An Open Letter to Lawyers Drugs and Money Blog

I read various online sources to keep up with news, politics, legal affairs, and (to some extent) sports. 

I appreciate those who provide an option for me to comment. This ability has been reduced in recent years as those who run the sites feel unable to keep up with trolls and content deemed offensive/counterproductive. This is both understandable and unfortunate.

One of my favorites, both for the content and comments, is Lawyer Drugs and Money.  I appreciate both the content and the comments. I appreciate being able to comment. I have an evangelical side on that front. 

Of course, sometimes, I disagree with the content. I was not a fan of the idea it was stupid to enforce rules against steroids in sports. Or, that punishing the Patriots for a certain infraction was some great wrong warranted multiple posts. The "you don't have to read" reply is silly. Comments are left open. People can dissent. 

Nonetheless, I am more concerned than usual about multiple posts, from different contributors (not only the one I specifically dislike*), on political events. The overall approach simply is not helpful. I think it is counterproductive though they surely think they are helping.

Erik Loomis (whose regular entries on labor and visits to the graves of historical figures are excellent) seems to have moved on to "Biden is likely going to lose" mode. I have seen the sentiment in multiple entries. Perhaps, this is a useful psychological exercise to soften the blow. I don't know. But, I don't find it particularly helpful.

Anyway, a recent one warned people about voters (don't call them stupid! I get to call people stupid for other reasons though!) who will vote third party or whatever:

But there is a singular type of threat to Biden from the left and it is a combination of his policies toward Palestine and the importance of very specific purple states to the election.

I don't know how people will react to this issue since a lot can happen in nine months. And, I grant the concern. Still, a useful approach entails citing the multiple things he has done to help. Not just include a picture of Biden (looking a bit decrepit) hugging Netanyahu or something. 

Is this not a value of this sort of blog? Biden worked to obtain a temporary ceasefire to address human rights needs. He is supporting a two-state solution. He passed executive orders doing things like helping Palestinians extend their stays in the U.S. and penalizing wrongs in the West Bank. I have also seen reports about further efforts to work toward just resolution for both sides. Put aside the alternative (Trump) is horrible.

Furthermore, Biden is threading the needle here. There are two sides to close elections. If he is seen as anti-Israel, other voters can turn against him from the right. This balance is shown in another area where Mr. Loomis in a one-note way calls him horrible, namely, immigration matters.  

Ezra Klein is the second Times pundit to actually specify how and possibly with who Joe Biden could be replaced, which I sincerely respect more than pure Johnny Unbeatable wishcasting.

Moving on to Scott Lemieux (not a hockey player). Multiple comments, in my view correctly, strongly criticized Klein's take. His providing additional details does not really change it from "wishcasting," including some of the possible alternatives provided. 

Furthermore, Klein's reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is annoying. She died, allowing Trump the power to select her replacement. She was older and repeatedly had cancer. Is there some idea Biden is on death's door? The guy "reads" frail but there is no evidence of that being likely before the election. "Being another Ginsburg" here is a dubious comparison.

The blog post agrees that there is reasonable evidence that Vice President Harris is a somewhat weaker option as a candidate. This is far from surprising. Name a recent vice president who was a stronger candidate than the president with the possible exception of Joe Biden if Obama could run for a third term (Biden might have been a better candidate for 2016).  

A wider problem I have with these comments is that again they are incomplete. One commenter (Mark Field) in another context said that we should just attack Trump. I understand the sentiment. But, I think there is a place to respond to criticism as well as support our side. 

And, that is what is required here. Vice President Harris should get more of a defense. Heather Cox Richardson** in her excellent daily Substack referenced Harris:

At the Munich Security Conference, where leaders from more than 70 countries gather annually in Germany to discuss international security policy, Vice President Kamala Harris today responded to Trump’s recent attacks on America’s global leadership with a full-throated defense of global engagement.

People who want to keep up with the Vice President can also track statements posted on the White House website. Not surprisingly, one issue she has been quite vocal on is reproductive rights. 

I personally wish there was more, including an official schedule. Video of her presiding over the Senate, including providing vote after necessary tie-breaking vote to advance Democratic policies would be a nice touch. 

Overall, instead of just being concerned (one person on that blog sometimes seems to have two speeds, doom and saying doom is counterproductive), provide a reply. Show why Vice President Harris is doing her job. Thus, the possibility that she might have to take over at some point would not seem so bad. 

Finally, there is Merrick Garland. Erik Loomis has a post up basically saying "told you so." After the special prosecutor released a report saying Biden should not be prosecuted mixed with some choice Biden bashing that furthers favored frames, THREE members of the blog went after Garland. 

Talk about overkill. First, like their repeated sarcasm about "but Biden is old," this sort of thing can be counterproductive. There is no bad advertising, so they say. If you keep on referencing Biden being old, etc., even mixed with criticism of the coverage, the meme continues. The need to respond often is a defeat. And, at some point, it's belabored.

Second, the responses are too one-sided. Some comments (though the posts are catnip for the "fire Garland, that loser" brigade as if he did nothing for three years) did push back. Not just me. There is a path that allows for reasonable criticism. The blog's tendency toward sarcasm and satiric photos also can be too much. 

A basic problem here is that Garland himself is not solely to blame. I think overall (see also as a Supreme Court nominee) he has multiple good points. Let's move past that. 

First, President Joe Biden picked him, knowing he was a traditionist of a certain sort. If you wanted a strong reformer who would change "the rules," he wasn't the person to pick. Multiple other options (some wanted Doug Jones, a moderate senator from a red state) would have acted comparably.  

Special counsel rules are also problematic, even if they have some wiggle room. This is not a new thing. Again, there are two sides here. There is value in a conservative-leaning sort investigating Biden and finding him innocent of basic wrongdoing. Who do you pick in this situation? Someone that would be seen as on your side? 

(Also, Robert Mueller did good, including providing a case against Trump. He was a junior official. He could not prosecute Trump on his own. And, he was screwed by William Barr, who was specifically chosen for that reason.) 

The independent counsel law seemed like a good reform. But, there were problems, including conservative judges picking the likes of Kenneth Starr. Then, the law was allowed to run out. We are back to the administration choosing them in certain situations. There still are problems, including some of the people chosen. 

And, again, why not lead with the positive? We can quote the report (it's hundreds of pages long; it is not just a few choice anti-Biden parts) itself to show Biden supported the investigation and is innocent of wrongdoing. Post after post about old man GARLAND is helpful, how? 

To quote President Biden:

The special counsel that acknowledged I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays.  In fact, I was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person — five-hour in-person interview over two days on October the 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked by Hamas on the 7th and I was very occupied.  It was in the middle of handling an international crisis. 

Again, as I noted in response to Mark Field, critique is warranted up to a point. It is fine for blogs to discuss the problems with the special counsel's report. Or, how Attorney General Garland is too moderate in response. And, so on. 

I think the takes repeatedly do not provide a totally fair account of what he did. But, a bigger problem is that it belabors one aspect of the conversation, furthering the doom in the process. There is too much of that. I again get the idea if Biden loses (please no), we will get a bunch of faux cynical realistic takes about how it was all so predictable.  

LGM is a successful blog. They get to write whatever they want. But, I do wish they provided a more nuanced take on things recently.  Provide a more positive, strong response to current events. Limit the promotion of the other side's doom and negativity. And, provide a more complete account.

Thanks for allowing comments so others can discuss these matters.  

ETA: Checking on Sunday, there is yet another post about "Biden is old" coverage. 

At some point, isn't this counterproductive? "Biden" and "old" are tied together as a given. People on our side then say "yeah Biden is old but." "Boy, is he old." etc. 

Why don't we just talk about President Biden and not act like the age thing is so bloody important? It is not going to change. Maybe, if WE don't keep on making it an issue, helping the meme, it will help? 

---

* I miss multiple women contributors, who provided foreign policy and social commentary in the past. One of them was replaced by someone I find not a helpful addition. 

** Fans of the film Heathers might remember her as the Heather who liked history.