Skip to content

Month: November 2016

Injustice for all by @BloggersRUs

Injustice for all
by Tom Sullivan

Early voter turnout in North Carolina is up overall from 2012, but not among the state’s African-American voters. With the fate of the U.S. Supreme Court in the balance, they may have the most to lose. Black Lives Matter is still an aspirational slogan. This election, more than most, will determine how long it remains aspirational, and how long American justice fends off reform and voter suppression efforts remain in place.

Whether Hillary Clinton (assuming she wins the presidency next Tuesday) gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court will depend on Democratic control of the Senate. Control will depend on turnout in this election.

Slate’s Jamelle Bouie believes, and Congressional obstructionism supports, that the Republicans’ default position is that “Democratic presidents are inherently illegitimate.” Given that, Scott Lemieux considers how under a Hillary Clinton administration Republican obstruction might play out with SCOTUS nominees:

Many pundits assume that point-blank refusing to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat will be politically impossible for Republicans. These pundits are, however, probably wrong. Everything about the way Senate Republicans have operated under the leadership of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggests that keeping Scalia’s seat open is exactly what the GOP will do. The GOP’s drift from traditional norms of governance has only been exacerbated by Trump, who has stoked the anti-establishment sentiments roiling the Republican base and made it virtually impossible for Republican legislators to work with Democrats on anything.

From congressional obstruction to shutting down the government to threatening to default on America’s debt to nominating Donald Trump as their nominee for president, Republicans have rejected established norms that stabilized this republic for nearly two and a half centuries. The only thing they really wish to conserve is their power. Lemieux believes they will pay no price for throwing sand in the gears of the constitution they are sworn to uphold:

On the one hand, the stakes of filling the Supreme Court seat are huge. Even a moderate like [Merrick] Garland would be the most liberal median Supreme Court vote in nearly 50 years. On the other hand, all evidence suggests that the political costs of refusing to fill Scalia’s seat would be negligible. The obstruction of Garland has gotten virtually no attention during the presidential campaign. The general public pays very little attention to the Supreme Court. Legal scholars will fret that the Court won’t be able to efficiently resolve circuit splits, but virtually nobody will change their vote because of it. Republican senators have much more to worry about from primary voters who would be furious at any senator who voted to shift the Court well to the left than from a general electorate that will almost certainly ignore Republican obstructionism yet again.

Low voter turnout from black voters proves Lemieux’s point. Everything from voting rights to criminal justice reform is on the table next week, including whether or not Black Lives Matter. If they do, voters must demonstrate that affirmatively at the polls by exercising the power they have in their hands.

In Asheville, NC two weeks ago, the Rev. William Barber, head of the state NAACP, reminded a Moral Monday rally crowd that a federal court found North Carolina’s laws designed to keep black voters from the polling booth “surgical racism.” The state has spent $6 million defending those laws, Barber reminded the crowd. “We better vote, because nobody would spend that kind of money to stop you if you were not powerful.”

Those efforts to keep black voters from exercising theirs has brough federal election monitors to the state:

The United States Department of Justice escalated its efforts to protect voting rights in North Carolina on Wednesday, informing four North Carolina counties—including Cumberland County—that it will send election monitors to observe the polls on Election Day.

The Cumberland County director of elections told the Fayetteville Observer she didn’t know why the federal observers were coming. But as TalkingPointsMemo’s Tierney Sneed noted, the answer is fairly obvious: Cumberland is at the epicenter of a voting rights crisis that has resulted in the purge of nearly 6,700 voters from the roll, most of them minorities. In Cumberland alone, about 5,600 people had their voting rights nullified over the past two years. The problem is a state law that allows any person to revoke any other person’s right to vote by gathering mail that was returned as undeliverable, then challenging the voter registration of residents at those addresses. If those voters do not appear at a county board of elections or return a notarized form, they are removed from the voter rolls, often without their knowledge.

So long as Republicans retain control of state legislatures across the country, these kinds of laws will proliferate and injustice will prevail, leaving the courts the last line of defense for justice in this country, and a weakened one at that. But even justice after the fact will not bring back slain family members who were victims of police violence and a biased justice system. Hillary Clinton has called for criminal justice reform and for “national guidelines about the use of force, particularly lethal force.” Donald Trump has called for getting “tough.”

If Black Lives Matter, then as Barber urged, “We better vote.”

This day in (racist) American history by Dennis Hartley

This day in (racist) American history

by Dennis Hartley

Just for giggles I randomly chose today, November 3, to peruse what events occurred on this date in U.S. history. Here’s a few highlights:

(From onthisday.com)

Nov. 3, 1813– U.S. troops under General Coffee destroy Indian village at Talladega, Alabama.

Nov. 3, 1883– Race riots in Danville, Virginia (4 blacks killed).

Nov. 3, 1883– U.S. Supreme Court decides Native Americans can’t be Americans.

Nov. 3, 1885– Tacoma (WA) vigilantes drive out Chinese, burn their homes and businesses.

Nov. 3, 1979– Five people mortally wounded during anti Ku-Klux-Klan demonstration in North Carolina.

Nov. 3, 1988– Talk show host Geraldo Rivera’s nose is broken as Roy Innis brawls with skinheads at TV taping.

Nov. 3, 1997– California law ends affirmative action.

Dude. All that history is harshing my mellow, ruining my pizza. Thank God we live in the 21st century, and we’re past all that. No, wait…

Nov. 3, 2016: Police gas peaceful Dakota Access Pipeline protectors.

Well…it can’t be all bad. That’s it for this week, right? Oh, crap…

KKK newspaper endorsing Donald Trump earlier this week.

[*sigh*] Let me recheck today in history, maybe I missed something:

Nov. 3, 1868– First black congressman elected (John W. Menard, Louisiana).

Nov 3., 1896– Martha Hughes Cannon of Utah elected 1st female senator.

Nov. 3, 1992– Carol Moseley Brown elected first African-American woman in U.S. senate.

Baby steps. I think I just talked myself down off the ledge (*whew*).

So hope remains. For now. For god’s sake, Don’t. Forget. To. Vote.

cross-posted from Denofcinema.

How can anyone still be undecided?

How can anyone still be undecided?

by digby

Then go read this by Chris Hayes about undecided voters from the 2004 election. I suspect the phenomenon he describes is even more pronounced than it was back in 2004 when he wrote it.  It was ridiculous for people to be unsure this late in the game between Kerry and Bush considering their different agendas. But they were at least living in more or less the same dimension. Clinton and Trump are from different planets. Clinton is from earth. I’m not sure which one Trump is from.

But consider this interesting passage:

A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists. In the age of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, pundits agreed that this would be the most foreign policy-oriented election in a generation–and polling throughout the summer seemed to bear that out. In August the Pew Center found that 40 percent of voters were identifying foreign policy and defense as their top issues, the highest level of interest in foreign policy during an election year since 1972. 

But just because voters were unusually concerned about foreign policy didn’t mean they had fundamentally shifted their outlook on world affairs. In fact, among undecided voters, I encountered a consistent and surprising isolationism–an isolationism that September 11 was supposed to have made obsolete everywhere but the left and right fringes of the political spectrum. Voters I spoke to were concerned about the Iraq war and about securing American interests, but they seemed entirely unmoved by the argument–accepted, in some form or another, by just about everyone in Washington–that the security of the United States is dependent on the freedom and well-being of the rest of the world. 

In fact, there was a disturbing trend among undecided voters–as well as some Kerry supporters–towards an opposition to the Iraq war based largely on the ugliest of rationales. I had one conversation with an undecided, sixtyish, white voter whose wife was voting for Kerry. When I mentioned the “mess in Iraq” he lit up. “We should have gone through Iraq like shit through tinfoil,” he said, leaning hard on the railing of his porch. As I tried to make sense of the mental image this evoked, he continued: “I mean we should have dominated the place; that’s the only thing these people understand. … Teaching democracy to Arabs is like teaching the alphabet to rats.” I didn’t quite know what to do with this comment, so I just thanked him for his time and slipped him some literature. (What were the options? Assure him that a Kerry White House wouldn’t waste tax dollars on literacy classes for rodents?) 

That may have been the most explicit articulation I heard of this mindset–but it wasn’t an isolated incident. A few days later, someone told me that he wished we could put Saddam back in power because he “knew how to rule these people.” While Bush’s rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy played well with blue-state liberal hawks and red-state Christian conservatives who are inclined towards a missionary view of world affairs, it seemed to fall flat among the undecided voters I spoke with. This was not merely the view of the odd kook; it was a common theme I heard from all different kinds of undecided voters. Clearly the Kerry campaign had focus groups or polling that supported this, hence its candidate’s frequent–and wince- inducing–America-first rhetoric about opening firehouses in Baghdad while closing them in the United States.

Sound familiar? That’s the Trump worldview. They found their Messiah.

.

When a negative choice is positive

When a negative choice is positive

by digby

Interesting little factoid:

Among Clinton supporters, 57% view their choice as for Clinton, rather than against Trump. The share of Clinton’s backers who view their choice positively is less than the share of pro-Barack Obama voters who did so in 2008 (77%) or 2012 (73%), but much higher than the level of positive support for John Kerry in 2004 (39%).

Why do I not remember the press going on and on about how Democrats were having to hold their noses to vote for John Kerry? Maybe there were such articles and discussions but as a member of the new lefty “blogosphere” of the time, I was pretty immersed in the election and there was very little sense among activists that voting for Kerry was a terrible sacrifice of our integrity even if he wasn’t our first choice.Trying to stop Bush was enough to get us excited and energized.

Trying to stop Trump is enough too. It’s rare to have a candidate you love the way Democrats love Obama. And Clinton is a mainstream Democratic candidate who will also be the first woman president so it’s not like it’s such a terrible sacrifice of integrity to vote for her.

And frankly, I think the media is making way too much of her alleged unpopularity, which contributes to the sense that it’s very, very uncool to say you like Clinton. It reminds me a lot of the way they used to always refer to Bush as “this incredibly popular president” long after he had ceased to be popular. They have their narrative and they’re sticking to it.

.

Eve was a conniving liar too, you know.

Eve was a conniving liar too, you know.


by digby

I’m still astonished that the American people think Hillary Clinton is more dishonest than Donald Trump but I’m going to guess that the media pounding her on “emails!” has just made it a reflexive assumption at this point. Also, it’s an old primal impulse to assume that women are conniving and scheming so there are probably a few people who would think that about anyone in her position. And the chanting of “she’s a liar” and “lock her up” on a loop throughout the campaign hasn’t helped matters.

But the fact that Donald Trump, of all people, is considered more truthful is simply mind-boggling.

Politifact:

More fact checking:

Chris Cilizza at the Washington Post insists that this isn’t the media’s fault because look, they did all those fact checks! But it’s not about that, it’s about the fact that they have pimped this ridiculous email story to the point that people believe it must be worse than Watergate when it’s really nothing. And Donald Trump has echoed their bullshit over and over again. Now it’s just assumed it must be true. Because why else would they be talking about it incessantly?
Finally in the week before the election, after the media have prepared the ground so well for them,  right wingnuts in law enforcement are making their move:
Here’ the latest:

DONALD TRUMP: There is more breaking news that I’d like to share with you right now. It was reported last night that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play corruption during her tenure as secretary of state. In other words, the FBI is investigating how Hillary Clinton put the office of secretary of state up for sale in violation of federal law. The investigation is described as a high priority. It’s far-reaching and has been going on for more than one year. It is reporting that an avalanche of information is coming in. The FBI agents say their investigation is likely to yield an indictment.

This is from leaks by Clinton hating wingnuts in the FBI to right wing media eager to gobble it up and spit it out.  It’s a lie. But voters will not know that. Because they assume the FBI is an upstanding organization and Hillary Clinton is a lying, calculating harridan. Why wouldn’t they? That’s what the press has been telling them.
.

The deserting rats swim back to the ship

The deserting rats swim back to the ship

by digby

As the polls tighten in the last few days of the presidential election campaign, it’s interesting to see the reluctant GOP establishment start scurrying back into Donald Trump’s fold. Apparently, prominent Republicans are all making the bet that Trump will at least come close enough to make it necessary to back him, lest they be blamed for his failure. The most famous of those who’ve re-endorsed Trump after walking away when he was cratering is House Oversight Committee chair Jason Chaffetz, who probably secretly hopes Hillary Clinton will win so he can run his endless witch hunts in front of the cameras, but felt it was necessary to back Trump just in case. (Chaffetz is also likely to throw his hat into the ring for speaker if there’s a rebellion against Paul Ryan which is a real possibility.)

Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota have all come creepinb back to Trump after initially dropping their endorsements in the wake of the “grab ’em by the pussy” tape. Even Trump skeptic and beloved Beltway conservative Hugh Hewitt has now decided to run with the pack.

It’s been a tough time for Republican officials and elite conservative pundits, and that’s understandable. They’ve just discovered that their voters have a different interpretation of conservatism than they thought they did. The elites define Reagan’s famous “three-legged stool” of conservatism as “economic conservatism,” “social conservatism” and “defense conservatism,” which they would further describe as a belief in small government, family values and patriotism, all dressed up in fancy philosophical paeans to freedom and the founders and the constitution.

Trump has shown that the base of the party also believes in those three pillars, but they have stripped away the intellectual veneer that made them socially acceptable and laid bare that the three legs actually represent racism, sexism and nationalism. Economic conservatism is simply a way to stop the federal government from spending money on “the wrong people.” Social conservatism is simply a way to keep women in their place. And defense conservatism is a chauvinistic belief that America is for Americans and foreigners had better watch their step.

Elites had always known that many Republican voters held these views, but they thought that over time these ugly impulses would gradually fade away and become more ideologically abstract. Infamous GOP strategist Lee Atwater explained how he expected this to evolve:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N***er, n***er, ni***er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni***er” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.

They didn’t do away with it. It just went underground. And all that coding and dog-whistling and abstraction was eventually seen as “political correctness” and their voters came to hate it.

A new Pew Poll was released this week showing that whatever hope the GOP elders have that they can return to the previous status quo, where everyone pretends the party’s base cares about tort reform and the capital gains tax, is not going to happen. The best they can say is that Republicans are deeply divided.

About two-thirds (65%) of Republican and Republican-leaning voters think their party’s presidential candidate does represent the core principles and positions the Republican Party should stand for while 31% think Trump does not.

Among Republican voters, conservatives are far more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to think of Trump as representative of the Republican Party’s principles. While three-quarters of conservative Republican voters see Trump as representative of what the party should stand for, only about half of moderate and liberal Republicans (52%) say the same.

That divide manifests itself in many different ways, with the people who didn’t vote for him in the primaries showing a stronger dislike for the Republican Party as a whole. Trump voters seem to like the party just fine now that Trump has defined what it stands for.

How this plays out after the election should be very interesting. Obviously if Trump wins it will be a huge triumph and we’ll likely see a quick consolidation under his leadership. But even if he loses it won’t be possible to put the genie back in the bottle, no matter how hard the “Never Trump” types try.

Trump only had a couple of deeply held political beliefs he brought with him into the campaign. He’s long believed foreign countries are laughing at America and he wants to make them stop. And he has always wanted to let the police take the gloves off and enforce law and order. Everything else in his “platform,” from birtherism to the border wall to torture to terrorism, he got from conservative media.

According to New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman, his earliest advisers going back to 2012 were the notorious trickster Roger Stone, who is steeped in wingnut-ism, and right-wing lawyer Sam Nunberg:

“I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he was getting reports from me,” Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core. While Jeb Bush talked about crossing the border as an “act of love,” Trump was thinking about how high to build his wall.

Now Trump has Breitbart’s Steve Bannon in his ear with the alt-right agenda, much of which sounds familiar as well. These ideas have all been swirling around right-wing media for years, while the political establishment was holding seminars on “Atlas Shrugged” and fetishizing the budget deficit. Conservatism is Trumpism — and has been for a long time. So-called conservatives just weren’t listening.

.

I also saw men land on the moon by @BloggersRUs

I also saw men land on the moon
by Tom Sullivan

Charles M. Blow writes this morning in the New York Times about “America’s existential threat“:

Donald Trump is a bigot.

Donald Trump is a demagogue.

Donald Trump is a sexist, misogynist, chauvinist pig.

Donald Trump is a bully.

Donald Trump is a cheat.

Donald Trump is a pathological liar.

Donald Trump is a nativist.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Blow continued, “To put it more succinctly, Donald Trump is a lowlife degenerate with the temperament of a 10-year-old and the moral compass of a severely wayward teen.”

In the words of Stan Lee, ‘Nuff said.

And in other news, the Chicago Tribune this morning reports:

Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!

The win in the 10th inning of Game 7 of the World Series came about a quarter to 1 a.m. my time. So. Talk amongst yourselves.

Then go out and save your beloved country from an existential threat. If the Chicago Cubs have what it takes to come back from two games behind to win the World Series, you can beat one ill-tempered, lowlife degenerate.

People Who Went to Jail after Bundy’s Oregon Standoff Trial @spockosbrain

People Who Went to Jail after Bundy’s Oregon Standoff Trial 

by Spocko

After seven defendants were found not guilty following the Malheur Refuge occupation trial, lots of people are pissed off. I understand the thinking and hear the frustration. Especially when compared to what is happening to unarmed protesters at the Dakota pipeline protests. But did you know eleven defendants pled guilty?

These people, dressed as they are, came from all over America to play militia man. Some, after making a deal with the Feds to NOT participate in future militia actions, still came and broke their agreements.  All eleven have pled guilty.  Photos courtesy of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office

These people didn’t get acquitted of all charges: Travis Cox, Geoffry Stanek, Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Wesley Kjar, Corey Lequieu, Eric Flores, Blaine Cooper, Brian Cavalier, and Jason Blomgren.

One, Corey Lequieu, is already serving his jail term. Others, like Brian Cavalier, have been sentenced for crimes committed in Oregon, and still has to stand trial for charges at the Bundy stand-off in Nevada. These were charges that the government did not press at the time.

There are also seven awaiting trial. Remember this guy, Sean Anderson?


Yes, some of the big names from the Malheur Occupation got off, but that’s not the whole story. The government actually got a number of convictions, with more to come next year with the successful prosecution for crimes committed in Nevada and Oregon.

To the public, the Bundy Ranch standoff also looked like a success for the Bundy’s.  But behind the headlines, you’ll find government agencies that wisely showed restraint and had a longer term plan to deal with the militia threat.

If the Feds felt the need to look tough, like some politicians do whenever their authority is challenged, there might have been a bloodbath.

Some people at the Bundy ranch were counting on that reaction. A martyr for the cause would stir up their base and make the government look bad, even if the feds were totally within the law and right to act.

The government needed to avoid a repeat of Waco, which they did. And, they used the crimes committed at the Bundy Ranch as leverage over armed protesters for crimes that weren’t prosecuted immediately. That sent a message to the militia movement for people who were planning future events.

So while the government didn’t get the money Cliven Bundy owed, they did get leverage and evidence for cases against some of the same people who showed up at the Malheur Occupation.

But I think the government’s biggest win from the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the chance for the media and public to see and hear that Cliven Bundy is a full-blown racist.  

The outing of Bundy as a racist was very powerful, and a major PR blow to his image because even hard-core supporters like Sean Hannity could not go on record embracing Cliven’s racism. Hannity had to disavow it and try to explain it away. He basically had to use the Hitler defense on Cliven, “Yes, he said that, but he had some good points!” Had there been a firefight showdown, the story of Bundy’s racism would have been eclipsed.

Because law enforcement didn’t allow themselves to be baited into a firefight they were able to get more suspects in the future.

In addition to being currently under arrest, Cliven Bundy and his gang failed in their long-term goal, “seeking an opportunity to advance their view that the United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other agencies are constitutionally required to turn over most of the federal public land they manage to the individual states.”

They also didn’t get the two people out of jail who were convicted of arson. Dwight Hammond Jr., 73, and his son Steven, 46, surrendered at the Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in San Pedro, Calif., January 4, 2016 and are still in jail.

Following the Bundy Ranch stand-off, people connected to the Bundy’s had nice ‘chats’ with multiple branches of law enforcement. I wasn’t there, but I imagine it went a little something like this:

“We won’t arrest you for crimes that we could put you away for. In exchange, you are going to agree to stop doing this, and keep us informed on what is happening. If you do go to other Bundy type events, you’ve broken our agreement, and we will throw the book at you.” 

Depending on the crime they committed, this can be serious leverage.
We know that law enforcement cuts deals and makes informant agreements all the time. It happened here.

So when people who were at the Bundy Ranch stand-off showed up in Oregon at the Malheur Refuge, the Feds knew they broke their agreement. They were arrested for the new laws they broke, plus the agreement they made earlier to avoid prosecution.

For example, Brian Cavalier pled guilty for crimes committed in Oregon. He was sentenced to a year and nine months plus probation. He still has to stand trial for crimes committed in Nevada during that stand-off. He wasn’t prosecuted, then, he will be now. So, clearly the Feds knew Cavalier committed crimes and he knew he’d have to pay eventually.

Over at Daily Kos, Jen Hagen has a great story about the occupiers turning on each other at Malheur. Some accused Blaine Cooper of being a government plant. Now where do you suppose they got the idea that someone would rat them out to the government?

During the Bundy Ranch showdown I was upset that nobody was arrested for pointing their weapons at the federal employees. I believe that the decision not to arrest people was made to protect lives at the time. But it doesn’t mean that the government forgave or forgot.

So now a bunch of these militia types are in jail, more are on their way and a whole bunch more know they are being watched. They won’t go out in a blaze of glory, but they will go to jail because of solid evidence gathered over time. The strategy of restraint is successful in the long run.

I also want to point out that the government didn’t always have this restraint. They learned from their mistakes, and got better.