Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news media and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Amanda Marcotte: Kamala Harris’ big night: Democrats foreground “women’s issues” as urgent, universal concerns
On convention’s third night, women’s issues—immigration, climate change, child care, gun violence—took center stage
The official theme of the third night of the Democratic National Convention, the night that Sen. Kamala Harris of California accepted the nomination as Joe Biden’s running mate, was “A More Perfect Union.” It soon became clear, however, that the real theme of the evening was Ladies Night.
This convention has been geared towards women from the get-go — not only are women the majority of Democrats, they are the majority of voters, period — with female faces and issues that rate highly with female voters foregrounded. But Wednesday night went well beyond that. [..]
It’s tempting to sneer and make accusations of pandering because, truth be told, most things that are marketed to women tend to be wrapped in maximum condescension. Paint it in pink, put some glitter on it, make it “sassy” and the ladies will eat it up, right?
But the truth is that the night was nothing like that. Instead, women were addressed not as pink-bedazzled materialistic morons, but smart people with a vested interest in important issues, including many that aren’t traditionally coded as female. The issues that were highlighted on Wednesday — immigration, climate change, gun control, violence against women, child care — were clearly chosen not based on sexist assumptions, but actual research into the issues that women actually care about.
Charles M. Blow: A Convention Without Convening That Succeeds
We get to see some of the biggest names in the liberal cause remind us of what decency looks like.
I have been to several presidential nominating conventions. My first was Bill Clinton’s in Madison Square Garden in 1992. The convening itself — the drawing together of the party’s faithful, the die-hards, the sizzle of their excitement — created the spectacle and the specialness.
A part-political tent revival, part-cult congregational, lavish party.
For that reason, it was hard to conceive of a virtual convention, dictated by social distancing as a deadly virus still rages. Indeed, as the Democratic National Convention opened Monday night, I feared that, despite all their efforts, the convention would fail to succeed.
I was wrong.
There was a particular charge and effectiveness of seeing people in situ, surrounded by their books, in their kitchens, on their lawn, in some place that is meaningful to them or the people they represent. [..]
The greatest thing the DNC may well achieve, even in its abnormal format, is to remind us of what normalcy feels like.
Michael Tomasky: This Is Joe Biden’s No. 1 Job Before Election Day
Make it clear that Democrats have been a better steward of the economy — for decades, and by far.
n Thursday night, Joe Biden will address the country as the official nominee of the Democratic Party. If the voters decide on Nov. 3 to make him president, he will face a big job on a lot of fronts. One of them is the economy: He will be the third consecutive Democratic president, going back a full three decades, who has had to clean up a mess left for him by a Republican predecessor.
Yes, that’s three Republican economic failures in a row. When will the American people figure out that we have a pattern here?
Well, for starters, when Democrats get around to telling them. For my money, that is Mr. Biden and his party’s No. 1 job between now and Election Day: Make it clear that Democrats have been better stewards of the economy — for decades, and by far.
Paul Waldman: Bannon’s indictment confirms that the American right is made up of con artists
If you thought Stephen K. Bannon was going to end up in handcuffs, you might have predicted that it wouldn’t be for a small-time con. After all, Bannon went from running a far-right online publication to the heights of U.S. conservatism, first as CEO of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign and then as “chief strategist” in the White House. He even had ambitions to take his political project global.
But it turns out that the scheme that Bannon has just been criminally charged with is indeed a species of penny-ante grift. Yet it’s the sort of grift the American right has been running on its own voters for decades, which makes this absolutely fitting: [..]
If you’re keeping score, the group of people around the president who have been charged with crimes now includes Trump’s campaign CEO, Trump’s campaign chairman, Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, Trump’s personal lawyer, Trump’s national security adviser and Trump’s longtime friend and political adviser.
Why in the world would all these people find their way into Trump’s inner circle? It’s a mystery.
But the story of Bannon’s arrest isn’t just a reflection on Trump — though it certainly is that. It’s also an extremely common story on the right and has been for decades, long before Trump came along.
David Cole: The Supreme Court’s dangerous ‘shadow docket’
David Cole is national legal director of the ACLU and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
The Supreme Court received well-deserved praise for rising above partisan division this term. In controversial cases involving President Trump’s tax records, protections for “dreamers” from deportation, LGBTQ equality and abortion, one or more conservative justices joined the liberals to reach results that departed from the 5-4 Republican-Democrat divide one would expect if the justices simply voted according to the party of the presidents who appointed them. The court’s willingness to be guided by legal reasoning rather than political predilection is central to its legitimacy.
But in a much less visible area of its work, commonly known as the “shadow docket,” the court has increasingly split along party lines. Every year, the court considers emergency motions for stays of lower-court orders. It decides these cases without oral argument, often in a matter of days or even hours. In such cases, it typically offers no explanation for its reasoning, even when dissenting justices voice serious objections, and even when the court is effectively overturning the unanimous decisions of lower courts.