vxbush 7/2/2024 5:44:42 AM

1

The guys here won't get this, but the gals will--

The decisions about who makes the cover of women's magazines is heavily political. So it was no surprise that Jill Biden was on the cover of Vogue for an issue that dropped just after the debate. What WAS interesting was that Vogue reached out to her after the debate to find out more, and DR. Jill made an interesting statement. Quoting directly from the blurb: 

Editor's Note: The debate on June 27 spurred a discussion about whether President Joe Biden should remain the Democratic nominee. Dr. Jill Biden, the first lady and Vogue's August cover subject, has fiercely defended her husband and stood by him.

Reached by phone on June 30 at Camp David, where the Biden family had gathered for the weekend, she told Vogue that they "will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he's been president.

We will continue to fight." President Biden, she added, "will always do what's best for the country." Whatever happens in the weeks and months between now and November, it is Dr. Biden who will remain the president's closest confidant and advocate.

"WE" will continue to fight? Not the president, my husband, Joe, our candidate, our nominee? Sounds like she isn't going to let her husband be removed for anything. 

Methinks she likes playing Edith Wilson. 

vxbush 7/2/2024 5:48:21 AM

2

vxbush 7/2/2024 5:54:20 AM

3

More evidence of DR. Jill calling the shots: 

[A]ccording to Axios, Biden's closest aides, led by Jill Biden's top aide Anthony Bernal and deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini, "took steps early in his term to essentially rope off the president." They have even kept the residence staff, who serve the first family, distant. 

A former residence official noted that Jill Biden's protectiveness with Bernal's support often prevented staff from assisting them, creating an unusual separation compared to previous administrations. According to a former residence official who spoke to Axios, Jill Biden was "so protective of the president, and then Anthony just protects her, and they often wouldn't let us do anything for them."

"The separation between the family and the residence staff was so big, so divided," the former staffer told the outlet. "It's not supposed to be and usually isn't, even in the Trump White House."

I'm guessing Jill's staff gave direction to the president's staff. Speculation on my part, but it would be consistent with this story and what her demeanor seems to be. 

vxbush 7/2/2024 5:56:19 AM

4

AOC to File Articles of Impeachment Over Immunity Ruling

Against the Supreme Court for daring to support that the President has immunity. 

vxbush 7/2/2024 6:00:32 AM

5

"She has the face of Cruella de Vil, the ethics of Boss Tweed, the vocabulary of a longshoreman, and the media presence of Mr. Sluggo from SNL's long-lost "Mr. Bill" series. She is practically a Democratic calendar girl. What is not to love?"

And she wants to take Joe's place on the nomination--hence her early move to position herself in this role, as noted yesterday. Maybe she's DR. Jill's understudy.

vxbush 7/2/2024 6:04:37 AM

6

vxbush 7/2/2024 6:08:59 AM

7

The DNC had already talked about formally nominating Biden before the DNC convention in order to meet the requirements of several states that must have the presidential nominee for the party identified a specific number of days before the election. It also turns out that this would also give the DNC the option to swap the candidate as well: 

As we reported last week, there is a provision in the DNC's 2024 Call for Convention allowing the DNC to fill any vacancy of the nominee for President or Vice President after the convention is adjourned, and that vacancy can be due to "disability," but one wrinkle in that potential plan is that the DNC's current convention timeline is after the ballot deadline in some states. If Biden is the formal nominee after the July 21 meeting, he could be replaced due to "disability" and the party could still get a new name on the ballot, but the fact that the Chicago convention wouldn't have been convened by that point complicates that potential plan.

vxbush 7/2/2024 6:12:11 AM

8

Occasional Reader 7/2/2024 7:06:58 AM

9

In #2 vxbush said: Q: Why did the Supreme Court of Israel rule that ultra-Orthodox men must be included in the pool of potential draftees for the military? Are they as out of touch with the rest of Israel as I believe? I recall there was a huge power play against them as they had abrogated way too much power and Netanyahu was trying to rein that in.

It can be simultaneously true that 1) it's unjust that one particular religious sect be exempt (effectively) from the draft in a country that's perpetually under military threat; 2) the decision was made for at least partly ideological reasons; and 3) the Israeli Supreme Court is generally too powerful (though I think you meant "arrogate", not "abrogate").   On that last point, IIRC they can basically annul a law for, in essence, no reason at all, "because we don't like it". 

Occasional Reader 7/2/2024 7:12:00 AM

10

buzzsawmonkey 7/2/2024 9:19:20 AM

11

Reply to Occasional Reader in 9:

It is my understanding that the "ultra-Orthodox" (hate that term; it's usually used as a term of disparagement by "secular" [non-observant, and usually ultra-Leftist] Jews and non-Jewish Jew-haters) were exempted from compulsory military service for two reasons;  because the "ultra-Orthodox" initially maintained that the secular state was not legitimate because it was not Messianically established, so exemption from military service enabled them to be "in the state, but not of it," and because their devotion to Torah studies nonetheless provided the state with a measure of divine protection. 

As I understand it, all but the most-insular Hasidic sects (e.g., Satmar, as opposed to the more-secularly-engaged Lubavitch) have since modified their stance regarding the first of these positions, but the more-secular Orthodox being not compelled, but merely permitted, to serve (as Arab Israelis are) was a compromise they could live with.  

The current manpower shortage in light of the conflicts not only in Gaza but with Hezbollah on the northern border (which resulted last week, e.g., in Arabs burning out several dozen acres of wheat which had not yet been harvested because there were not enough people available to do it) is part of the prompt for the new ruling---to which add that the Israeli Supreme Court, which is a law unto itself, has been and remains much more sympathetic to the secular section of society.

vxbush 7/2/2024 10:18:53 AM

12

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 11:

Thanks for the details. I had seen an argument as to why they were not required to serve, but it was from a source I did not trust. It provided a very simplistic answer. 

And yes, that terminology for the ultra-Orthodox group is unfortunate, but I wasn't sure what a better term would be. Not knowing all the different groups that come under that umbrella, what would be a better reference? 

buzzsawmonkey 7/2/2024 10:39:08 AM

13

Reply to vxbush in 12:

What would be a better term?  A tough question, for which I have, alas, no quick and easy answer.  What are nowadays called "ultra-Orthodox" tend to be members of the various Hasidic sects, of which there are many, each clustered around the teachings of a different rabbi.  The Lubavitchers are very focused on Messianism; they are also fairly involved with bringing nonobservant Jews into observance, and therefore have a more "secular" focus; they are also very pro-Israel. The Satmars are much more insular; the "Neturei Karta" group, who sometimes show up at anti-Israel demonstrations, are, I believe, an extremist wing of that sect.  Other Hasidic sects, the Bobov and Belzer Hasidim, are, it is my understanding, somewhere in between.  

When I had my office in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, there were members of all these groups in the neighborhood.  If one knew the "plumage" variations of their different modes of dress---I do not---one could tell them at a glance: some wear long coats, some do not; some wear regular trousers, some wear knee-breeches with dark socks, some wear them with white stockings; some wear fedoras, some wear flat hats with low crowns, some wear homburg-like hats with flat brims and high open crowns. 

There is no way to coin one term that encompasses the various distinctions between them.

JCM 7/2/2024 10:42:02 AM

14

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 13:

Reading that I started hearing a David Attenborough narration in my head.  

buzzsawmonkey 7/2/2024 10:53:19 AM

15

Reply to JCM in 14:

Is that good?

vxbush 7/2/2024 11:47:30 AM

16

In #15 buzzsawmonkey said: Is that good?

Well, it's pretty funny. 

buzzsawmonkey 7/2/2024 12:15:57 PM

17

In #16 vxbush said: Well, it's pretty funny. 

Wish I knew the context, so I could join the merriment.

vxbush 7/2/2024 12:21:47 PM

18

In #17 buzzsawmonkey said: Wish I knew the context, so I could join the merriment.

Imagine all your Orthodox brethren on the savannah being recorded by video, and David Attenborough does hte VoiceOver describing how to differentiate between the different men before him, the different behaviors, etc. like they are all on safari. 

buzzsawmonkey 7/2/2024 12:24:30 PM

19

Reply to vxbush in 18:

Ah.  Got it.  Since I've never, to my knowledge, viewed something narrated by Attenborough, the whole thing went right by me.

vxbush 7/2/2024 12:31:18 PM

20