violent Extremism” but will no longer fund Life After Hate, a group dedicated to countering neo-Nazis and white extremism.
In January, before President Barack Obama left office, DHS announced it would be giving grants to Life After Hate and 30 other anti-extremist groups and law enforcement agencies, but the Trump administration suspended them before the money had been awarded. The new list of grantees announced today by Trump’s DHS includes groups that combat Al Qaeda and ISIS and leaves out organizations primarily focused on countering white supremacists and other far-right hate groups. Perhaps this should come as no surprise because, as Reuters reported in February, Trump transition officials as far back as December were debating changing the focus and name of the program from “Countering Violent Extremism” to “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism.” President Trump has also made it a habit to largely ignore attacks committed by anyone who doesn’t qualify as a “radical Islamic terrorist.”
“Obviously we are disappointed in that decision,” Life After Hate co-founder and board member Tony McAlver told Mother Jones. Comprised of 50 former members of right-wing hate groups, Life After Hate has received 10 times more requests for help in the past year than in the previous five years combined, McAlver says. The organization was hoping to secure a $400,000 grant from DHS, which would have allowed Life After Hate to expand its efforts with an in-house tech team to identify and counter neo-Nazi recruitment online. “It was not to pay salaries and stuff,” McAlver says. “It was for a specific online campaign.”
Here's the response from the Trump administration liars:
Responding to questions from Mother Jones, DHS denied that Life After Hate was excluded because of its focus on far-right extremism. “DHS used its discretion to include other factors and information when reviewing each applicant” such as whether the applicants “were viable to continue after the award period,” said DHS spokeswoman Lucy Martinez. “The program has not been altered to focus on any one type of violent extremism,” she added, maintaining that 16 projects funded by DHS “are equipped to handle all types of violent extremism, including white supremacist violent extremism.”
That's BS. They will not bother with right wing violence. They are allies, good Real Americans, Trump voters. Remember, Trump routinely celebrated vigilantism on the campaign trail , having his crowds chant "Death Wish" and encouraging gun nuts to exercise their second amendment rights on Hillary Clinton if she had won in order to keep her from appointing a Supreme Court Justice. Right wing terrorists are valued members of their base.
Put this video on your Facebook page. Tweet it, send it by email, whatever. It says everything about what they are turning us into.
People, we are an incredibly wealthy country. We don't have to deny heath care to our most vulnerable citizens. We don't have to deny it to anyone. We have the money. We are just being run by radical zombies who have only one thought in their minds as they rampage through the country: tax cuts for Ivanka. It's their only purpose in life.
If you're satisfied with your health care, rattle your jewelry
by Tom Sullivan
There are no cheap seats here.
Vice President Mike Pence yesterday visited a Republican National Committee retreat in Chicago. He meant to rally his party's support for the Obamacare repeal bill coming to a vote in the Senate this week.
"This is our moment. Now is the time. Every moment Obamacare survives is another day America suffers," the designated staffer posted to his Twitter account.
"Before summer's out, we'll repeal/replace Obamacare w(ith)/system based on personal responsibility, free market competition & state-based reform," read another accompanied by a photo of a ballroom at the Four Seasons Hotel.
"That's the Republican way. That's the American way," he added. "And that's the way we're going to reform health care in the 21st Century."
Not likely a John Lennon aficionado, Pence did not invite his audience instead of clapping to rattle their jewelry.
Hullabaloo's Heather Digby Parton tweeted, "Seriously, any kid who gets leukemia needs a big lesson in personal responsibility." There will be plenty of lessons to go around should the bill pass this week.
Before summer’s out, we'll repeal/replace Obamacare w/ system based on personal responsibility, free-market competition & state-based reform pic.twitter.com/JzCyxX9kJb
I've heard plenty of conservative talk-show tirades about liberal coastal elites. But proclaiming in this upscale Midwest venue that Republicans plan to make medical treatment contingent on "personal responsibility, free market competition & state-based reform" is about as coded and vaporous as anything a left-leaning, unpaid college intern might conceive. Except infinitely more cold-blooded. This kind of Kool-Aid for the commoners takes decades of right-wing-billionaire-funded messaging research to synthesize. Drink enough over time and even a Bible-believing vice president doesn't know his soul has been poisoned.
How poisoned? Former North Carolina Democratic congressman Brad Miller was not on the committees that formulated Obamacare. He admits it's flaws, but notes in a Facebook post this morning that Democrats failed on the atmospherics:
Democrats blew the politics by letting Republicans say it was all just about helping the poor and nobody else, just like something Democrats would do. I'm all for helping the poor, but expanding health insurance coverage and requiring standard benefits helps everyone, including the people who already have insurance. The cost of treatment for the poor, usually emergency care when they're really sick or hurt rather than care to keep them healthy, gets shifted to everyone else in their insurance premiums. I asked the Tea Party delegation that visited me about the ACA what they would do about the uninsured who come to the emergency room with life-threatening illnesses or injuries. They said let them die.
According to the right's ghoulish orthodoxy, the uninsured sick should have worked harder, planned better, and saved more. Dying will be a lesson to others of their kind in personal responsibility, and as a bonus decrease the surplus population.
If Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his colleagues get their way, those lessons may come swiftly and painfully. In Illinois alone, "650,000 residents could lose Medicaid coverage under the Senate bill, and subsequent effects of state law, in 2021," the Chicago Tribune reckons.
Back up and look again at the Pence tweet, at the lies, lies, and more lies, and consider that the country is not only in the hands of an emotionally stunted man-child, but in the grasp of a political cult.
Back in February of this year, my dear mother passed away, at the age of 86. While she had been weathering a plethora of health issues for a number of years, the straw that ultimately claimed her (pancreatic cancer) was diagnosed mere weeks before she died. In fact, her turn for the worse was so sudden that my flight to Ohio turned into a grim race; near as I could figure, my plane was on final approach to Canton-Akron Airport when she slipped away (I arrived at her bedside an hour after she had died). And yes, that was hard.
Since I obviously wasn’t present during (what turned out to be) her final days, I asked my brother if she had any “final words”. At first, he chuckled a little through the tears, recounting that several days prior, she had turned to him at one point and said “I wish I had some wisdom to impart. But I don’t.” I laughed (Jewish fatalism-it’s a cultural thing).
Then, he remembered something. The hospice room where my mother spent her last week had a picture window facing west, with a view of a field, a pond, a small stand of trees, and an occasional deer spotting. Two days before she was gone, my mother, my father, and my brother were quietly enjoying this pastoral scene with the bonus of a lovely sunset. My mother broke the silence with 3 simple words: “Trees are important.”
I’ve been mulling over those words. What did she mean? Indeed, trees are important. They are, in a literal sense, the very lungs of the Earth. As a metaphor, I must consider the foundational significance that The Tree of Life holds in Judaism. Was she “imparting wisdom” after all? Had she, at the end her journey, reached what Paddy Chayefsky once called a “cleansing moment of clarity” about The Things That Really Matter? Granted, it may not be as cinematic as “Rosebud”, but it’s at the very least a kissin’ cousin to a Zen koan. If I’d been there, I might’ve responded with something profound, like “Nicely put.”
I believe that is why, only three minutes in to writer-director Hirokazu Kore-eda’s elegant new family drama, After the Storm, I found myself suddenly and unexpectedly choking up over an exchange between a mother and a daughter during the opening scene. Perhaps I should say that my reaction was all at once unexpected...yet immediately understood.
“You’ll go senile being alone all the time,” a middle-aged woman named Chinatsu (Satomi Kobayashi) admonishes her recently-widowed mother (Kirin Kiki), “Go out and make friends.” Not missing a beat as she merrily bustles about the kitchen, Mom wryly rejoins “New friends at my age only mean more funerals.” Then, returning to stirring the simmering pot on the stove, the mother muses softly (half to herself), “The flavor sinks into the ingredients, if you cool it down slowly and let it sit overnight. Just like people.”
“Nicely put,” says a visibly surprised Chinatsu, with a smile.
“Nicely put” is how I would, in general, describe Kore-eda’s flair for dialogue throughout this wise, quietly observant and at times genuinely witty take on the prodigal son story.
The prodigal is Chinatsu’s younger brother Ryota (Hiroshi Abe), who has been drifting away from his sister and their mother in the wake of his divorce from Kyoko (Yoko Maki). While he is basically good-hearted, Ryota is a classic man-child who seems to be his own worst enemy. He works as a private detective, which he insists is not a “job”, but rather, “research” for a novel he is allegedly formulating. He actually is a published writer; his debut novel earned him a (relatively obscure) book award. However, that was some time ago, and his literary license for reveling in past glories has definitely expired.
He has also long ago squandered any monies earned, due to his compulsive gambling habit. This propensity also keeps him in arrears on child support payments for his 11 year-old son Shingo (Taiyo Yoshizawa). He treasures his weekly visitations with Shingo; however Kyoko is threatening to cut them off if he doesn’t stay caught up on payments.
Ryota still carries the torch for his ex-wife; he enlists his partner at the detective agency to help do a little extra-curricular surveillance on Kyoko, and is distressed to see that she appears to be happily ensconced with a new boyfriend. His partner indulges him, but wisely counsels that perhaps it is time to let go, just as Kyoko seems to have moved on.
But fate and circumstance conspire (I’m saying it) one dark and stormy night to force an awkward family reunion; Ryota, Kyoko and Shingo hunker down to ride out a typhoon in his mother’s cramped apartment. This sets the stage for the third act, which is essentially a chamber piece about love, late-blooming “maturity”, and the renewal of family bonds.
It’s inevitable to draw comparisons here with the work of one of the masters of Japanese cinema, Yasujiro Ozu (1903-1963), whose name has become synonymous with such quietly observant family dramas. That being said, Kore-eda, while no less subtle than Ozu-san, is slightly less formal in his approach. In this respect, his film reminds me more of contemporary director Mike Leigh, another film maker who specializes in narratives regarding modern family dynamics, imbued with a seldom-matched sense of authenticity.
All the performances are beautifully nuanced; particularly when Abe and scene-stealer Kiki are onscreen. Kudos as well to DP Yutaka Yamazaki’s painterly cinematography, and Hanargumi’s lovely soundtrack. Granted, some could find the proceedings too nuanced and “painterly”, but those with patience will be rewarded. It may be true, as Tom Waits says, that “things are tough all over, when the thunderstorms start”, but after the storm, all is renewed. Kore-eda’s film reminds us that families, like trees, are important.