Steve Bannon is an awful father and a wife beater

[GreyhoundFan]

I debated about putting this in the Congress or main TT thread, but since the title references Bannon: "Faster, Steve Bannon. Kill! Kill!"

Spoiler

Rarely has a political party more deserved the destruction the Republican Party may be about to suffer at the hands of President Trump’s former strategist, ideological guru and onetime puppeteer Steve Bannon. It was obvious during the earliest days of the campaign that Trump never intended to be either the leader or the protector of the Republican Party. He had contempt for the party. For one thing, it was a proven loser. For another, it crumpled like stick figures under his steamroller. Who could respect people who fell so easily, and so willingly?

Party leaders were especially contemptible in Trump’s eyes. They couldn’t even see what he was doing to them, or if they did, they were too cowardly to stop him. He had contempt for them when they tried to distance themselves from his racist, sexist and all around antisocial behavior. But he had even more contempt for them when they nevertheless came crawling back to him, again and again, pledging their fealty. He knew they came back not because they approved of him but because they feared him and the political following he commanded. He had stolen the hearts of their constituents, and therefore he owned them. He would use them as needed, and dispose of them when he could, knowing they could do nothing about it. “I saw them at Munich,” Hitler said of his British and French counterparts, whom he dubbed “little worms.”

Now the conquest is in full swing. Trump and Bannon put on a little Kabuki play for us this year. After a few months, it became clear that Bannon had become a lightning rod in the White House, the target of endless sniping from disgruntled Republicans and fellow staffers, unable to get anything done in the sludge of the Washington bureaucracy. He was hamstrung. And so they decided he could do more for Trump on the outside. Trump would play the constrained madman, surrounded and controlled by the “adults,” occasionally letting his true feelings be known to his throngs. Meanwhile Bannon would play the gonzo political maestro on the outside, running Trumpists in primaries to knock off establishment types, even hardcore conservative ones. Trump could even pretend to support the establishment’s choice, but his voters would know better. The result would be a rout. Some establishment Republicans would lose, either in the primary or the general; others would be afraid to run for reelection; others would try to suck up to Bannon in the hopes of persuading him not to unleash the hounds; all would try to mimic Trump. And it didn’t matter which path they took: These would all be victories for Trump.

This is what is happening now. It is the Trumpian Anschluss, the peaceful takeover of a party too craven to fight back. Republican leaders cry, “You’re helping the Democrats win!” But that doesn’t matter to Bannon and Trump. For one thing, it may not even be true, for who can be sure that a thoroughly Trumpist Republican Party won’t be able to defeat a Democratic Party apparently bent on nominating unelectable candidates on the left? But either way, Bannon and Trump undoubtedly believe it is more important to turn the party into Trump’s personal vehicle, to drive out the resisters, the finger-waggers, the losers, the proud scions of the responsible establishment who could not stop Trump and apparently cannot legislate their way out of a paper bag.

Should we have rooted for Republican leaders to fight back? Sure. And we did. The party would be worth saving if it contained even a dozen women and men of courage. But of course if it did contain such people, it wouldn’t need saving. Today the definition of a brave Republican is someone who is not running for reelection. So rooting for them is no longer an answer. The best thing for the country may be to let the party go. Let it become the party of Trump and Bannon, and as fast as possible. Let the 35 percent of the country who believe Trump is a suitable president, or who hate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so much that they would elect Mussolini to the White House, have their party.

The rest of Republican voters should leave the party until it earns back the right to their support. They should change their registration and start voting for Democratic moderates and centrists, as some Republicans did in Virginia recently, to give them a leg up in their fight against the party’s left wing. A third party of “good Republicans” is a fantasy. This is a two-party country. To defeat one, you have to support the other, either directly or indirectly. Right now the country’s best hope is for a moderate Democratic Party that speaks for that sizable majority of Americans who recognize the peril of seven more years of Trump in the White House. Bannon is doing his part to make that happen. It’s time for Republican voters who care about this country to do theirs.

Sadly, most Repug voters will support anyone with the "magic R" after his or her name. Because of the unborn babiezzz. Oh and Benghazi.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I debated about putting this in the Congress or main TT thread, but since the title references Bannon: "Faster, Steve Bannon. Kill! Kill!"

  Hide contents

Rarely has a political party more deserved the destruction the Republican Party may be about to suffer at the hands of President Trump’s former strategist, ideological guru and onetime puppeteer Steve Bannon. It was obvious during the earliest days of the campaign that Trump never intended to be either the leader or the protector of the Republican Party. He had contempt for the party. For one thing, it was a proven loser. For another, it crumpled like stick figures under his steamroller. Who could respect people who fell so easily, and so willingly?

Party leaders were especially contemptible in Trump’s eyes. They couldn’t even see what he was doing to them, or if they did, they were too cowardly to stop him. He had contempt for them when they tried to distance themselves from his racist, sexist and all around antisocial behavior. But he had even more contempt for them when they nevertheless came crawling back to him, again and again, pledging their fealty. He knew they came back not because they approved of him but because they feared him and the political following he commanded. He had stolen the hearts of their constituents, and therefore he owned them. He would use them as needed, and dispose of them when he could, knowing they could do nothing about it. “I saw them at Munich,” Hitler said of his British and French counterparts, whom he dubbed “little worms.”

Now the conquest is in full swing. Trump and Bannon put on a little Kabuki play for us this year. After a few months, it became clear that Bannon had become a lightning rod in the White House, the target of endless sniping from disgruntled Republicans and fellow staffers, unable to get anything done in the sludge of the Washington bureaucracy. He was hamstrung. And so they decided he could do more for Trump on the outside. Trump would play the constrained madman, surrounded and controlled by the “adults,” occasionally letting his true feelings be known to his throngs. Meanwhile Bannon would play the gonzo political maestro on the outside, running Trumpists in primaries to knock off establishment types, even hardcore conservative ones. Trump could even pretend to support the establishment’s choice, but his voters would know better. The result would be a rout. Some establishment Republicans would lose, either in the primary or the general; others would be afraid to run for reelection; others would try to suck up to Bannon in the hopes of persuading him not to unleash the hounds; all would try to mimic Trump. And it didn’t matter which path they took: These would all be victories for Trump.

This is what is happening now. It is the Trumpian Anschluss, the peaceful takeover of a party too craven to fight back. Republican leaders cry, “You’re helping the Democrats win!” But that doesn’t matter to Bannon and Trump. For one thing, it may not even be true, for who can be sure that a thoroughly Trumpist Republican Party won’t be able to defeat a Democratic Party apparently bent on nominating unelectable candidates on the left? But either way, Bannon and Trump undoubtedly believe it is more important to turn the party into Trump’s personal vehicle, to drive out the resisters, the finger-waggers, the losers, the proud scions of the responsible establishment who could not stop Trump and apparently cannot legislate their way out of a paper bag.

Should we have rooted for Republican leaders to fight back? Sure. And we did. The party would be worth saving if it contained even a dozen women and men of courage. But of course if it did contain such people, it wouldn’t need saving. Today the definition of a brave Republican is someone who is not running for reelection. So rooting for them is no longer an answer. The best thing for the country may be to let the party go. Let it become the party of Trump and Bannon, and as fast as possible. Let the 35 percent of the country who believe Trump is a suitable president, or who hate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so much that they would elect Mussolini to the White House, have their party.

The rest of Republican voters should leave the party until it earns back the right to their support. They should change their registration and start voting for Democratic moderates and centrists, as some Republicans did in Virginia recently, to give them a leg up in their fight against the party’s left wing. A third party of “good Republicans” is a fantasy. This is a two-party country. To defeat one, you have to support the other, either directly or indirectly. Right now the country’s best hope is for a moderate Democratic Party that speaks for that sizable majority of Americans who recognize the peril of seven more years of Trump in the White House. Bannon is doing his part to make that happen. It’s time for Republican voters who care about this country to do theirs.

Sadly, most Repug voters will support anyone with the "magic R" after his or her name. Because of the unborn babiezzz. Oh and Benghazi.

Hmm, so Bannon and Trump are Leopold and Loeb? Yeah, I can believe it.

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Sadly, most Repug voters will support anyone with the "magic R" after his or her name. Because of the unborn babiezzz. Oh and Benghazi.

But her e-mails.

[GrumpyGran]

17 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

But her e-mails.

Seth Rich, you can save, uhm, keep your doctor, golf, oops, no, emails, oh, already, coal?, somebody being killed, I don't know, Bill Clinton? Soros, right? foundationZZZzzzzzzzz 

[fraurosena]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I debated about putting this in the Congress or main TT thread, but since the title references Bannon: "Faster, Steve Bannon. Kill! Kill!"

  Hide contents

Rarely has a political party more deserved the destruction the Republican Party may be about to suffer at the hands of President Trump’s former strategist, ideological guru and onetime puppeteer Steve Bannon. It was obvious during the earliest days of the campaign that Trump never intended to be either the leader or the protector of the Republican Party. He had contempt for the party. For one thing, it was a proven loser. For another, it crumpled like stick figures under his steamroller. Who could respect people who fell so easily, and so willingly?

Party leaders were especially contemptible in Trump’s eyes. They couldn’t even see what he was doing to them, or if they did, they were too cowardly to stop him. He had contempt for them when they tried to distance themselves from his racist, sexist and all around antisocial behavior. But he had even more contempt for them when they nevertheless came crawling back to him, again and again, pledging their fealty. He knew they came back not because they approved of him but because they feared him and the political following he commanded. He had stolen the hearts of their constituents, and therefore he owned them. He would use them as needed, and dispose of them when he could, knowing they could do nothing about it. “I saw them at Munich,” Hitler said of his British and French counterparts, whom he dubbed “little worms.”

Now the conquest is in full swing. Trump and Bannon put on a little Kabuki play for us this year. After a few months, it became clear that Bannon had become a lightning rod in the White House, the target of endless sniping from disgruntled Republicans and fellow staffers, unable to get anything done in the sludge of the Washington bureaucracy. He was hamstrung. And so they decided he could do more for Trump on the outside. Trump would play the constrained madman, surrounded and controlled by the “adults,” occasionally letting his true feelings be known to his throngs. Meanwhile Bannon would play the gonzo political maestro on the outside, running Trumpists in primaries to knock off establishment types, even hardcore conservative ones. Trump could even pretend to support the establishment’s choice, but his voters would know better. The result would be a rout. Some establishment Republicans would lose, either in the primary or the general; others would be afraid to run for reelection; others would try to suck up to Bannon in the hopes of persuading him not to unleash the hounds; all would try to mimic Trump. And it didn’t matter which path they took: These would all be victories for Trump.

This is what is happening now. It is the Trumpian Anschluss, the peaceful takeover of a party too craven to fight back. Republican leaders cry, “You’re helping the Democrats win!” But that doesn’t matter to Bannon and Trump. For one thing, it may not even be true, for who can be sure that a thoroughly Trumpist Republican Party won’t be able to defeat a Democratic Party apparently bent on nominating unelectable candidates on the left? But either way, Bannon and Trump undoubtedly believe it is more important to turn the party into Trump’s personal vehicle, to drive out the resisters, the finger-waggers, the losers, the proud scions of the responsible establishment who could not stop Trump and apparently cannot legislate their way out of a paper bag.

Should we have rooted for Republican leaders to fight back? Sure. And we did. The party would be worth saving if it contained even a dozen women and men of courage. But of course if it did contain such people, it wouldn’t need saving. Today the definition of a brave Republican is someone who is not running for reelection. So rooting for them is no longer an answer. The best thing for the country may be to let the party go. Let it become the party of Trump and Bannon, and as fast as possible. Let the 35 percent of the country who believe Trump is a suitable president, or who hate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so much that they would elect Mussolini to the White House, have their party.

The rest of Republican voters should leave the party until it earns back the right to their support. They should change their registration and start voting for Democratic moderates and centrists, as some Republicans did in Virginia recently, to give them a leg up in their fight against the party’s left wing. A third party of “good Republicans” is a fantasy. This is a two-party country. To defeat one, you have to support the other, either directly or indirectly. Right now the country’s best hope is for a moderate Democratic Party that speaks for that sizable majority of Americans who recognize the peril of seven more years of Trump in the White House. Bannon is doing his part to make that happen. It’s time for Republican voters who care about this country to do theirs.

Sadly, most Repug voters will support anyone with the "magic R" after his or her name. Because of the unborn babiezzz. Oh and Benghazi.

And guns! Don’t forget about those second amendement rights. Your freedom is at stake after all...

[GreyhoundFan]

The latest from the alt-right: "‘It’s not my war; this is our war’: Bannon threatens McConnell, Corker and GOP incumbents"

Spoiler

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon implored conservative voters to join his vowed “war against the (Republican) establishment” and Senate leadership, threatening that massive campaign war chests will not protect GOP incumbents from angry conservative voters.

“It’s not my war; this is our war,” Bannon declared, pacing across the stage during the Values Voters Summit in Washington. “And y’all didn’t start it, the establishment started it.”

In a speech at the annual gathering of social conservative activists, the now-informal adviser to President Trump mocked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), alluding to Shakespeare to suggest that he is eagerly awaiting the day McConnell’s leadership is publicly undermined by a fellow Republican.

“Up on Capitol Hill, it’s the Ides of March,” Bannon declared, referring to the group of senators who, in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” assassinated the leader of the Roman Empire by stabbing him in the back. Continuing with the analogy, Bannon added, addressing McConnell: “They’re just looking to find out who is going to be Brutus to your Julius Caesar.”

At various points in the speech, Bannon, who runs the far-right website Breitbart News, leveled attacks at former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the Southern Poverty Law Center — whose funders, he alleged, have committed “economic hate crimes” —  and boasted that President Trump will win “400 electoral votes” in 2020. But the bulk of the address consisted of a passionate screed against mainstream Republicans.

“It’s a test of wills,” Bannon said. “We’re going to determine…who is more powerful: The money of the corporatists or the muscle of the people.”

Bannon’s speech, one day after Trump himself addressed the gathering, comes amid his attempts to recruit far-right challengers to incumbent Republican senators who he believes impede his nationalist agenda and are not loyal to Trump. He took aim at Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who last week suggested Trump is unfit for office and described the current White House as an “adult day care” center.

“Bob Corker has trashed the commander in chief of our armed forces while we have young men and women in harm’s way, right? He said he’s leading them on a path to World War III, that he’s not stable, that people have to keep him moderated,” Bannon said, recounting Corker’s comments.

“Some U.S. senator in a position of that authority for the first time in the history of our republic has mocked and ridiculed a commander in chief when we have kids in the field,” Bannon said of Corker’s comments. The remarks were not in fact the first time a senator has criticized a president while troops were deployed; its a routine occurrence during most, if not all, modern presidential administrations.

Bannon then called on Republican senators John Barrasso (Wy.), Deb Fischer (Ne.) and Dean Heller (Nev.), to condemn Corker’s comments or face possible primary challenges.

As evidence, Bannon cited the defeat last month of Sen. Luther Strange, an incumbent endorsed by both Trump and McConnell but was bested in a runoff election by Roy Moore. Moore is a longtime figure in Alabama politics best known for being removed from the state Supreme Court after refusing to comply with a court order to take down a monument to the 10 Commandments outside of his courthouse.

“The most important thing is an authentic candidate. Whether it’s Donald Trump or Judge Moore.”

Um, "authentic" is not a term I'd use for either the TT or Moore.

[fraurosena]

10 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The latest from the alt-right: "‘It’s not my war; this is our war’: Bannon threatens McConnell, Corker and GOP incumbents"

  Hide contents

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon implored conservative voters to join his vowed “war against the (Republican) establishment” and Senate leadership, threatening that massive campaign war chests will not protect GOP incumbents from angry conservative voters.

“It’s not my war; this is our war,” Bannon declared, pacing across the stage during the Values Voters Summit in Washington. “And y’all didn’t start it, the establishment started it.”

In a speech at the annual gathering of social conservative activists, the now-informal adviser to President Trump mocked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), alluding to Shakespeare to suggest that he is eagerly awaiting the day McConnell’s leadership is publicly undermined by a fellow Republican.

“Up on Capitol Hill, it’s the Ides of March,” Bannon declared, referring to the group of senators who, in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” assassinated the leader of the Roman Empire by stabbing him in the back. Continuing with the analogy, Bannon added, addressing McConnell: “They’re just looking to find out who is going to be Brutus to your Julius Caesar.”

At various points in the speech, Bannon, who runs the far-right website Breitbart News, leveled attacks at former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the Southern Poverty Law Center — whose funders, he alleged, have committed “economic hate crimes” —  and boasted that President Trump will win “400 electoral votes” in 2020. But the bulk of the address consisted of a passionate screed against mainstream Republicans.

“It’s a test of wills,” Bannon said. “We’re going to determine…who is more powerful: The money of the corporatists or the muscle of the people.”

Bannon’s speech, one day after Trump himself addressed the gathering, comes amid his attempts to recruit far-right challengers to incumbent Republican senators who he believes impede his nationalist agenda and are not loyal to Trump. He took aim at Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who last week suggested Trump is unfit for office and described the current White House as an “adult day care” center.

“Bob Corker has trashed the commander in chief of our armed forces while we have young men and women in harm’s way, right? He said he’s leading them on a path to World War III, that he’s not stable, that people have to keep him moderated,” Bannon said, recounting Corker’s comments.

“Some U.S. senator in a position of that authority for the first time in the history of our republic has mocked and ridiculed a commander in chief when we have kids in the field,” Bannon said of Corker’s comments. The remarks were not in fact the first time a senator has criticized a president while troops were deployed; its a routine occurrence during most, if not all, modern presidential administrations.

Bannon then called on Republican senators John Barrasso (Wy.), Deb Fischer (Ne.) and Dean Heller (Nev.), to condemn Corker’s comments or face possible primary challenges.

As evidence, Bannon cited the defeat last month of Sen. Luther Strange, an incumbent endorsed by both Trump and McConnell but was bested in a runoff election by Roy Moore. Moore is a longtime figure in Alabama politics best known for being removed from the state Supreme Court after refusing to comply with a court order to take down a monument to the 10 Commandments outside of his courthouse.

“The most important thing is an authentic candidate. Whether it’s Donald Trump or Judge Moore.”

Um, "authentic" is not a term I'd use for either the TT or Moore.

Apparently he also stated the blatantly obvious, just in case we missed it:

 

 

[Howl]

Bannon showed his true colors in that speech (if putrid mixed with rancid demagoguery/florid ranting is a color).  Don't ever underestimate the extent to which a certain subset of white Americans feel unfairly maligned, overlooked, misunderstood, disenfranchised, forgotten and yes, persecuted for their religious beliefs + teh gunzzzzzzzz.  

Bannon's speech is, literally, music to the ears and a balm to the shriveled little souls of the people who voted for, elected and still rabidy support D. Trump.   So, yes, this is a continuation of Trump and Bannon's promise to shake up Washington.  Sadly, the Democrats don't seem to have an answer.  Trump has been genius since Day 1 at sucking all the air out of the planet through Twitter and "WTF will he do next?" and no one else really has a platform or knows how to counter-act that.  

Not to mention that the Republicans (with a little help from Putin) cracked the social media code and Democrats don't seem to be able to do anything but sing to the choir, when they need to be actively putting together a viable platform that addresses: health care and jobs and making major inroads to Independents, Hispanics, millenials, disaffected Trump voters and who the hell else and find a dynamic voice for that platform (hello, Bernie?).  

The mid-term elections will be "fascinating" in a "watching a slow motion train wreck kinda way" to see how all of this plays out -- first, for the Republican primaries to see if voters go for more extreme candidates and then the elections themselves.  

My big concern, as Little Lord Trumpleroy is nuking the Affordable Care Act via stopping subsidies, is how the Republicans will somehow blame the disastrous fallout on the Democrats.  

So many people are going to be immediately and utterly fucked, absolutely fucked, by this. 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Howl
Separated wall o' text into paragraphs.

[onekidanddone]

53 minutes ago, Howl said:

My big concern, as Little Lord Trumpleroy is nuking the Affordable Care Act via stopping subsidies, is how the Republicans will somehow blame the disastrous fallout on the Democrats.  

All the Democrats have to do is point directly at Trump and his executive order.  Problem is that Trump/Bannn will just claim it is all 'fake news' and act as if it never  happened. The internet is forever, but the TDs don't understand that, and will only be watching FoxSpews. I'm betting didn't cover it at all. Can the Democrats pound Trump hard enough on what he just did?  I hope so, and I hope they start NOW and not wait until the fall of 2018. The better not sugar coat anything, and they had better fucking to into states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin every fucking day.

[fraurosena]

To be honest, I don't think bashing the toddler and the repugs for all the awful things they've done is enough. The dems need to come up with a believable and above all achievable alternative to the chaos that is now ruling the US.

Simply saying you are not the presidunce will not cut it. The dems need a charismatic leader with a positive message. Look, this is what we stand for, and that is the reason you should choose us. A positive and upbeat, and above all a "together we can achieve this" message will win votes way more than "we're not the maniacal moron", as it focuses on unity, not division. And that is what the US needs right now.

[Howl]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

To be honest, I don't think bashing the toddler and the repugs for all the awful things they've done is enough. The dems need to come up with a believable and above all achievable alternative to the chaos that is now ruling the US.

Simply saying you are not the presidunce will not cut it. The dems need a charismatic leader with a positive message. Look, this is what we stand for, and that is the reason you should choose us. A positive and upbeat, and above all a "together we can achieve this" message will win votes way more than "we're not the maniacal moron", as it focuses on unity, not division. And that is what the US needs right now.

YES! to all of the above. 

I guess my point about T.Rump sucking all the air out of the planet is, how does a Democratic voice, or hell, an Independent,  get ANY air time with all of the MSM focus on sTrumpet's outrageous tweet o' the day and talking heads breathlessly dissecting what it means to America.  Not a bad thing in itself, because WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS MORON DOING TO OUR COUNTRY?, but nobody seems to be able to get a word in edgewise to discuss a comprehensive Democratic strategy or vision for our country moving forward; everyone is riveted by the dumpster fire that is the White House. 

Praise Rufus that all the talking heads have finally stopped thinking that tRump is going to become more "presidential" or had a presidential moment. 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Howl

[onekidanddone]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

To be honest, I don't think bashing the toddler and the repugs for all the awful things they've done is enough. The dems need to come up with a believable and above all achievable alternative to the chaos that is now ruling the US.

Simply saying you are not the presidunce will not cut it. The dems need a charismatic leader with a positive message. Look, this is what we stand for, and that is the reason you should choose us. A positive and upbeat, and above all a "together we can achieve this" message will win votes way more than "we're not the maniacal moron", as it focuses on unity, not division. And that is what the US needs right now.

All valid points and it would be ideal if both tactics could be used. I thought about this more on the drive back from the grocery store.  Going all in on Trump's crimes (because that's what I think they are) would give more fuel to the fire of his perpetuation complex. And then I was reminded of Michelle Obama (god I miss that family) words, "When they go low; we go high".

The 'Together We Will Win" didn't work for Clinton, but I  don't think anything would have. We need new blood.  We need to start NOW and kick butt in 2018 

[Cleopatra7]

14 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

All valid points and it would be ideal if both tactics could be used. I thought about this more on the drive back from the grocery store.  Going all in on Trump's crimes (because that's what I think they are) would give more fuel to the fire of his perpetuation complex. And then I was reminded of Michelle Obama (god I miss that family) words, "When they go low; we go high".

The 'Together We Will Win" didn't work for Clinton, but I  don't think anything would have. We need new blood.  We need to start NOW and kick butt in 2018 

A major problem with the Democrats is that they not only take their base for granted, but look down on them as well. The primary message the Democrats had for 2016 was “we’re not Trump, vote for us.” In terms of the base, the message is something like, “ Of course you’ll vote for us; are you really going to take your chances with the Americans Taliban?” However, during the post-mortem of the election, the base (especially blacks and LGBT people) were criticized by party apparatchiks for being “too strident” and turning off members of the “white working class” (I saw this a lot at both Daily Kos and the comments section of the NYT). Because the most important thing minorities should be doing is ensuring that white, straight, cis, Christians feeling comfortable. The message emanating from the Democrats to the base appears to be, “ vote for us, but don’t stand too close to us.”

Given this situation, should it really come as a surprise that voting rate among key Democratic demographics was down? Some of this is because of the gutting of the VRA, but I think a lot of it seems from a belief that the Democrats aren’t capable of providing the change people want. I remember reading an article in the NYT about black voters in Wisconsin who didn’t vote at all, and didn’t regret their choice, because they felt they had nothing to vote for. This is indicative of the cynicism and despair a lot of the Democratic base feels, in which their votes and their opinions count for little.Since the McGovern loss almost fifty years ago, the Democratic Party has bent over backwards to appear Center-right and a lot of us are sick of it. I was talking with some Baby Boomer aged women at coffee hour at my UU congregation about a month ago, and they expressed this same weariness with the Clinton-Obama wing of the Democratic Party, even though they all voted for Clinton. Like the black non-voters in Wisconsin, they felt disempowered and like there were no real politicial options that expressed their interests. There’s a real discontent among the Democratic base that the party itself is choosing to dismiss and/or ignore.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an excellent op-ed: "The religious right carries its golden calf into Steve Bannon’s battles"

Spoiler

At the Family Research Council’s recent Values Voter Summit, the religious right effectively declared its conversion to Trumpism.

The president was received as a hero. Stephen K. Bannon and Sebastian Gorka — both fired from the White House, in part, for their extremism — set the tone and agenda. “There is a time and season for everything,” said Bannon. “And right now, it’s a season for war against a GOP establishment.”

A time to live and a time to die. A time to plant and a time to uproot. A time to mourn and a time to embrace angry ethnonationalism and racial demagoguery. Yes, a time to mourn.

There is no group in the United States less attached to its own ideals or more eager for its own exploitation than religious conservatives. Forget Augustine and Aquinas, Wilberforce and Shaftesbury. For many years, leaders of the religious right exactly conformed Christian social teaching to the contours of Fox News evening programming. Now, according to Bannon, “economic nationalism” is the “centerpiece of value voters.” I had thought the centerpiece was a vision of human dignity rooted in faith. But never mind. Evidently the Christian approach to social justice is miraculously identical to 1930s Republican protectionism, isolationism and nativism.

Do religious right leaders have any clue how foolish they appear? Rather than confidently and persistently representing a set of distinctive beliefs, they pant and beg to be a part of someone else’s movement. In this case, it is a movement that takes advantage of racial and ethnic divisions and dehumanizes Muslims, migrants and refugees. A movement that has cultivated ties to alt-right leaders and flirted with white identity politics. A movement that will eventually soil and discredit all who are associated with it.

The religious right is making itself a pitiful appendage to this squalid agenda. If Christian conservatives are loyal enough, Bannon promises that they can be “the folks who saved the Judeo-Christian West.” All that is required is to abandon the best of the Judeo-Christian tradition: a belief in the inherent value and dignity of every life.

This belief in human dignity leads to a certain moral and political logic. It means that the primary mission of Christians in public life is not to secure their own interests or to defend their own identity. It is to seek a society in which every person can flourish. This is the definition of the common good — which is not truly common unless it includes the suffering and powerless.

The common good is a neglected topic in our politics. It is not identical to market forces, or to legal rules that maximize individual autonomy. It is the result of prudent public and private choices that strengthen community — the seedbed of human flourishing — and ensure the weak are valued and protected. The idea of the common good emerged from religious sources, but provides a broad, political common ground.

If there is a single reason that Republican health-care reform has failed, it is because party leaders could not make a credible case that the common good was being served. Even if individual elements of the various plans were rational, they did not add up to a more just, generous and inclusive society.

Who would now identify conservative Christian political engagement with the pursuit of the common good? Rather, the religious right is an interest group seeking preference and advancement from a strongman — and rewarding him with loyal acceptance of his priorities. The prophets have become clients. The priests have become acolytes.

It is possible for Christian conservatives to support the appointment of conservative judges without becoming a tribe of apologists and sycophants. It is possible to selectively endorse elements of the administration’s agenda without becoming Bannon’s foot soldiers.

There is more at stake here than bad politics. When Christians ally their faith with bias and exclusion, they are influencing how the public views Christianity itself. They are associating the teachings of Jesus Christ — a globalist when it came to the Great Commission — with ethnonationalist ideology. This should be a sobering prospect for any Christian. But few seem sobered. Instead, the faithful give standing ovations to the purveyors of division and prejudice.

When anyone or anything takes priority over the faith, there is a good, strong religious word for it: idolatry. And the word is unavoidable, as religious conservatives carry their golden calf into Bannon’s battles.

 

[onekidanddone]

@Cleopatra7 your post deserves more than just an up vote or or an 'I agree'. I do agree that  Clinton and the entire DNC seemed so totally done deaf.  The term 'limousine liberal' comes to mind. I've been working on a more complex reply in a text document to cut and paste into here, because I do want to continue this discussion. It might need a topic or thread of its own because the tread drift might get out of control. 2018 is fast approaching, and I want to see a grass roots strong effort of resistance which listens to ALL voices.

Anyway I've had lots going on and not had much time to work on what I have to say. I want to choose my words carefully and not my usual post first and regret later.

Mods: Do you think we need a topic called 2018 What's next?

[GrumpyGran]

17 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

@Cleopatra7 your post deserves more than just an up vote or or an 'I agree'. I do agree that  Clinton and the entire DNC seemed so totally done deaf.  The term 'limousine liberal' comes to mind. I've been working on a more complex reply in a text document to cut and paste into here, because I do want to continue this discussion. It might need a topic or thread of its own because the tread drift might get out of control. 2018 is fast approaching, and I want to see a grass roots strong effort of resistance which listens to ALL voices.

Anyway I've had lots going on and not had much time to work on what I have to say. I want to choose my words carefully and not my usual post first and regret later.

Mods: Do you think we need a topic called 2018 What's next?

Thanks to both of you! I have begun to have anxiety because it seems the party is asleep. Not asleep at the wheel, because we're not at the wheel. I just hear a deafening silence.

[GreyhoundFan]

He's really trying to blow up the Repug party: "McConnell donors weigh switching to Bannon"

Spoiler

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon flew to Atlanta last week to huddle with Republican megadonor Bernie Marcus — and to hear him vent.

A Home Depot co-founder who's been one of the most prolific givers to Senate Republicans, Marcus fumed to Bannon for hours about the lack of return on his investment. In the past six months alone, Marcus has funneled $2 million to a super PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and tens of thousands more to the National Republican Senatorial Committee — only to watch the Senate fail again and again.

Over the past several weeks, Bannon has crisscrossed the country meeting with dozens of the party’s biggest contributors — all in the hopes of capitalizing on their anger at McConnell. The populist bomb-thrower wants donors to bankroll primary challenges against Republican incumbents, or, short of that, to close their wallets to McConnell-aligned causes.

Bannon has gone to New York City to talk with venture capitalist John Childs, who plowed nearly $400,000 into McConnell’s 2014 reelection. In Colorado, he huddled with Gore-Tex heiress Susan Gore, a major backer of libertarian causes. And Bannon met with casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the GOP’s most prominent donor, for several hours when he swung through Washington this month.

While in Arizona this week, Bannon met with investor Eric Crown, a longtime backer of Senate GOP causes.

How many Republican givers will sign on with Bannon is an open question; people close to him declined to say whether he had financial commitments. Ideologically and temperamentally, the pugilistic head of Breitbart News isn't exactly a natural fit with the traditional Republican moneyed set. There is also concern in the donor world that having Bannon-aligned outsiders in the Senate Republican Conference would make it harder, not easier, to reach consensus on legislation.

But Marcus is thinking about joining Bannon. An adviser, Steve Hantler, said the billionaire intends to give his party until the end of the year to pass legislation and then would weigh his options.

“Like many donors, if the gridlock continues in Washington, Mr. Marcus will consider new approaches to breaking the gridlock, including those proposed by Steve Bannon and others,” he said.

Asked whether Marcus is open to funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents, Hantler responded: “You will have to draw your own conclusion.”

Bannon’s offensive will intensify on Wednesday, when he will outline his plans for the 2018 midterms to a group of major donors in New York City. Also attending will be conservative megadonor Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, close Bannon allies who are expected to be the primary funders of his national anti-incumbent campaign.

The former White House strategist views the donor push as the opening front in his effort. Bannon has described it as a means of isolating the Republican leader and depriving him of the resources he needs to protect incumbents in next year’s primaries.

“Yeah, Mitch, the donors — the donors aren’t happy,” Bannon said at last weekend’s Values Voter Summit. “They’ve all left you. We’ve cut your oxygen off, Mitch, OK? Money is not courageous, but money is smart, OK?”

There is serious skepticism at the highest levels of the party apparatus that Bannon's donor initiative will succeed. Some contributors who’ve met with him say the outreach is still in its nascent stage. Others have reacted coolly to the idea, reluctant to go after lawmakers just as the tax reform fight is about to begin. Adelson has told people close to him that he’s not interested in funding primary challengers, though Bannon didn't ask him for money during their meeting.

Still, Bannon is working aggressively to convert some of the GOP’s most generous givers. He's spoken with Scott Bessent, a New York City investor who has cut checks to a half-dozen Senate GOP incumbents, and with Ed Bosarge, a Houston-based finance executive who contributed $150,000 to McConnell’s reelection.

Bannon has also talked with Wyoming investor Foster Friess, a Republican megadonor who has given tens of thousands to Senate Republicans over the years. Friess has grown so displeased that he’s exploring a possible primary challenge to Republican Sen. John Barrasso, a Bannon target.

In the last six months alone, Bernie Marcus has funneled $2 million to a super PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and tens of thousands more to the National Republican Senatorial Committee — only to watch the Senate fail again and again.

In Washington earlier this month, Bannon met with Dan Eberhart, an energy executive who was in town for a Republican National Committee donor conference. During the sit-down, Bannon detailed his plans for targeting GOP lawmakers and stressed that he was focused on recruiting challengers who would oppose McConnell. He also asked Eberhart who he should be reaching out to.

Eberhart, a past NRSC contributor who has decided to stop giving to the party, has since spoken with Bannon twice by phone. In recent days, Eberhart said he’s been contacted by McConnell allies to discuss his concerns.

"I'm extremely frustrated with that whole complex," he said. "I feel like they're asking us to reward failure."

The party establishment is racing to lock down financial support. On Thursday evening, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host a fundraising reception and dinner for Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, just two days after Bannon attends a donor event for his primary opponent, Kelli Ward. McConnell, meanwhile, has reached out to Adelson in the past month to gauge his interest in giving to Senate Republicans.

Senior Republicans are also trying to assure givers they hear their frustrations. The NRSC, which has seen its fundraising plummet in recent months, held a retreat in Sea Island, Georgia, over the weekend that drew about 300 lobbyists and bundlers.

Tax reform was front-and-center at a breakfast panel discussion that included Georgia Sen. David Perdue, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner. As the audience piled their plates with eggs and bacon, the senators acknowledged in blunt terms that the political consequences would be dire for Republicans if they don't pass tax legislation, according to two people present.

Bannon declared at a gathering of evangelicals last week that "money doesn't matter anymore" for Republican incumbents trying to fend off insurgent challengers. The message was this: Huge war chests can no longer save incumbents against underfunded outsider candidates with fervid grass-roots support.

But given his activity, Bannon believes his candidates will need some money to take out incumbents.

While Bannon is orchestrating much of the anti-establishment campaign on his own, he has also gotten a boost from the White House. Earlier this month, Nick Ayers, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence and a veteran GOP strategist, told a group of Republican National Committee donors they should withhold their financial support to incumbents and instead give to primary challengers if Congress fails to pass President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The message was warmly received by many of the influential donors in the room, including Louis DeJoy. The North Carolina business executive, who has given over $30,000 to the NRSC this year, said he isn’t interested in bankrolling GOP challengers.

But he and other donors are fed up with the failures of the Republican Congress.

"I raise money, and I hear the frustration from everybody," DeJoy said. "Everybody knows the money is drying up."

 

[Howl]

This is likely being covered in the Roy Moore thread, but this may spell the end of the end of Bannon's influence.  Republicans are PISSED. I'm not sure exactly what he would be ousted from, since he has no official position, but hopefully he'll become radioactive. 

Much more here: Conservatives, WSJ Blast Bannon For Roy Moore Loss: ‘DUMP Steve Bannon’

Edited December 13, 2017 by Howl

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, Howl said:

This is likely being covered in the Roy Moore thread, but this may spell the end of the end of Bannon's influence.  Republicans are PISSED. I'm not sure exactly what he would be ousted from, since he has no official position, but hopefully he'll become radioactive. 

Much more here: Conservatives, WSJ Blast Bannon For Roy Moore Loss: ‘DUMP Steve Bannon’

Haha, what exactly will he go from? He doesn't have an administration job anymore. Are they going to blast him into outer space? This guy is like Dump, he won't go away. He's an arrogant prick who thinks he deserves to call the shots.

Hope he just self-destructs.

[GreyhoundFan]

I love Alexandra Petri's columns: "Tell me more about Steve Bannon’s genius"

Spoiler

Uncle Henry, you’ve been telling me for months that Steve Bannon was a strategic genius. Can you remind me again why?

Oh, yes, he is, absolutely. The man gets results. He has 2040 vision. Not bad vision — I realize that sounds like bad vision — but I mean it in the sense that he is thinking 23 years down the road, to the year 2040.

Oh.

He has thrown away the chessboard and is playing the whole game using only his mind! Which is sharp as a Bic pen.

Is that, like, very sharp?

He went to Harvard! As he is continually reminding people, the way a smart man who people can tell immediately is smart is forced to do, just constantly name-drop all the places he went to school.

Peter King has said he “looks like a disheveled drunk who wandered onto the political stage.”

That’s all noise.

So what happened in Alabama?

Well, he picked a candidate who was a true conservative, Judge Roy Moore, to run against Luther Strange, Jeff Sessions’s hand-picked successor.

Strange.

Yes, that was the name of the man he ran against.

Is Judge Roy Moore a real judge?

Well, he used to be before they removed him twice for being a true conservative.

Conservative how?

Well, he [starts winking a lot] believed America was greatest in the past.

That’s — is that what a conservative does now … ?

Yes, the past [wink wink] was where it was at.

This doesn’t seem like a good way of appealing to voters from a historically disadvantaged demographic.

It seems to work on white women just fine.

But are there not also black women in Alabama?

Let’s table that for now. Anyway, Steve Bannon, in his wisdom, selected Judge Roy Moore, a man who believed America was greatest in the 1790s, when there were no malls to ban you, and everyone was trying to court 14-year-olds before dying from the complications of a surgery performed with no anesthesia or sterilization whatsoever, and also slavery.

Wait, are these good things or bad things about Moore?

I am just telling you the genius of Steve Bannon’s strategy.

Well, was Moore a good candidate?

Before the race ended, he was credibly accused of molesting teenage girls.

And how did Steve Bannon respond?

He kept him in the race and tried to discredit his accusers using the website Breitbart.com.

I see.

This was his brilliant strategy.

Did it work?

It almost did, is the thing. 

I assume people denounced Roy Moore and said they did not want to be associated with him?

Well, that is complicated. They did at first, but then it looked like he was going to win, and then they came back and said, “Oh, never mind, we’ve evolved on this whole ‘maybe don’t go after children’ issue.” President Trump supported him.

It seems like it would be a serious problem for the party to do something like that.

You might think so.

Does Steve Bannon think so?

Steve Bannon has a plan that is bigger than any one of us.

Was it Steve Bannon’s plan that Roy Moore ride to the polls on a horse but, like, very badly?

That horse did look very uncomfortable.

If I had to carry a man credibly accused of preying on teenagers to the polls on my back, I would look uncomfortable, too.

We are getting derailed here from Steve Bannon’s genius.

He is one?

Oh yes, if you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

There is a lot of evidence to the contrary. And now the Republican Party will have a margin in the Senate of … one vote?

Look, what would you rather believe: that you were snookered into rebuilding your whole party by a man much dumber and more evil than you realized, or that there are levels at play here we cannot possibly comprehend? I know which I’d prefer.

 

[GrumpyGran]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I love Alexandra Petri's columns: "Tell me more about Steve Bannon’s genius"

  Reveal hidden contents

Uncle Henry, you’ve been telling me for months that Steve Bannon was a strategic genius. Can you remind me again why?

Oh, yes, he is, absolutely. The man gets results. He has 2040 vision. Not bad vision — I realize that sounds like bad vision — but I mean it in the sense that he is thinking 23 years down the road, to the year 2040.

Oh.

He has thrown away the chessboard and is playing the whole game using only his mind! Which is sharp as a Bic pen.

Is that, like, very sharp?

He went to Harvard! As he is continually reminding people, the way a smart man who people can tell immediately is smart is forced to do, just constantly name-drop all the places he went to school.

Peter King has said he “looks like a disheveled drunk who wandered onto the political stage.”

That’s all noise.

So what happened in Alabama?

Well, he picked a candidate who was a true conservative, Judge Roy Moore, to run against Luther Strange, Jeff Sessions’s hand-picked successor.

Strange.

Yes, that was the name of the man he ran against.

Is Judge Roy Moore a real judge?

Well, he used to be before they removed him twice for being a true conservative.

Conservative how?

Well, he [starts winking a lot] believed America was greatest in the past.

That’s — is that what a conservative does now … ?

Yes, the past [wink wink] was where it was at.

This doesn’t seem like a good way of appealing to voters from a historically disadvantaged demographic.

It seems to work on white women just fine.

But are there not also black women in Alabama?

Let’s table that for now. Anyway, Steve Bannon, in his wisdom, selected Judge Roy Moore, a man who believed America was greatest in the 1790s, when there were no malls to ban you, and everyone was trying to court 14-year-olds before dying from the complications of a surgery performed with no anesthesia or sterilization whatsoever, and also slavery.

Wait, are these good things or bad things about Moore?

I am just telling you the genius of Steve Bannon’s strategy.

Well, was Moore a good candidate?

Before the race ended, he was credibly accused of molesting teenage girls.

And how did Steve Bannon respond?

He kept him in the race and tried to discredit his accusers using the website Breitbart.com.

I see.

This was his brilliant strategy.

Did it work?

It almost did, is the thing. 

I assume people denounced Roy Moore and said they did not want to be associated with him?

Well, that is complicated. They did at first, but then it looked like he was going to win, and then they came back and said, “Oh, never mind, we’ve evolved on this whole ‘maybe don’t go after children’ issue.” President Trump supported him.

It seems like it would be a serious problem for the party to do something like that.

You might think so.

Does Steve Bannon think so?

Steve Bannon has a plan that is bigger than any one of us.

Was it Steve Bannon’s plan that Roy Moore ride to the polls on a horse but, like, very badly?

That horse did look very uncomfortable.

If I had to carry a man credibly accused of preying on teenagers to the polls on my back, I would look uncomfortable, too.

We are getting derailed here from Steve Bannon’s genius.

He is one?

Oh yes, if you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

There is a lot of evidence to the contrary. And now the Republican Party will have a margin in the Senate of … one vote?

Look, what would you rather believe: that you were snookered into rebuilding your whole party by a man much dumber and more evil than you realized, or that there are levels at play here we cannot possibly comprehend? I know which I’d prefer.

 

The Peter King comment was hilarious. Rarely do I appreciate something a Repugnant says but that was a good one. Oh, how the Repugs hate him.

[Howl]

More from Rep. King re Bannon: “It’s not a political issue but a moral issue... this guy does not belong on the national stage. He looks like a drunk that wandered on to the national stage.” 

 

[GrumpyGran]

29 minutes ago, Howl said:

More from Rep. King re Bannon: “It’s not a political issue but a moral issue... this guy does not belong on the national stage. He looks like a drunk that wandered on to the national stage.” 

 

It's like Pacman, isn't it? It's like we're watching a game of Pacman with real actual humans!

[GreyhoundFan]

"The owner of Steve Bannon’s D.C. rowhouse wants a 3-foot security fence. D.C. government is not having it."

Spoiler

While the Breitbart News operation pushes an anti-establishment message across the country, it is also steeped in a municipal battle in the nation’s capital. The conservative news outlet might have the ear of the president, but it can’t seem to get a fence built in its own front yard.

The owner of the Capitol Hill rowhouse that has been dubbed “Breitbart Embassy” is trying to build the fence for security. Because it is in a designated historical neighborhood, it needs approval from D.C. government officials, but that is proving to be an uphill battle.

The city tentatively rejected the application, saying there is no place for such a fence in the neighborhood.

The application submitted to the D.C. Historic Preservation Office states the property is the home of Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and a former White House chief strategist.

“Planning on installing a metal 3’ high fence around the front of house with a 3’ gate that opens electronically to the inside,” reads the application submitted by a Virginia-based contractor. “This fence is intended for security reasons. This is the primary residence of Mr. Steve Banon (sic).”

The house is owned by Moustafa el-Gindy, a former member of the Egyptian parliament who is now part of the nation’s opposition party. Breitbart had long been run out of the rowhouse, although USA Today reported earlier this year that it was planning to relocate from the rowhouse to downtown Washington. It’s unclear if that happened.

Neither Breitbart’s top editor nor a spokesperson for Bannon responded to requests for comment.

While seemingly innocuous, the fence would be an aberration among the tony front yards in the 200 block of A Street NE — a mostly residential block near the Supreme Court building. The property is elevated and plans called for the fence to be built atop a reinforced wall, with the top of the fence several feet above the sidewalk.

The city’s Historic Preservation Office did not sign off on the application. Once the office denies a request, the applicant has the option to submit it to the Historic Preservation Board for a vote. Ed Giefer, a spokesman for the D.C. Office of Planning, said the construction contractor for the property has requested a hearing and vote, but has not yet submitted the necessary drawings and plans.

The proposed fence didn’t fare any better among elected officials at the Capitol Hill Advisory Neighborhood Commission. The ANC, which votes on matters like, say, whether a fence can be built around a home, unanimously voted against the fence on Thursday. That decision will be considered if the Historic Preservation Board, which has final say, votes on the fence.

“We have United States senators who live on Capitol Hill, and they don’t turn their homes into security compounds,” said Mark Eckenwiler, an ANC commissioner. “If they don’t need it, then it’s a little hard to determine how you could justify it in this case.”

D.C. police say they have no record of police reports filed at that property since 2010. Neighbors said they aren’t aware of security issues and that the area is flooded with various federal security agencies.

Neighbor Patricia Burke said the house is a nuisance in the residential neighborhood because of its usage of street parking, as well as frequent large events with caterers going in and out.

“This is absolutely not acceptable,” Burke said of the fence. “We have Supreme Court security. We have Capitol Hill security. We have Secret Service.”

The rowhouse often hosts glitzy events each year for the Conservative Political Action Conference and the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, in addition to the occasional book party and other events. It also has a basement and carriage house with office space.

D.C. property records indicate el-Gindy purchased the house in 2009 for $2.35 million.

Methinks the owner should just go ahead and evict him. Then he could move into a fortress.

[GrumpyGran]

41 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The owner of Steve Bannon’s D.C. rowhouse wants a 3-foot security fence. D.C. government is not having it."

  Reveal hidden contents

While the Breitbart News operation pushes an anti-establishment message across the country, it is also steeped in a municipal battle in the nation’s capital. The conservative news outlet might have the ear of the president, but it can’t seem to get a fence built in its own front yard.

The owner of the Capitol Hill rowhouse that has been dubbed “Breitbart Embassy” is trying to build the fence for security. Because it is in a designated historical neighborhood, it needs approval from D.C. government officials, but that is proving to be an uphill battle.

The city tentatively rejected the application, saying there is no place for such a fence in the neighborhood.

The application submitted to the D.C. Historic Preservation Office states the property is the home of Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and a former White House chief strategist.

“Planning on installing a metal 3’ high fence around the front of house with a 3’ gate that opens electronically to the inside,” reads the application submitted by a Virginia-based contractor. “This fence is intended for security reasons. This is the primary residence of Mr. Steve Banon (sic).”

The house is owned by Moustafa el-Gindy, a former member of the Egyptian parliament who is now part of the nation’s opposition party. Breitbart had long been run out of the rowhouse, although USA Today reported earlier this year that it was planning to relocate from the rowhouse to downtown Washington. It’s unclear if that happened.

Neither Breitbart’s top editor nor a spokesperson for Bannon responded to requests for comment.

While seemingly innocuous, the fence would be an aberration among the tony front yards in the 200 block of A Street NE — a mostly residential block near the Supreme Court building. The property is elevated and plans called for the fence to be built atop a reinforced wall, with the top of the fence several feet above the sidewalk.

The city’s Historic Preservation Office did not sign off on the application. Once the office denies a request, the applicant has the option to submit it to the Historic Preservation Board for a vote. Ed Giefer, a spokesman for the D.C. Office of Planning, said the construction contractor for the property has requested a hearing and vote, but has not yet submitted the necessary drawings and plans.

The proposed fence didn’t fare any better among elected officials at the Capitol Hill Advisory Neighborhood Commission. The ANC, which votes on matters like, say, whether a fence can be built around a home, unanimously voted against the fence on Thursday. That decision will be considered if the Historic Preservation Board, which has final say, votes on the fence.

“We have United States senators who live on Capitol Hill, and they don’t turn their homes into security compounds,” said Mark Eckenwiler, an ANC commissioner. “If they don’t need it, then it’s a little hard to determine how you could justify it in this case.”

D.C. police say they have no record of police reports filed at that property since 2010. Neighbors said they aren’t aware of security issues and that the area is flooded with various federal security agencies.

Neighbor Patricia Burke said the house is a nuisance in the residential neighborhood because of its usage of street parking, as well as frequent large events with caterers going in and out.

“This is absolutely not acceptable,” Burke said of the fence. “We have Supreme Court security. We have Capitol Hill security. We have Secret Service.”

The rowhouse often hosts glitzy events each year for the Conservative Political Action Conference and the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, in addition to the occasional book party and other events. It also has a basement and carriage house with office space.

D.C. property records indicate el-Gindy purchased the house in 2009 for $2.35 million.

Methinks the owner should just go ahead and evict him. Then he could move into a fortress.

Steve Bannon asking people who hate him to let him break the rules. You know I think he may have early onset. He does seem to be spinning out of control. You can't exist in the military with the views he exhibits now. He could not have been this deranged for this long and not been locked up.