Skip to content

Month: October 2020

Nothing left but moldy oldies

Donald Trump is Bill Murray’s “Nick The Lounge Singer” mangling decades-old easy listening hits.

We are not seeing flop sweat yet, but the recently Covid-infected acting president sounds more and more desperate at his maskless rallies. Did you know he saved the suburbs? Did you know the border wall he is “finishing” is now “over 400 miles long” (the southern border is 2,000 miles long) and Mexico is paying for it? He complained in Iowa that the news covered Iowa flooding and crop problems and a hurricane in Florida rather than his third Nobel nomination?

Maybe it is what his team is pumping into him (above) and maybe it is news like this Quinnipiac poll (Atlanta Journal Constitution):

Former Vice President Joe Biden has pulled ahead of President Donald Trump in the race for president in Georgia, according to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University. With early voting already underway in the state, the poll showed Biden at 51% and Trump at 44%.

The same poll shows big jumps for the Democrats in the two races for U.S. Senate races, too, with Rev. Raphael Warnock out to a large lead in the special election against Sen. Kelly Loeffler, with Warnock pegged at 44%, U.S. Rep. Doug Collins at 22%, and Loeffler at 20%.

In the race for Sen. David Perdue’s seat, Democrat Jon Ossoff has pulled also ahead of Perdue at 51% and Perdue at about 45% in the poll. Hitting the 50% threshold would significant for any candidate, especially in Georgia, where 50%+ one vote are required to win without a runoff.

There is a long way to go with many more Americans yet to vote and votes yet to be tallied. But this is Biden’s first statistical lead in Georgia with just under three weeks left before Nov. 3. Coattails could help Ossoff who still trails Perdue in the Real Clear Politics polling average. Quinnipiac reports 53% of Georgia voters disapprove of the acting president’s job performance job; only 45% approved.

Georgia likely voters also disapproved 54% to 44% of how he is handling the nation’s response to the Coronavirus. A majority, 55%, said that the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. is out of control, while 35% disagreed.

With a half-million absentee votes cast already next door in North Carolina, things are iffy there as well for Covid Donny:

Early voting in North Carolina starts there today. It should be epic.

Trump told his Iowa rally Wednesday evening, “If I don’t get Iowa, I won’t believe that one. I may never have to come back here again if I don’t get Iowa. I’ll never be back, you understand that?”

Promises, promises.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

RECORD TURNOUT
More coming

https://abc13.com/politics/100k-harris-co-voters-turn-out-after-record-breaking-start/7030481/

Washington Post:

With less than three weeks to go before Nov. 3, roughly 15 million Americans have already voted in the fall election, reflecting an extraordinary level of participation despite barriers erected by the coronavirus pandemic — and setting a trajectory that could result in the majority of voters casting ballots before Election Day for the first time in U.S. history.

More than a million Michiganders have already cast votes, about a quarter of 2016 turnout. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are outpacing 2016 voter turnout.

Houston, Texas (Harris County) early voting 2020
Day 1: 128,000 votes
Day 2: 100,000-plus votes

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/election-2020/2020/10/13/383892/harris-county-shatters-single-day-early-voting-record/

Voters in Harris County, Texas are aided in 2020 by being able for the first time to vote in their cars:

“I love it. It’s fantastic. A wonderful decision for them to make,” voter Jacque Tatum said.

She said since she’s at high risk of catching COVID-19, drive-thru voting has been a game changer.

“You can drive through and it’s individualized,” she said. “You’re not around people so you’re staying your six-feet distance.”

There are 10 drive-thru voting sites, and about 11,000 voters cast their ballots at the Houston Food Bank on the first day of early voting.

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo told MSNBC the county made a $30 million investment in making voting safer and more convenient during the coronavirus pandemic.

Naturally, Republicans oppose that. An appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Texas Republican Party meant to halt drive-thru voting:

“That lawsuit was frivolous and ridiculous,” said Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins. “That’s why the judge summarily dismissed it this morning. Now we’re excited to continue this option despite all of the ongoing efforts at voter suppression.”

Republicans vow to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. Of course, they do.

Polling shows the acting president edging former Vice President Joe Biden in Texas. Incumbent Sen. John Cornyn leads Democratic challenger M.J. Hegar (ActBlue link), but is nervous enough to launch new attack ads. Record voting could tighten both races.

Early voting begins this morning here in North Carolina where we have curbside voting, not drive-thru. It’s a slower process than drive-thru, but necessary for voters who cannot physically access the voting place or who have medical conditions that make exposure to indoor voting risky to their health. One such voter contacted me on Wednesday.

Over a half million North Carolina voters have voted absentee so far this year. I did, figuring I needed to be a guinea pig. My ballot went through cleanly. It did not for my friend. Her absentee ballot was missing a signature. But litigation over absentee ballot cure rules continues to sow confusion and hold up ballot approval. Her ballot is caught in the middle. Afflicted with an auto-immune disorder and aged 80, she will be able to vote in her car instead.

Before I forget, Ohio is shattering records too (as of Tuesday):

During the first week of early voting, 193,021 Ohioans voted in-person at local boards of elections, according to a LaRose release. That’s more than triple the 64,321 Ohio voters who cast an in-person ballot at the same time in 2016.

And Georgia is also seeing record early voting:

Voters in Georgia reported on social media that lines at polling sites were lasting nearly ten hours on the state’s first day of early voting. Georgia’s secretary of state’s office said more than 128,000 Georgians hit the polls on Monday, surpassing the nearly 91,000 votes cast on the first day of early voting in 2016.

This despite long wait times in Atlanta suburbs like Duluth:

Go, and do thou likewise. Republicans bat last. Sixty-one percent of Trump voters plan to vote on Nov. 3.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

She does care, after all

The View' Hosts Under Fire For (Almost) Mocking Melania Trump Accent –  Deadline

Or does she? Melania has words of medical advice for Americans after having gone through COVID:

I encourage everyone to continue to live the healthiest life they can. A balanced diet, fresh air, and vitamins really are vital to keep our bodies healthy. For your complete well-being, compassion and humility are just as important in keeping our minds strong.

Uh huh. Coming from a Trump, that’s really rich. Not to mention that it’s basically implying that if you aren’t lucky enough to be healthy, as she obviously is, you kind of get what’s coming to you. No word about masks, social distancing or any of the other prove guidelines to protect yourself and others, either.

And if you happen to have world class health care, it’s also nice.

Dark Arts for good, Part 2

The Lincoln Project has gained some rather annoying fame, but the truth is they probably deserve it. I don’t know what they will be like if Biden wins. Probably pains in the ass. But they did step up in the face of impending fascism and faced down their own party, so I have to give them credit. This is one of those times that reveal people’s characters and their commitment to the fundamental democratic principles they said they cared about. By that minimal standard these guys passed the test and the entire Republican establishment failed miserably.

Whether this has truly raised their consciousness about the conservative project remains to be seen. But some of them have obviously confronted some hard truths about what they participated in and are on some sort of journey of self-awareness. We’ll have to see where they end up. In the meantime, the Resistance is well served by their participation, if only because they lift our spirits and help us feel like we haven’t lost our minds.

Anyway:

Here are clips from the 60 minutes this past weekend on the Lincoln Project.

This is why I respect them even if their previous work is responsible for much of what led us to this point. I appreciate that they can see the threat and stand up to say, “this is not business as usual.” There are far fewer of them that I would have thought and, I’ll be honest, it shook me:

If you want to know why women hate him

Donald Trump Is the Best Thing to Happen to American Women in Decades –  Foreign Policy

… it’s this:

If you listen to the whole thing he’s not saying “please like me” he’s saying that women need to STFU and get with the program and he doesn’t have time to explain why because he’s very important and much too busy for that bullshit. This is what women hear from him because we’ve heard that stuff our whole lives from domineering men who think they don’t have to address women as human beings.

His misogyny goes much deeper than the repeated sexual assaults. His paternalistic attitude in general, the “I’ve done more for the women/Blacks/etc” is grating. He thinks he’s the Daddy in Chief of the American people and he’s doling out favors for which we must be properly grateful. And he doesn’t want to hear any complaining.

I heard that line last night and I saw red. And I’d guess I’m not the only one. His misogyny has likely sown the seeds of his own destruction:

Michigan is looking less competitive by the day, and there’s a growing likelihood of Joe Biden blowing out Donald Trump here come November 3.

All three Rust Belt states that Trump improbably won in 2016 — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are problematic for the president this year. But Michigan is where things look bleakest.

His support has diminished among the white working-class. Black turnout appears certain to rebound after a dismal showing in 2016. New laws that allow for early voting and no-excuse-absentee balloting are expected to push voter participation to historic levels, with Democrats the expected beneficiary of low-propensity Michiganders flooding the ballot box.

But the simplest explanation for the president’s trouble here is that he’s continuing to hemorrhage support from white, college-educated women in the suburbs of Detroit.

It’s hard to overstate just how badly Trump is performing with this crucial demographic. Over the past several weeks, a raft of internal polls have produced numbers that political professionals here are struggling to comprehend. In Oakland County, the second-biggest voting area in the state, Gongwer reported that Democratic polling shows Biden leading Trump by 27 points; Republicans pushed back with a survey showing Trump down only 18 points. (For reference, Trump lost Oakland County by 8 points in 2016.)

“I cannot in good conscience vote to keep this man in the White House.”

 Karen Kudla, a Republican single-issue voter

Why? According to her campaign’s most recent internal poll, she’s an eye-popping 35 points above water, in terms of net favorability, with college-educated white women. This came as a shock to Slotkin, a veteran national security official, who was worried that Trump’s law-and-order messagewas going to scare women away from voting for Democrats this fall. But what her polling revealed — consistent with surveys done elsewhere in the state — is that Trump’s messaging has backfired.

“Honestly, all the moms I know, we are really nervous about our kids, what kind of future they’re going to have. And Trump is the one making us nervous,” Jessica Morschakov, a 38-year-old ballet studio owner, told me in the wealthy, ultra-conservative township of Brighton. “He’s just so angry all the time. I really believe that he brings out the worst in people, the worst in situations.”

It’s this sentiment, from this voting demographic, that’s echoing all across Michigan — especially in its rich white suburbs. Even voters who describe themselves as single-issue, pro-life Republicans, such as Karen Kudla, have said they’ve given up on Trump. “I cannot in good conscience vote to keep this man in the White House,” Kudla told me in Lake Orion.

What does this all mean?

It’s actually pretty simple. The thinking among Republicans has always been that if Trump can keep his losses inOakland County to single digits again, it will be proof that he’s holding his own with suburban women around the state, and therefore he will remain competitive. If, on the other hand, that margin balloons closer to 15 points or more, the president is doomed.

It’s a similar if inverted calculus in neighboring Livingston County. Trump won the longtime Republican stronghold by a whopping 30 points in 2016 — more than double John McCain’s margin over Barack Obama in 2008. It is widely believed, however, that Trump’s rout of Clinton represented the high-water mark for Republicans in Livingston, and that his numbers will come back to earth in 2020. Once again, it’s a matter of scope. If Trump can once again juice his margins in areas like Brighton, and push close to that 30-point margin, it would suggest that conservative women in traditionally Republican areas are sticking with him. But if Biden cuts that spread down closer to 20, it will mean the math has become unworkable for Trump statewide.

Let’s hope so. God, let’s hope so….

He’s killing us

What is Hart Island, where New York City is building mass graves? - Insider

Here’s some uplifting news:

During this pandemic, people in the United States are dying at rates unparalleled elsewhere in the world.

A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that in the past five months, per capita deaths in the U.S., both from COVID-19 and other causes, have been far greater than in 18 other high-income countries.

“It’s shocking. It’s horrible,” says Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a professor of health policy and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the authors of the study.

“The United States really has done remarkably badly compared to other countries,” he says. “I mean, remarkably badly.”

The study looks at per capita death rates in 2020 in 18 countries with populations larger than 5 million people and per capita gross domestic product levels above $25,000 per year. It breaks out deaths attributed to COVID-19 and examines how total deaths in the U.S. are higher than normal this year. This so-called “all-cause” mortality takes into account fatalities that may have been due to the coronavirus but were never confirmed or were due to other factors such as people not seeking medical care during the crisis.Article continues after sponsor message

Overall deaths in the United States this year are more than 85% higher than in places such as Germany, Israel and Denmark after adjusting for population size. Deaths in the U.S. are 29% higher than even in Sweden, “which ignored everything for so long,” Emanuel says. Sweden made a point of refusing to order strict social restrictions and never went in to a full lockdown. “We have 29% more mortality than we should have if we’d followed Sweden’s path and Sweden virtually did nothing.”

Even looking just at confirmed COVID-19 deaths, the number of people dying since May 10 — again after adjusting for population size — is on average 50% higher than every other country in the study. In addition, the rate people are dying in the U.S. has stayed far above everywhere else. Emanuel says the current elevated mortality rates are important because they eliminate the chaotic early months of the pandemic when testing, treatment and reporting varied dramatically around the globe.

The rate of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. since June 7 is 27.2 per 100,000 people. In contrast, in Italy, the death rate is down to 3.1 per 100,000.

“It’s not like Italy has some secret medicine that we don’t,” Emmanuel says. “They’ve got the same public health measures we’ve got. They just implemented them effectively and we implemented them poorly.” If the U.S. had managed to keep its per capita death rate at the level of Italy’s, 79,120 fewer Americans would have died.

This study is important for illustrating just how bad the death rate from COVID-19 has been in the U.S. compared with in other countries, says Theo Vos, a professor at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The U.S. is in the company of a few other countries with very high rates of deaths assigned to COVID,” says Vos who was not involved in the study. “Only Belgium looks worse.” But he points out that once you look past the initial phase of the outbreak, the U.S. ends up looking worse than Belgium.

“Early on in the epidemic, many countries had a lack of testing possibilities. And a lot of deaths occurred early on where there was no formal diagnosis,” he says. “So Belgium decided ‘we’re going to count all of them.’ While in other countries like the Netherlands or the U.K. and the U.S. quite a few deaths have not been recognized as COVID.”

He says this is why looking at overall deaths since the start of the pandemic, not just official COVID-19 deaths, is important. On that measure, the U.S. is now consistently reporting roughly 25% more deaths than these other wealthy nations.

It didn’t have to be this way. If Trump had led his cult to adopt all the mitigation guidelines and not encouraged the Republican governors to throw all caution to the wind, this wouldn’t be this bad. It wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Instead he sent out tweets telling them to “Liberate” their states (leading to terrorist plots to kidnap their governors!) and now we have a pile of dead bodies that’s slated to grow much higher over the next few months.

And the man wants another four years. Unbelievable.

Oh, and by the way, this is what we have to look forward to if that happens:

The White House has embraced a declaration by a group of scientists arguing that authorities should allow the coronavirus to spread among young healthy people while protecting the elderly and the vulnerable — an approach that would rely on arriving at “herd immunity” through infections rather than a vaccine.

Many experts say “herd immunity” — the point at which a disease stops spreading because nearly everyone in a population has contracted it — is still very far-off. Leading experts have concluded, using different scientific methods, that about 85 to 90 percent of the American population is still susceptible to the coronavirus.

On a call convened Monday by the White House, two senior administration officials, both speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to give their names, cited an October 4 petition titled The Great Barrington Declaration, which argues against lockdowns and calls for a reopening of businesses and schools.

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration states, adding, “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

The declaration has more than 9,000 signatories from all over the world, its website says, though most of the names are not public. The document grew out of a meeting hosted by the American Institute for Economic Researcha libertarian-leaning research organization.

Its lead authors include Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an economist at Stanford University, the academic home of Dr. Scott Atlas, President Trump’s science adviser. Dr. Atlas has also espoused herd immunity.

The declaration’s architects include Sunetra Gupta and Gabriela Gomes, two scientists who have proposed that societies may achieve herd immunity when 10 to 20 percent of their populations have been infected with the virus, a position most epidemiologists disagree with.

Last month, at the request of The New York Times, three epidemiological teams calculated the percentage of the country that is infected. What they found runs strongly counter to the theory being promoted in influential circles that the United States has either already achieved herd immunity or is close to doing so, and that the pandemic is all but over. That conclusion would imply that businesses, schools and restaurants could safely reopen, and that masks and other distancing measures could be abandoned.

“The idea that herd immunity will happen at 10 or 20 percent is just nonsense,” said Dr. Christopher J.L. Murray, director of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which produced the epidemic model frequently cited during White House news briefings as the epidemic hit hard in the spring.

We are talking about millions of people dead if they do this. They think that’s fine.

Retribution

Trump Acts Out Police Shooting | HuffPost
Trump mimes a police shooting to entertain his fans

Remember this?

He’s said many times that he sent in the Marshall’s and they dealt with the shooter. Here’s what he said in the debate:

The killer of a young man in the middle of the street and they shot him. For three days Portland didn’t do anything. I had to send the US Marshals to take care of business.

The Attorney General praised the officers for their work:

 The streets of our cities are safer with this violent agitator removed, and the actions that led to his location are an unmistakable demonstration that the United States will be governed by law, not violent mobs.”

Who’s the violent mob again?

On Sept. 3, about 120 miles north of Portland, Mr. Reinoehl was getting into his Volkswagen station wagon when a pair of unmarked sport utility vehicles roared through the quiet streets, screeching to a halt just in front of his bumper. Members of a U.S. Marshals task force jumped out and unleashed a hail of bullets that shattered windows, whizzed past bystanders and left Mr. Reinoehl dead in the street.

Attorney General William P. Barr trumpeted the operation as a “significant accomplishment” that removed a “violent agitator.” The officers had opened fire, he said, when Mr. Reinoehl “attempted to escape arrest” and “produced a firearm” during the encounter. But a reconstruction of what happened that night, based on the accounts of people who witnessed the confrontation and the preliminary findings of investigators, produces a much different picture — one that raises questions about whether law enforcement officers made any serious attempt to arrest Mr. Reinoehl before killing him.

In interviews with 22 people who were near the scene, all but one said they did not hear officers identify themselves or give any commands before opening fire. In their official statements, not yet made public, the officers offered differing accounts of whether they saw Mr. Reinoehl with a weapon. One told investigators he thought he saw Mr. Reinoehl raise a gun inside the vehicle before the firing began, but two others said they did not.

Mr. Reinoehl did have a .380-caliber handgun on him when he was killed, according to the county sheriff’s team that is running a criminal homicide investigation into Mr. Reinoehl’s death. But the weapon was found in his pocket.

An AR-style rifle was found apparently untouched in a bag in his car.

Five eyewitnesses said in interviews that the gunfire began the instant the vehicles arrived. None of them saw Mr. Reinoehl holding a weapon. A single shell casing of the same caliber as the handgun he was carrying was found inside his car.

Garrett Louis, who watched the shooting begin while trying to get his 8-year-old son out of the line of fire, said the officers arrived with such speed and violence that he initially assumed they were drug dealers gunning down a foe — until he saw their law enforcement vests.

“I respect cops to the utmost, but things were definitely in no way, shape or form done properly,” Mr. Louis said.

[…]

Mr. Dinguss said in an interview that officers began jumping out of the vehicles before they had come to a complete stop, and that one of them opened fire immediately, before any commands had been given. Another man who was walking his dog nearby said that a burst of about 10 gunshots began almost immediately after the S.U.V.s came to a halt, and that he did not recall hearing any commands. Mr. Louis, who was on the other side of the scene, some 140 feet from Mr. Reinoehl, also said the police opened fire immediately, without giving any warnings — as did Mr. Smith and Mr. Cutler.

“There was no, ‘Get out of the car!’ There was no, ‘Stop!’ There was no nothing. They just got out of the car and started shooting,” Mr. Louis said.

Mr. Smith described it similarly: “There was no yelling. There was no screaming. There was no altercation. It was just straight to gunshots.”

Retribution. Also known as summary execution, something President Trump has been touting on the campaign trail since 2015. It is fundamental to his worldview. That is not what anyone who isn’t an imbecile would call “law and order.”

Get ready for a lot more of this if Trump is reelected.

Expanding the court is a matter of survival

Rogue Republicans must not be allowed to destroy the country.

The first day of questioning in the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearings was one for the books. The ritual of strong ideological jurists pretending to have never given a thought to the issues of the day is not unprecedented, but the context for it this time around should be unheard of. We are only three weeks away from a national referendum on the president and his party which, in any functioning democracy, would require that decisions about lifetime appointments be postponed until that referendum is decided.

But we don’t live in a functioning democracy at the moment, so we are unable to stop a power-mad Republican party from ramming through this appointment despite the fact that the president himself has said publicly that he wants the seat filled in order to ensure a majority will rule in his favor when election disputes go before the court. He and his party have already put such a plan in motion by foreshadowing their intention to contest any outcome not in their favor.

That is the context in which our latest Supreme Court justice will be confirmed on a party line vote. The legitimacy of the appointment and the authority of the court will forever be corrupted by such a raw partisan power play. Any person of real integrity, particularly one who will be serving in a position for which personal honor and superior judgment are paramount job requirements, would refuse to be seated under such tainted circumstances.

Coney Barrett is clearly not such a person, and her answers on the first day of questioning make it clear that she is as unconcerned with her reputation as the Republicans who plan to install her no matter the cost to the stability of our institutions are with their own.

She is obviously a right wing extremist. But she also refused to say that the president is unable to single-handedly delay an election and she won’t commit to recusal on cases about the election even though the conflict of interest and appearance of bias is so obvious a child could see it. She couldn’t even say that a president must commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Sadly, the appointment cannot be stopped. And it is the second time in the last four years that Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his accomplices have seized a seat on the court without any regard as to whether the majority of the country sees it as legitimate. It’s as if they prefer that the people who don’t vote for them see that they are impotent to stop them. That’s a demonstration of pure power. And they have made the bet that the other side does not have the will to fight back.

But they may have finally gone too far. It’s not just the court. The entire GOP establishment collaborating with Donald Trump for the past four years on myriad assaults on our democracy has raised awareness that the Republican establishment is no longer a political faction but has instead devolved into an elevated version of an organized crime family. Their cynical use of Trump for their own purposes without regard to the carnage and destruction he has brought upon this nation (including tens of thousands of preventable deaths) has exposed their so-called ideology as nothing more than a mercenary will to power.

Democrats, belatedly recognizing this fact, have started thinking seriously about how to save the country. It’s almost too late, but if they manage to win despite the GOP’s concerted efforts to derail a free and fair election, they have the chance to restore our democratic system.

The possibilities range from eliminating the filibuster — an easy and imperative move if they plan to ever enact vital legislation — to pushing efforts toward D.C. statehood and admission of Puerto Rico (should their people choose it). But in the wake of this unprecedented power grab on the Supreme Court, the talk has necessarily turned to expanding the court so that it will properly reflect the country for which it makes momentous decisions.

Needless to say this has the media wringing its hands, mostly because Democratic nominee Joe Biden won’t say whether he would back such a move. He is wisely refusing to submit to their harangues, knowing full well that they are itching to turn this issue into another “Hillary’s emails.” And of course the Republicans are shrieking like rabid howler monkeys at the mere idea that Democrats might finally realize they can use their constitutional powers to rebalance the scales.

Considering what they have done, the Republicans do not have a leg to stand on. Their abuse of the “advise and consent” role in the nomination process makes any protestations about fairness laughable. Moreover, the number on the court has changed many times in the past. The Constitution does not designate a specific number on the court, which some of those “originalists” should consider may have been on purpose, as one of those “checks and balances” we used to be taught were so important.

It hasn’t been done recently, but that’s because we haven’t had one of the political parties go completely rogue and start abusing the system to place extremists throughout the federal judiciary in quite a while.

Back in 2013, then-Congressman Tom Cotton introduced a bill in the House called the “Stop Court-Packing Act” which would have eliminated three seats on the D.C. Court of Appeals. That seems like a strange title, but it gives away the game. He was trying to stop President Obama from being able to fill those three empty seats. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, agreed, writing a piece in the National Review called “Don’t let the Democrats pack the DC Circuit.” Keep in mind that these were legitimate vacancies.

As it happens, McConnell kept those and many other seats open so that a Republicans could fill them, so they needn’t have worried. And he’s very proud of it:

After McConnell refused to even hold a hearing for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, Republicans announced that they were prepared to block all of Hillary Clinton’s nominees if she were to win the 2016 presidential election. They said the court could run with eight justices going forward (something that they are now insisting would be completely unacceptable). And, as it happens, Republican governors all over the country have been trying to expand their Supreme Courts.

Biden has said that he’s “not a fan” of the idea of expanding the Supreme Court, which is not surprising. Very few Democrats want to do it. It’s going to be a bloody battle with a sanctimonious GOP suddenly rediscovering the necessity for norms and a media desperate to prove they are “fair and balanced” after four years of Trump. But if Democrats win and then don’t do what’s necessary to rebalance the judiciary and repudiate what these rogue Republicans have done, average Americans will pay a very steep price for their ineffectuality.

My Salon column.

Your president, ladies and gentlemen

That’s right. The president of the United States, allegedly off the steroids, tweeting out completely bonker, wildass conspiracy theories to his ten of millions of followers.

It’s hard to believe he’s gone even crazier than he’s been throughout his four years in Washington, but he is. He’s beyond Hannity and Rush and he’s gone full-blown Alex Jones. I can’t imagine he thinks it will get him any new voters or rev up any that aren’t already revved up. He’s just lost it.

Update — Here’s a little background on the bin Laden conspiracy theory he’s pimping. Good lord:

President Donald Trump backed a budding conspiracy theory on Tuesday that four Americans were killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack to cover up the blood-sacrifice of Navy SEALs and the “fact” that Osama Bin Laden is still alive, marking what is perhaps the president’s strangest brush yet with far-right conspiracy theories.

Trump’s promotion of the new Benghazi conspiracy theory, which is fast gaining traction on the far right, came in the form of a retweet of a QAnon believer pushing the claim. The president’s backing helped push the tweet about Benghazi above 14,000 retweets.

The bizarre theory, which is outre even by the standards of the right’s usual Benghazi claims, also alleges that Osama Bin Laden’s body-double, rather than the terrorist mastermind himself, was killed in 2011.

All those claims come from a falconer who says he uncovered secrets about Al-Qaeda, Iran, and U.S. intelligence in his work as a falconer for Middle Eastern power players.

Alan Howell Parrot, the subject of a 2010 documentary about his falconry called Feathered Cocaine, has shot to new fame on the right after a video interview with him played over the weekend at the American Priority Conference, a pro-Trump event held at Trump’s Miami resort.

In the video, Parrot, interviewed by conservative personality Nick Noe and the father of a former Navy SEAL who died in Benghazi, makes a series of bizarre claims alleging collusion between Iran, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton ahead of the attack.https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qu5tP-RW2ss?&enablejsapi=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=0

Parrot claims that Biden cut a deal with Iran to set up Bin Laden’s 2011 death in Pakistan. But when Iran double-crossed the United States and switched in a Bin Laden body double, in Parrot’s telling, Biden and Clinton arranged for a Navy SEAL helicopter to be shot down to keep the truth about the raid from getting out— a reference to a real-world helicopter attack in Afghanistan that killed 38 people, including 25 Navy SEALs.

“Vice President Biden paid with the blood of Seal Team 6,” Parrot said in the video. “He spent their blood like currency.”

Later in the video, Noe claims that the Benghazi compound was attacked to cover up the fact that, supposedly, the missile used in the helicopter attack came from the United States.

“It’s just so wicked,” Parrot said in the video, adding that he has “terabytes” of evidence to prove the conspiracy theory to Trump.

Ordinarily, this latest iteration of the Benghazi conspiracy theory would remain confined to the wilder parts of the internet.

But Trump’s endorsement shot it to national prominence, fueling the bizarre allegations about blood sacrifice and Bin Laden body doubles. The tweet Trump reposted linked to an article about Parrot’s claims on a little-known website called “DHJH Media,” written by blogger Kari Donovan, who describes herself as an “ex-Community Organizer” who writes about “cultural marxism.”

Like I said — he’s just bonkers.

A republic for the opulent

Fearless Girl Statue by Kristen Visbal. New York City, Wall Street. Photo by Anthony Quintano via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

On the heels of my earlier post comes a conversation at Slate with filmmaker and author Astra Taylor. She tells Joshua Keating that more white men (always white men) on the street bring up the phrase “We are a republic, not a democracy,” these days. Meaning (if they think that deeply), that we are not an Athenian-style direct democracy:

And the thing is that there’s something to their perspective. Political institutions in this country are not majoritarian. There is a long history of exclusion. And there are quite a few veto points in the political system that obstruct majoritarian policies. So they have a lot to draw on and it’s not a novel political philosophy. It’s a reversion to the American norm in some way. Because we haven’t really been a fully inclusive democracy, ever. And to the degree that we have, it’s been for just a generation—since the Voting Rights Act—and they’re already giving up on that.

Just as David Frum warned they would.

The Founding Fathers did not understand minority rights as we do, Taylor argues. “[T]hey were very concerned with the rights of the opulent. And that’s one of their words, right? Madison said that it’s very important to structure the Senate as they did to protect the rights of the opulent minority against the landless masses,” i.e. to fend off redistribution of wealth.

The G.W. Bush administration indulged a fantasy about spreading democracy abroad, but use of the phrase [“republic, not a democracy”] here and now reflects a party looking for ways to rationalize “the further entrenchment of minority rule.”

Still, democracy has deep roots in this country, Taylor says, and they will be difficult to yank out. Liberal warnings about populism miss the point, she believes. “The real worry right now is not tyranny of the majority…. The problem is the tyranny of an elite minority.”

People who are annoyed by that phrase, they tend to do this counter-originalist argument. They’ll say, “Oh, you stupid conservatives, don’t you realize that actually the Founding Fathers meant representative democracy when they said republic, right?” But the Founding Fathers did not want the United States to be a direct democracy, which is how they understood Athenian democracy, to be a purely direct form of democracy. They thought that that was very unstable and risky.

I guess I have two responses to that. One is, I don’t really care what the Founding Fathers thought. They also thought I should have no political rights. So I’m not here to live in their world forever. And there was a lot of disagreement among the people we count as the founders, right? There were some of them who were far more small-d democratic than others. But I think the point is that the battle was never just, “Are we a direct democracy?” But rather, “How representative of a democracy are we?” In my opinion, it’s never been representative enough, but that’s really what this conversation is about.

Of course, the U.S. is not as representative as it could be. But we must not take even basic political rights for granted, Taylor warns. Wealth inequality is rotting the roots litigation, gerrymandering, and court packing have failed to tear out. “But we also have to vote,” she insists. “We can’t take the progress that’s been made for granted because there’s a deeply undemocratic anti-democratic strain to American politics.”

Tune into the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings this morning to see that strain on display. And get your asses to the polls.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.