It doesn't appear there's any salvaging the Republican Party

 This morning I gave the Democrats a good thrashing, and deservedly so.

Now it's the Republicans' turn. 

The Very Stable Genius has been showing up on the radar screen a bit lately.

He held a rally in Georgia the other night. That would be the state whose chance to put Republicans in the Senate majority he squandered because he felt his ring wasn't being sufficiently kissed.

He claimed the crowd was massive, but more credible sources say it was the smallest in years. 

He used the occasion to praise Putin's and Kim's intelligence and describe Russia's massing of 180,000 troops on Ukraine's borders as "a hell of a way to negotiate."

In a recent interview with Just The News, an outlet whose Trumpist slant gives the lie to its name, he calls on the instigator of the bloodiest, most vicious assault on one European nation bay another since the 1940s to take a little time out from his tyrannical, expansionist schedule to release info about Hunter Biden:

Amid widespread criticism of his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, former President Donald Trump publicly called on Putin on Tuesday to release any dirt he might have on Hunter Biden, the president’s son.

Trump, in an interview with Just the News, seized on an unsubstantiated claim about Biden’s obtaining a hefty payment from Elena Baturina, the former wife of the late former mayor of Moscow, and asked Putin to provide details.

“She gave him $3.5 million, so now I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it,” Trump said. “I think we should know that answer.”

Trump was referring to information from a partisan Senate report published just weeks before the 2020 election, which also focused on Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Charlie Sykes at The Bulwark makes clear just how and why this is despicable:

Here’s where we come to the treasonous smoking gun: Trump explicitly frames his request to Putin as an act of retaliation not just against Biden, but against the United States itself.

Some accounts leave out the key phrase that Trump uses when he explains why Putin might help him. 

"As long as Putin is not exactly a fan of our country... I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it... you won't get the answer from Ukraine... I think Putin now would be willing to probably give that answer."

As long as Putin is not exactly a fan of our country... said the former and perhaps future president at a time of international conflict.

Then there's the seven hours of phone calls from the log during the time of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection that are missing from the log turned over to the January 6 Congressional committee. 

And the s--- about not even knowing what a burn phone is. John Bolton says the VSG damn well knows what a burn phone is.

Still, the voters registered with the once-great Republican Party would put him back in office in a heartbeat:

PollTracker

@PollTrackerUSA

2024 National Republican Primary Poll: Trump 59% Pence 11% DeSantis 10% Haley 3% Rubio 3% Cruz 2% T. Scott 2% Pompeo 1% . Without Trump: DeSantis 28% Pence 24% Cruz 10% Haley 6% Rubio 5% Pompeo 3% T. Scott 2%

And every one of the other names offered in the poll would support him.

Cowards, nuts and sycophants. That's all that's left now.  

 

Government's garbage justification for coming after the home-appraisal industry

 It was one of those news items I filed away in my memory bank, with a mental note to keep my eye out for refutation of the premise being reported.

Well, here's the refutation. 

Once again, the pointy-headed do-gooders are set to tinker with the free market in the name of combatting - wait for it - raaaacism! 

The home-valuation industry has become the federal government’s latest target for a massive and unjustified power grab. Unless stopped, the government, not markets, will set home prices, which could have catastrophic consequences.

To justify its takeover, the government is trying to scapegoat the appraisal industry—which is 97% white, 70% male and not well-organized—for having caused large disparities in racial wealth and homeownership. Cue last week’s report from the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity, or PAVE, led by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge and the director of the president’s Domestic Policy Council, Susan Rice, which asserted the existence of “inequities within current home lending and appraisal processes” for communities of color.

The justification for this inequities-for-communities-of-color is beyond flimsy:

 The government’s case is unsubstantiated. The PAVE report relied on three pieces of research. The first one was a blog post by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which quoted 16 examples of racially charged language out of millions of appraiser reports but refused to disclose the total number of occurrences. The second was what Freddie Mac—one of the two mortgage giants—called “exploratory research” that was later directly contradicted by a report from the other giant, Fannie Mae. The third was a report by the Brookings Institution, which boldly claimed that 23 variables could completely account for all possible non-race-based factors affecting a home’s value. This left only racial bias as the explanation for the remaining value differences between white and black neighborhoods, which research we did for the American Enterprise Institute thoroughly discredits.

PAVE’s blatant disregard of pertinent research, use of cherry-picked data and discredited research lead it to flawed conclusions. This suggests either a lack of interest in getting to the truth or, more likely, that the report is only a pretext for centralizing valuation regulation under a new Federal Valuation Agency.

Here we go again. Centralizing regulation under a new federal agency.

And all because the overlords are determined that we all get our minds right about race. Never mind that behaviors that anybody of any race can engage in are the main determinant of how nice a home he or she can buy.

More-rigorous research shows that rather than being the fault of the appraisal industry, the racial homeownership disparity exists because of the failure of past efforts on welfare, school quality, crime, urban renewal or public housing by the federal government to address differences in socioeconomic status. The data clearly show that Americans with higher income and who are married have higher homeownership rates regardless of race. When they were of similar socioeconomic status, black, white and Hispanic households all had similar outcomes when we replicated the Brookings and Freddie studies.

We don’t dispute a legacy of past racism and lingering racial bias, which leaves blacks at a large income and wealth disadvantage, but history shows that government attempts to solve socioeconomic gaps through housing policy often backfire.

Examples abound, but consider these two. The 1967 Presidential Task Force on Housing and Urban Development proposed a 10-year housing program to eliminate all substandard housing in the U.S. It ended up destroying many American cities through a combination of lax lending to underqualified borrowers, careless government oversight (particularly in appraisals), and predatory business arrangements between the Federal Housing Administration and lenders. In the end, these actions wreaked havoc on black households and neighborhoods.

Or consider HUD’s 1995 National Homeownership Strategy, designed to achieve a homeownership rate well in excess of any in the nation’s history. The housing boom it unleashed went bust, leading to more than 10 million foreclosures and costing taxpayers dearly. Black homeowners and neighborhoods were among the hardest hit.

And also once again, distortions in the free market are going to sock the demographic ostensibly in need of policy rectification the hardest.

If home prices were no longer determined by markets but instead by a politicized valuation process, it is easy to see how the results could exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in wealth and homeownership. The politicization of home prices to address perceived valuation inequities could lead to misvaluations on a massive scale. The areas most affected would be minority and rural areas, where home sales generally are sparser. This could engender even larger home price peaks and troughs, ultimately hurting lower-income households, which have the least wherewithal to withstand price declines.

Don't expect anybody in the current administration to give a flying diddly about the points made here. 

This has the same odor wafting off of it that two other recent acts of grandstanding have had: this newly passed Emmett Till law, which addresses lynching, a form of murder for which there have been state laws on the books for years, and, more to the point, has not been an issue in our country for over half a century, and Biden's plan to come after rich people's unrealized capital gains. 

This is why, even though it's still as important as ever to wrest real conservatism away from the clutches of Trumpism, it's equally important to defend the principles that serve as the foundation of that real conservatism.

 

 

The West says, "We stand with you, Ukraine"; Ukraine says, "Could have fooled us"

 Much note has already been made of the fact President Biden's Warsaw speech yesterday took a jarring turn at the very end. Up to that point, it was the kind of speech the moment called for, a declaration of how the great historical forces were arrayed on the world stage. It was a sober and eloquent blend of context and resolve. Then came the "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power" remark, referring to Putin.

For my money, Stephen Hayes has the kind of take on it that is has some usefulness:

Stephen Hayes

@stephenfhayes

He was obviously discussing Putin's power in Russia. He was plainly right on substance - of course it'd be better not to have a nihilistic authoritarian running a nuclear state committing war crimes daily. But he was foolish to say it. The walkback is insulting - damage is done.

I don't think the kind of take I'm seeing some examples of  - the take that says, "Oh, dandy, now Putin has license to get as ugly as he pleases, given that the West, as embodied by Biden, is determined to remove him" - is helpful. Biden committed a characteristically Bidenesque gaffe, but it's not as if the US has spooks in the Kremlin waiting for the moment to hog-tie Putin and cart him out. 

I think that as the new week unfolds, sufficient weight will be given to the brunt of the speech, which was appropriately grand and resolute. At least I hope so. The West does indeed need to remain unified against the expansionist aims of Putin and his ilk. 

But I think we'd better pay some attention to where Ukrainian president Zelesnskyy is coming from:

In the wake of President Joe Biden’s trip to Europe to rally Ukraine's allies, the country's leader reiterated his view that the West has not done enough to support Kyiv. 

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy demanded in a video message late Saturday that Western nations provide a fraction of the military hardware in their stockpiles and asked whether they were afraid of Moscow.

Zelenskyy said Kyiv needed planes, tanks, air-defense and anti-ship systems.

"That is what our partners have, that is what is just gathering dust there," he said in the address. "This is all for not only the freedom of Ukraine, but for the freedom of Europe."

"We are waiting for 31 days already. So who is governing the Euro-Atlantic community? Is it really still Moscow through intimidation?" Zelenskyy said.

It's increasingly looking like a possibility that Ukraine, assuming it - or any of us - skate past the potential Armageddon that looms way too uncomfortably, may eke out a future that is other than conventionally Western. Zelenskyy has the overwhelming support of his citizens. He articulates their plight, and they appreciate it. 

I completely understand the West's trepidation about NATO going toe-to-toe with Russia (see above reference to a potential Armageddon), but at what point is this going to be a matter of history recording that the West stood by and let Russia complete its rape of Ukraine? Is Zelenskyy's frustration turning into a bitterness that will steer Ukraine's course if it can survive?

I'm still not ready to take the hard-and fast position that NATO ought to bring to bear the kind of weaponry that risks direct confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, I'm not ready to take the hard and fast position that we shouldn't.

This is about as sticky a wicket as we've ever found ourselves in. 

As of right now, I'd just say that we may be contributing to the evolution of a Ukraine that doesn't have much use for Western assurances of solidarity. It's not going to surrender to Putin, but it may not feel much kinship with any of us, either. 

Thoughts on persevering through some deep disillusionment

 The tribalists are lined up on their various sides this morning, ready to stick it to the bad guys. Here's the thing about where any and all of them are coming from, though: they have to disingenuously exclude any context beyond the gotcha prizes they clutch in their grubby little hands.

Hunter Biden's laptop contains some emails pertaining to Ukraine and China that implicate "the big guy," aka his dad. Okay, it's pretty easy to acknowledge that that's  bad. But what is to be done with it? Does anyone think that the DoJ, as currently constituted, is going to assign a special prosecutor to pour massive resources into investigating it? Will relevant House and Senate committees hold hearings about it? With everything else on the nation's plate right now, I rather doubt it.

Ginni Thomas's emails to Mark Meadows pretty clearly pin her as a Trumpist kook who really thought there was a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the 2020 election overturned.  Clarence Thomas's lone dissenting SCOTUS vote in the order to make Trump cough up January 6-related documents makes the whole thing even more unseemly. But Ginni Thomas's Trumpist turn is nothing that many a formerly respect-worthy conservative hasn't done. Think Victor Davis Hanson, Roger Kimball, Rod Dreher . . . you get the idea. And are we to jettison all that we've known about Justice Thomas for years - his remarkable life story, his voting record on the bench? 

I've been thinking about something I included in yesterday's post, specifically point number four, where I said

Whataboutism that would bring up the truly shameful treatment of Gorsuch at his hearings (and it was shameful, as was subsequent remarking on how angry he got; this man had been the subject of the most rotten kind of slander - namely, that he'd sexually attacked women in his youth) only perpetuates our societal brittleness. It ensures that neither side truly hears the other across the chasm that divides us, rendering it utterly ineffective for - well, whatever it is intended to be effective for. It persuades no one of anything.

But soon after writing it, I listened to Commentary magazine's daily podcast,  in which John Podhoretz, Christine Rosen and Noah Rothman make a pretty persuasive case that it is indeed important to bring up the rotten treatment Brett Kavanaugh got at his hearing, particularly in light of the Washington Post's "credible evidence" phrase in its editorial juxtaposing what Kavanaugh was subjected to with KBJ's hearing. As they point out, the three "witnesses" Blasey Ford was relying on couldn't recall a specific date or location for a party at which Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. They go on to point out that a year after the hearing, Blasey Ford's attorney let the cat out of the bag that the real aim was to keep SCOTUS from getting a justice who might find Roe v Wade's reasoning flimsy and might personally view abortion as the extermination of human beings. 

I am in complete agreement with the Principles First position that non-Trumpist conservatives who want to run for public office are going to have to acknowledge that they're going to lose some elections in. the immediate and intermediate future. But let's level with them. The task is daunting as hell. There's going to be a big fundraiser for Harriet Haggeman, headlined by Kevin McCarthy in Washington soon. Doesn't that tell us everything we need to know about what a garbage party the Republicans have become?

And, of course, the rejoinder remains what it has been for seven years from those who have gone ahead and voted Republican: "Are you okay with the alternative?" Of course, the ate-up, drool-besotted throne sniffers are quick to so respond, but so are lots of ordinary citizens who view themselves as somewhat engaged and generally right of center, but who say they have busy personal lives and/or careers and only so much time to stake out a position that doesn't involve holding their noses.

My overall point here is that I've come to be damn reluctant to even begin to admire any public figure anymore. I have no brand to defend, no turf to protect. 

This is what happens when the bedrock institutions and norms of the most advanced society in history crumble.

And it happens at a dandy time, doesn't it?

 

The Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings - initial thoughts

 

1.) She certainly said the things a Constitutionalist like me would want to hear with regard to that document. ("The adherence to the text is a constraint on my authority - trying to figure out what those words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them.")

2.) A couple of things about her I'm-not-a-biologist response to the question about the definition of a woman: She pretty much had to answer in some such fashion, knowing that a firestorm from the let's-pretend-gender-is-a-construct crowd would be inevitable if she didn't. Still, it shows that she defers to that crowd - that is, she knows which side her bread is buttered on. The last three SCOTUS nominees certainly wouldn't have answered it that way.

3.) Senators Cruz and Graham utterly beclowned themselves. Cruz's stunt - waving Ibram X. Kendi's Antiracist Baby book around - and Graham storming out of the room were cringeworthy. Lines of questioning from Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, while not descending to the level of the aforementioned, were opportunistic and gratuitous.

4.) Whataboutism that would bring up the truly shameful treatment of Gorsuch at his hearings (and it was shameful, as was subsequent remarking on how angry he got; this man had been the subject of the most rotten kind of slander - namely, that he'd sexually attacked women in his youth) only perpetuates our societal brittleness. It ensures that neither side truly hears the other across the chasm that divides us, rendering it utterly ineffective for - well, whatever it is intended to be effective for. It persuades no one of anything.

5.) Look, she's going to be confirmed and take a seat on the Supreme Court. Biden certainly wasn't going to nominate anyone to her right. She's well-regarded by no less a personage than Paul Ryan, and comes from a family that's distinguished itself in fields such as education, law enforcement and law. We could have been saddled with worse.

Principled political figures are as rare as snow in July, but once in a while you find one

 

 

I'm more reluctant by the day to lionize any political figure, especially since the Trumpism phenomenon made my heart heavy with disillusionment. 

But as of now, Liz Cheney is on my list of supremely cool people. Watch her Meet The Press Interview from this morning.  She give exactly the right answer to the two most important questions in the seven-minute conversation. 

When asked about what kinds of compromises might bet necessary on Ukraine's part to achieve a cease-fire, she says, in so many words, "none." Just so. It would be like a woman negotiating with her rapist on the consequences of his aggression. 

And she's similarly spot-on about the attempt to put the JCPOA back together. Chuck Todd tries to parse matters by asking her if she'd be cool with a deal on Iran's nuclear capabilities if Russia weren't involved. "Nah," she basically says. A pariah state is a pariah state. Surely we're learning that from the Eastern European cataclysm.

If I do vote for president in 2024 - and it's far from certain that I will - it will be for her, whether or not she's on the ballot.

The no-fly zone question and the ultimate existential stakes

 I honestly don't have a hard and fast position on this. We're facing a Sophie's-choice scenario that leaves me with a grinding in my gut that will not go away.

Ukrainian president Zelensky convincingly implored the West in a televised news conference a while ago to impose a no-fly zone, basically in the next minute if not sooner:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his plea for NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, stressing on Thursday that this would be the “most important step” as Ukraine faces “incessant bombing” by Russia.

“We want a no-fly zone because our people are being killed. From Belarus, from Russia — these missiles, these Iskander missiles and bomber planes, are coming,” Zelensky said. 

“I asked President Biden, and Scholz and Macron…and I said, if you can’t provide a no-fly zone right now, then tell us when?” 

Speaking during a televised news conference in Kyiv, the Ukrainian president went on to ask how many more people in Ukraine must be killed before NATO agrees to enact a no-fly zone.  

“If you can’t give Ukrainians a date, how long do you need? How many people should be blown up? How many arms and legs and heads should be severed, so that you understand? I will go and count them, and we will wait until we have a sufficient number,” Zelensky said in an impassioned plea. 

“If you don’t have the strength to provide a no-fly zone, then give me planes. Would that not be fair?” he continued. 

On Monday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that using US troops to create a no-fly zone in Ukraine is “not a good idea.” Speaking during an interview with MSNBC, Psaki said the implementation of a no-fly zone by the US military “would essentially mean the US military would be shooting down planes, Russian planes.”

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg also said Wednesday that NATO allies “do not seek conflict with Russia,” stressing that NATO is a “defensive alliance.”

In a Twitter thread, Garry Kasparov likewise frames the situation with maximum grimness:

We are witnessing, literally watching live, Putin commit genocide on an industrial scale in Ukraine while the most powerful military alliance in history stands aside. It's impossible not to be emotional, but let us also be rational and focus our rage on the facts. 1/13

Putin once again told Macron to go to hell, no surprise. NATO/EU has already told Putin they won't touch his forces, so why should he listen? Russia is lifting target limitations and the death toll is rising every hour and lack of water & electricity is critical. 2/13

No treaty forbids NATO nations from fighting to defend in Ukraine. It's a choice based on the risk of Putin going nuclear, many say. That arming Ukrainians is an acceptable risk of WWIII & the citizenship of the pilot or soldier changes Putin's nuclear calculus, or NATO's. 3/13

If they care so much about the fine print and think Putin does too, ask Zelensky to issue Ukrainian passports to any volunteer to fly in combat. Sell jets to Ukraine for €1 each and paint UKR flags on them. Do you think Putin will care? Is it worth the lives lost? 4/13

This is already World War III. Putin started it long ago & Ukraine is only the current front. He will escalate anyway, and it's even more likely if he succeeds in destroying Ukraine because you have again convinced him you won't stop him even though you could. 5/13

Biden & others insist NATO would retaliate should Putin attack Baltic members. Watching Ukraine, I am not sure of that at all, and Putin won't be either. If the calculation is about nuclear risk, it's no different over Estonia than Ukraine. Don't say "Putin would never". 6/13

If this sounds familiar, it's the same argument from 2014, when Putin invaded E Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It was too risky to stop him, I was told, as I pleaded for intervention and warned he would never stop there. Here we are, with bombs raining down. 7/13

Risk and costs are higher now because the "reasonable" people in the West always choose lower risk today to guarantee higher risk tomorrow. Clearing the UKR skies after a warning period is risky. Letting Putin destroy Ukraine is riskier, & a human and moral disaster. 8/13

There is no waiting this out. This isn't chess; there's no draw, no stalemate. Either Putin destroys Ukraine and eventually hits NATO with an even greater catastrophe, or Putin falls in Russia. He cannot be stopped with weakness. 9/13

The corridors to get weapons, food, and medicine in and refugees out are narrowing and can be closed. Putin can bomb the trains, close the borders with NATO nations. The odds of Russian forces hitting a NATO asset are increasing, and then what? Still watching? 10/13

If your answer is no, that if a wing of a RU jet crosses Polish airspace, of course NATO will engage immediately, ask why thousands of Ukrainians civilians dying first matters less than a treaty, and what that says to Putin. That you're honorable, or a fool? We know. 11/13

As I said in 2014 and a fateful week ago, the price of stopping a dictator always goes up. What would have been enough to stop Putin 8 years or 6 months or 2 weeks ago is not enough today, and the price will rise again tomorrow. Fight. Find a way. 12/13

Putin vows to exterminate Ukrainians while we watch. Ukraine did nothing wrong but try to join the democratic world that is now witnessing crimes against humanity in real time. Not unable. Unwilling. #CloseTheSky 13/13

Still, in his latest Atlantic piece, Tom Nichols makes a compelling case, not icily, but rather fraught with humanity and the deepest compassion for Ukraine's plight, for not heading these pleas:

In my rage, I want someone somewhere to do something. I have taught military and national-security affairs for more than a quarter century, and I know what will happen when a 40-mile column of men and weapons encircles a city of outgunned defenders. I want all the might of the civilized world—a world of which Putin is no longer a part—to obliterate the invading forces and save the people of Ukraine.

Others share these impulses. In recent days, I’ve heard various proposals for Western intervention, including support for a no-fly zone over Ukraine from former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove and the Russian dissident Garry Kasparov, among others. Social media is aflame with calls to send in American troops against the invading Russians.

And yet, I still counsel caution and restraint, a position I know many Americans find impossible to understand. Every measure of our outrage is natural, as are the calls for action. But emotions should never dictate policy. As President Joe Biden emphasized in his State of the Union address, we must do all we can to aid the Ukrainian resistance and to fortify NATO, but we cannot become involved in military operations in Ukraine.

But public figures and ordinary voters who are advocating for intervention also do so from the comfort of offices and homes where they can sound resolute by employing clinical euphemisms such as no-fly zone when what they mean is “war.” For now, fidelity to history requires us to remember that this isn’t the first time we’ve had little choice but to stand by and watch a dictator murder innocents.

Anybody embracing either position has to keep one thing in mind: there is no reversing the probable consequences of that first hostile encounter between a NATO plane and a Russian plane.

This is the extreme to which the human condition gets taken sometimes in this fallen world. When faced with nothing but rotten choices, what is the humane way to proceed? 

 

 

 

 

The energy factor

 Let me say first off that I am among those who consider President Biden to be handling the Ukraine crisis admirably overall. His performance stands in stark contrast to the debacle in Afghanistan last August. Biden's played a particularly effective role in fostering Western unity, which has been strengthening in heartening ways. 

But Biden's overall choice of policies to prioritize for focus is hampering his administration from being even more effective, particularly with regard to energy. While he is not a member of the rabidly left wing of his party, the fact is that the party has been aggressively moving left for decades. The likes of Joe Manchin are pariahs in their party in the same way that Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney are pariahs in theirs. And Joe Biden is a stalwart Democrat.

A Democrat need not sign on to the Green New Deal to make plain his or her basic concurrence with the underlying belief of the preponderance of his or her fellows - namely, that the planet is undergoing a climate crisis that requires an abrupt abandonment of the fuels that have catalyzed human advancement over the last 150 years. 

The most glaring example so far in this crisis of how this plays out in administration priorities has been the pathetic remarks by John Kerry during a BBC interview in which he said he hoped that Russia's invasion of Ukraine would not affect Putin's supposed interest in being part of the international effort to address climate change. He also jaw-droppingly lamented the increase in greenhouse gas emissions brought on by war.

When asked this morning about the possibility of reversing course on nixing the Keystone XL pipeline and opening up more land for oil and gas leases, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that even if such a reversal began today - and she added that Biden has myriad reasons for sticking with his position on the pipeline - it would be years before it bore fruit as a major contributor to America's energy picture. She also said that energy companies are not "tapping into" areas for which they currently have leases. 

Assuming she has a point on both counts, the rejoinder would be that going forward with the pipeline and making more leases available is better commenced today than tomorrow, and that there is significant value in the optics of the United States getting serious about pursuing energy independence.

The carve-outs for Russia allowing it to continue selling oil and gas on the world market, even as sanctions are imposed in other areas, does not serve to project an image of seriousness to the countries we want on board to counter Russia. It also makes petroleum products and natural gas more expensive for consumers. Still, we're subjected to Chuck Schumer's blather about oil-company price gouging at a moment of existential crisis.

The president has done a number of things right since last Thursday, but in this area, he has yet to demonstrate the requisite serious in a situation in which doom breathes down our necks. 

Cross-posted at Ordinary Times.