Chris Cillizza: [Trump] is producing the greatest reality show ever.
Soledad O’Brien: It’s not accurate. It’s not funny. It’s not clever. It’s not analysis. It’s facile. It shows an actual lack of understanding of reality tv (can’t believe I’m typing that). It’s mediocre. It’s a time when viewers need to understand what’s going on at the highest levels of govt.

The reason Trump won’t be [challenged in the primary] like Gerald Ford in 1976 or George H.W. Bush in 1992 is simple: Trump unquestionably represents what Republicanism is at this moment – certainly more than any potential challenger. The GOP is a resentment-driven party, and there’s no potential challenger who taps into that anger the way Trump does. There’s no contest.

Ford and Poppy Bush didn’t Unquestionably represent their party. They were the last two Republican presidents with greater ties to the GOP establishment than to the newer coalition of religious conservatives and resentment-driven suburban and exurban whites. It’s no surprised that they faced reelection challenges from within the party.

Maybe Trump’s voters will be disillusioned with the direction of the country in a couple of years, especially if the economy cools off or collapses (though nothing Robert Mueller is investigating will bother them) – but it’s likely that even an economic downturn won’t faze them. George W. Bush retained considerable support within his party even in the waning days of his presidency, when nearly everyone else in America had abandoned him, because he wouldn’t give up on the war, a stance GOP voters cheered because it infuriated liberals. Trump will be in a similar position in two years: We’ll still hate him, so Republican voters will continue to embrace him.

Steve M. provides some trenchant analysis over at No More Mister Nice Blog. Nothing to add to this, really, other than “Yep.”

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

G.K. Chesterton, in his 1929 book, The Thing

As a result of the fact that he vacations at Mar-a-Lago and his New Jersey golf club, demands protection for his adult children, and had his wife and youngest son stay in New York for the first five months of his presidency, Donald Trump has added $120 million to the annual cost of providing protection for the president compared with what a normal president would require. The New York Times reported that he pledged to contribute 0.8 percent of this amount ($1 million) to help the victims of Hurricane Harvey. If he follows through on this pledge, it means the public will only be down $119.0 million ($119.6 million, after taking account of the tax deduction).

Dean Baker, getting it right as usual. Even with all that taken as fact, Trump will inevitably still try to wriggle out of actually paying, try to run it out of campaign or “charity” funds. At the very least, can we hold him to spending his own goddamned money on this, even if he is making said money by renting golf carts to the Secret Service? Is that too much to ask?

On my second birthday we landed on the moon. – Mike Monteiro – Medium

I’m in my college dorm room and my friend crashes into my room and says “Let’s go see The Minutemen!” I don’t go because homework or some other bullshit. Three months later D. Boon is dead. When someone says “Let’s go!” you go!

Monteiro is almost exactly two years older than me, but this little bit of thought technology he tucked into a caption is apparently sufficiently powerful stuff that you can pick it up pre-50. Just go. See your Minutemen. You’ll be glad you did. Otherwise you’ll turn around and they’re gone.

On my second birthday we landed on the moon. – Mike Monteiro – Medium

Ed Kilgore has some thoughts on Democratic leadership and the need for term-limits (and specifically for Nancy Pelosi):

Ever since Democrats fell short of their 2016 goal of taking back control of the U.S. House, there’s been talk about […] leadership change in the House Democratic Caucus. And after Democrats failed to win any of the four GOP House seats where special elections were held this year, there was renewed talk about Nancy Pelosi stepping down as House Democratic Leader. The negative buzz became particularly loud after the party’s biggest special-election hope, Georgia’s Jon Ossoff, suffered a disappointing loss, in the wake of Republicans running many millions of dollars of ads linking the candidate to Pelosi.

[…]

[Pelosi] is a much bigger target for Republicans than Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell appears to be for Democrats. Part of the problem may simply be that she happens to represent a jurisdiction with rich negative symbolism (dating back at least to the attacks on “San Francisco Democrats” in 1984 after the Donkey Party held its convention in the City by the Bay) for the conservatives who are mostly the target for anti-Pelosi ads. You cannot quite imagine Democrats running ads mocking Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin or Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky in this manner.

Emphasis added by me because Kilgore completely discounts the most important information in his several paragraphs. The demonization of Pelosi has nothing to do with her having been in the arena for too long, being a woman, coming from San Francisco, or anything else. Those are all useful pegs for the GOP to build their messaging on and around, but they aren’t themselves decisive or even all that interesting. Anyone serving as minority leader will immediately come under sustained and focused attack from the right wing and their stenographers in much of the media. It’s Cokie’s Law: if information, factual or otherwise, is “out there” then it must be discussed uncritically. Thus the media happily carries the GOP messaging machine’s water on Pelosi and anybody else in the cross-hairs that day. There’s just no getting around it, and The Democrat not only doesn’t have anything like this, they aren’t even on the same planet with the scale and coordination of this operation. Unless and until they create a sustained messaging attack on McConnell and Ryan, those two can continue right on doing what they’re doing. Just to focus on McConnell, he’s likely the most destructive force in government today, but most people would be hard pressed to name him, much less know what he’s been up to and why it is dismantling the way our government has, until recently, functioned.
That’s simply not the case for Pelosi, and that has nothing to do with the fact that she’s from San Francisco and everything to do with a sustained, targeted, and years long messaging attack that salts the Earth and leaves useful framing tools for any GOP hopeful to pick up and use, readymade. Democrats try to build the machine from scratch with every individual election, every cycle. How’s that working out for them?

Lastly, if you like the ACA, thank Nancy Pelosi. Period. That doesn’t mean she gets a pass to serve in party leadership forever, but she did that lift more or less with her own political momentum and within the context of the sustained, entirely negative noise machine and well after perceptions about her in the media were set in stone. Think on that as you try to show her the door.

[…] when he found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there whether it’s governmental tapes or anything else and who knows, I think his story may have changed.

Donald Trump, openly admitting to witness tampering through his comments on the possibility of taped conversations with Comey. This is fine. Nothing to see here.