Month: March 2022

While the Russian invasion of Ukraine chokes off water, food, and power for tens of thousands, a quieter assault on democracy in this country end up below the fold.

New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed congressional maps that had been approved by state courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to stand, giving Democrats an advantage in this year’s election in two key states.

In issuing the orders, the Supreme Court rejected requests by Republicans to restore maps approved by G.O.P.-controlled state legislatures. Those district lines were thrown out and replaced by courts in both states after challenges by Democrats.

Under the new court-imposed maps in both states, Democrats are likely to gain more seats than they would have under the legislature-approved versions.

That is not the end of it. Observers note that four of the court’s conservatives favor disallowing state courts from overruling legislatures that rig elections for one party. Whatever state constitutions may say. Conservative scholars have concocted a tricksy new theory for neutering “free and fair” elections provisions.

Mark Joseph Stern explains at Slate:

Republicans appealed both court-draw maps to SCOTUS. They claimed that these plans violated the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause, which says that the “manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed” by the “legislature.” For at least a century, SCOTUS has read this language to give other organs of state government a say in election law. But conservative scholars have devised a theory known as the “independent state legislature doctrine” that would give legislatures complete control over elections, including voting rules and redistricting. Under this theory, state constitutional provisions governing elections would be null and void, and state courts would have no power to intervene in election disputes. The legislature alone would set the rules—and, in extreme versions of the theory, even dictate the outcome of an election.

The Supreme Court has never endorsed this doctrine, and has explicitly rejected it as recently as 2015. There is a good reason why: It contradicts the original meaning of the elections clause as well as historical practice reaching back to the early days of the republic. A mountain of evidence proves that framers never intended to give states lone authority over federal elections, and instead expected state constitutions to impose substantive limits on election law. Exhaustive research demonstrates that—aside from a few opportunistic arguments raised by congressional partisans in the 19th century—state legislatures, state courts, federal courts, and Congress have all rejected the doctrine for more than two centuries.

Yes, but for most of those two centuries the dominance of American politics by wealthy white men was unchallenged. In the 21st century it is not. Thus, the “independent state legislature doctrine.” At least so long as there is a firm conservative majority on the Supreme Court that the conservative legal movement has spent decades constructing.

The Pennsylvania case was unique for plaintiffs asking for at-large districts for the first time since the 18th century. Under a 1941 law, as a last resort a state may use at-large districts if it fails to create new districts after a decennial census, Bloomberg reports.

The North Carolina case is clearer, Stern writes:

By contrast, the North Carolina case teed up the elections clause issue perfectly, and thus divided the court. Because it’s a shadow docket order, we don’t know exactly how each justice voted, but it appears that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberals in turning away the challenge without comment. Kavanaugh wrote that Republicans had “advanced serious arguments on the merits” but concluded that it was too late for the federal judiciary to intervene, citing the Purcell principle. Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented, declaring the North Carolina Supreme Court had likely violated the elections clause by striking down the legislature’s congressional map.

Alito’s dissent, which wholeheartedly adopted the independent state legislature doctrine, is a masterclass in disingenuity. He omitted more than a century of SCOTUS precedent rejecting the doctrine. He ignored the Purcell principle, which he has consistently used to halt lower court orders protecting voting rights. He disregarded the North Carolina legislature’s express approval of judicial supervision over redistricting. And he dismissed the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision as mere “legislation”—even though the majority engaged in an exhaustive overview of the state constitution’s guarantee that “all elections shall be free.”

“This guarantee of ‘free elections’ dates all the way back to the North Carolina Constitution of 1776,” Alito wrote, “but for 246 years that language was not found to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.” Implying that the court’s Democratic majority was motivated by politics rather than law, he fumed: “Only this year did the State Supreme Court change course and discern in the State Constitution a judicially enforceable prohibition of partisan gerrymandering.” (The long dormancy of a constitutional provision did not stop him from adopting a novel reading of the Second Amendment in 2008.)

Speaking of justices being motivated by politics, Stern retorts:

Alito also complained that the North Carolina Supreme Court cited state constitutional guarantees of free speech, assembly, and association, which “make no reference to elections.” Unmentioned is the glaring fact that the First Amendment does not mention elections, either, yet Alito has repeatedly used it to strike down election regulations. (It seems supporting Republican candidates counts as free speech while supporting Democratic candidates does not.)

This from the same justice who signed on to the opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause that allowed that while the U.S. Supreme Court has no role in prohibiting partisan gerrymanders, it did not rule that state courts might under state constitutions. “Now they’ve revealed it was a bait-and-switch,” Stern alleges.

Kavanaugh did not join Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch in their finding, saying it was a matter best not addressed in an emergency action. But it seems clear that there are four votes to take up the North Carolina question in the next session.

Voters in both states get a reprieve from formally rigged elections for now.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

It’s time to bust these lying weasels for their treasonous acts & reckless endangerment of politicians’ lives.

The Ukrainian Ambassador very intentionally asked each of us on the zoom to NOT share anything on social media during the meeting to protect the security of President Zelenskyy. Appalling and reckless ignorance by two US Senators. https://t.co/geolhKxbLp

— Rep. Dean Phillips 🇺🇸 (@RepDeanPhillips) March 5, 2022

Boebert’s tweet about Speaker Pelosi had the same energy

This weekend Senators Rubio, Daines and Grassley all tweeted out info about where a politician was at a specific time to people who wanted to kill them. It reminded me of Lauren Boebert’s tweet about Pelosi during the January 6th insurrection.

Once again we see Republicans giving out location information of a politician to people who want to kill them.

This SHOULD be an opportunity for Democrats to nail these three senators and Rep. Boebert’s for their reckless endangerment and, in the case of Boebert, her treasonous behavior.

When this first happened I tweeted about it, then predicted the GOP lies and how they would spin it to the MSM. (I could show you the timestamp to prove that I got it right but that’s not a big deal.) But what I want to do now is go further into what the 3 GOPs said & how the media could respond and how Democratic activists could use the words & actions of these Republicans to nail them.

Can @JoyAnnReid check WHEN the Ukrainian ambassador asked people not to tweet during Zelenskyy's call & when Rubio tweeted?
Can @MalcolmNance explain on @Lawrence the security issue?
No Dems tweeted during the call, but 3 GOPers did. Why? @suekroll https://t.co/zMm2tFQ8Mj

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) March 7, 2022

First I wanted to show how the MSM accepted Rubio’s comments at face value. You can see how George Stephanopoulos accepted Rubio’s excuses in the clip above. (Clip from a Crooks and Liar’s story by Aliza Worthington.)

Tonight I’m hoping that the MSNBC shows will ask their experts about this. But they will just explain what happened, not tell us what we can to do about it.

I also wanted to point out that this is a pattern of the Republicans and that the Democrats should use this pattern of behavior to hammer the Republicans with. So I tweeted this to the hosts of the Majority Report.

If @SamSeder & @EmmaVigeland talk about Marco Rubio tweeting out Zelenskyy's screenshot during the Zoom call pls point out Chuck Grassley & Steve Daines did too, but no Dems.
"One GOP doing it is happenstance.
Two is coincidence.
Three is enemy action.” https://t.co/zMm2tFQ8Mj pic.twitter.com/OmDC39uedI

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) March 7, 2022

Sam and Emma did a great segment on the Majority Report and hit most of the main points I wanted to make about Rubio’s BS excuse that there was no security threat. Sam also noted that Democrats should use this clip to nail Rubio and the others, because you just know the Republicans would.

I don’t know if it is because I’m a regularly viewer of the show, or if it’s because I shared a taxi with Sam at Yearly Kos in 2008, but watching this felt like seeing the contents of a mind meld.

These days when I think I have an important point to make I ask. “So what? I noticed a pattern of terrible behavior by right wing nut jobs, so has everyone else with a brain. What am I gonna do about it?” That’s why I’ll point out how the GOP works the media refs and suggest what they could do instead. If some of media get it right, I suggest we amplify that. But also want to acknowledge that we all sometimes fall into learned helplessness.

One of the reasons that people on the left loved the Lincoln Project was because it took advantage of opportunities to nail the Republicans for their horrific comments and behaviors. Did those ads help move swing voters? Who knows? But it made people on the LEFT feel like someone was DOING something RIGHT NOW. They didn’t have to wait months for the Mueller report to come out or over a year for the DOJ to act.

How To Bust Lying Weasels

How the MSM helped Rubio get away with his excuse
Stephanopoulos gave Rubio the benefit of the doubt and accepted his answers. He wanted him to come back on the show again.

How the MSM could have busted Rubio
A producer could have fact checked Rubio with a timeline.

“According to Rep. Dean Phillips, the Ukrainian Ambassador expressly asked people not to share anything on social media during the meeting to protect the security of Zelensky.”

If Rubio wasn’t lying about when she asked and when he tweeted, Stephanopoulos could then nail him on his second excuse about it not being a “security threat.” That would be a good time to quote experts about how professional assassins find a location based on time and network traffic.

As people have pointed out to me, the MSM doesn’t really like to bust these politicians, and as I point out, it’s not as easy as people think. The politicians are trained to evade and change the trajectory of the narrative. Also, while it would be great TV, it would only happen once. That politician wouldn’t be coming back.

Now I like MSNBC, but even they fall into explaining how the GOP will get away with their mendacious, criminal behavior. They don’t feel it is their job to say, “The Republicans will try to weasel out of punishment, however if the Democrats take these steps they could nail them!” For example:

How the Senate experts might help the Rubio, Daines and Grassley get away with their excuse
Lawrence O’Donnell might have someone from the Senate Intelligence Committee on to talk about what a terrible thing the three GOP members did. He’ll ask what can be done. Maybe an ethics complaint will be filed! But nothing seriously will happen to any of them because that’s just not done!

How the Senate experts on MSNBC could help bust Rubio
On O’Donnell’s show they talk about Senate traditions, which often seem to me to be, “Assume the best of your colleagues, unless they break the law AND you can PROVE they had malicious intent.”

Knowing Republicans on Intelligence Committees regularly break the law, but evidence of intent is needed to bust them in congress, some Democrat could have prepared for their behavior and used it to obtain evidence of their intent. (Like they should have done when Devin Nunes ran to Trump with secret intel info.)

For example. The committee sends a note to Rubio and others to remind them of the Committee Rules In General and how exposing Zelenskyy’s location would put him in danger of assassination. When Rublio, Daines or others replied with “Thanks for the info but I’ll do what I want!” in an email, that can be used as proof of their foreknowledge of the risk and possibly their intent.

Don’t let all three Senators off the hook with the same lame excuses
I read how Daines’ staff tried to flip the narrative and attack the people pointing out what they did was bad. Notice their excuses and how they moved to change the subject. (NBC story link)

Daines’s office said the senator shared the photo on Twitter before the request to not post images was made and similarly accused those pushing back against the post of seeking attention.

“This was a well reported call with over 250 people joining, and it was not a secure or classified briefing. The photo was shared before it was requested not to and well into the call, and it had no identifying information. We should be focusing on what’s important here and that’s supporting Ukraine. The only reason why anyone wants to make this an issue is partisan clickbait,” Daines’s spokesperson said.

Two GOP senators share photos of Zelenskyy during call after lawmakers asked not to by Ukraine, March 5th NBC by Haley Talbot, Julie Tsirkin and Nicole Acevedo

How exhausted Democrats help Rubio get away without consequences
I realized that many people continue to accept the GOP’s behavior with the line, “It was stupid, but not illegal.”
Or they buy into the excuses given about why nothing will be done–like this person who replied to me on Twitter.

Thanks for your comment. It's useful to see how Rubio's actions will be excused by people. I'm working on a piece about how GOP politicians weasel out of consequences for their actions.
I'll add your tweet.

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) March 6, 2022

I get it. It’s exhausting trying to bust these people, especially when you don’t feel you have a platform or any power. But we have to keep at it. And now is the perfect time! The Russian bots are defunded and are temporarily focused elsewhere in social media!

How To Destroy Rubio For His Actions

Here’s what coordinated response to use Rubio’s actions to destroy him would look like.

Set up the media with a story
If the MSM wanted to nail Rubio they could, but they won’t (I explain why below) but nailing a right winger requires more than exposing the truth. You need to have a media strategy that moves UP to the MSM, not start there.

Prepare and think like a prosecutor
“How will the subject answer the question? What defense will they use? How can I blow a hole in their argument?”

Plan ahead
“How can we use those comments to drag them down in perceptions among voters?” Short videos? Memes?

Think like a product marketer
“How do I show buyers my product is good and their product is bad?”

Act like a cut throat finance person
“How do I destroy their revenue stream? What upsets their shareholders? How do I put them out of business?”

If Democrats really wanted to nail a Republican politician about a comment or action they would need to do their homework on that politician’s past, preemptively cut off their possible avenue of response, provide examples of previous times they said something that was wrong, AND provide evidence that showed a malicious intent.

They would build a narrative for the media, demand congressional investigations, point out the laws broken to the DOJ, get the military and intelligence community to condemn the act and explain the reality of the security threat, engage the activist base with a social media campaign and get Democratic politicians to pile on with new revelation of the malicious intent of their actions.

Or we can just let them weasel out of it.

This is so painfully irresponsible it makes you want to scream in frustration. Or cry. It’s going to cause unnecessary deaths for no good reason:

On Monday, the surgeon general of one of the largest states in the country—already notorious for anti-science vaccine skepticism and visceral abhorrence of masks—said Florida’s Department of Health will soon make an official recommendation that will undoubtedly cost some kids their lives.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced the state health department would become the first in the country to actually recommend against vaccinating healthy children. Even in Gov. Ron DeSantis’ state, it’s disgraceful to hear such irresponsible guidance from a top health official.

After all, while the U.S. led the world in developing vaccines to end the pandemic, we are currently near the bottom among our peer nations for actually using those vaccines. For that reason alone, we are poised to soon pass 1 million deaths.

U.S. vaccine opponents have pointed to the decision by Sweden’s Health Agency to not allow COVID vaccines for all children aged 5-11. But the U.S. is not Sweden—where 73.3 percent of the adult population is fully vaccinated. And Sweden does recommend vaccination for kids 5 and over that are in high-risk groups.

By contrast, Florida is now actively telling parents NOT to vaccinate their kids.

Let’s be crystal clear. Vaccines are highly safe and effective. It’s far worse for children to get COVID-19 than to be vaccinated. It’s utterly irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

It’s been almost exactly two years since the COVID-19 pandemic smashed into the U.S.

Those dark early days wreaked havoc on our most frail and vulnerable populations like nursing home residents and front-line workers. Schools and businesses were shuttered, and a sense of hopelessness descended across the nation and the world.

Then, less than a year after the first outbreak came a modern miracle—the development of a highly safe and effective vaccine. Before COVID, the record for bringing a vaccine to the market was four years, for mumps. Usually, it takes a decade or more. For HIV/AIDS, a vaccine has yet to emerge.

Two COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna—used a novel mRNA technology for the first time in history. These vaccines had tremendous efficacy at preventing infections and, more importantly, preventing hospitalizations and deaths. But an avalanche of pernicious disinformation literally went viral on social media, which people are still using as their basis for fearing and rejecting the vaccine.

Much of the vaccine dissent maintains a laser focus on extremely rare side effects that are inherent in any vaccine or drug. Every day, most Americans reach into the medicine cabinet for an ibuprofen or another over-the-counter medication with far greater long-term adverse health effects than COVID-19 vaccines. Our children, specifically, all get a series of vaccines before going to school that have eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, among many others.

As vaccine disinformation spreads, we have seen signs of a major backlash even against routine childhood vaccinations—one that folks like Ladapo seem determined to spread.

Vaccine skeptics like Ladapo tend to focus on the rare (but serious) side effects as reasons to refuse COVID vaccinations, especially for younger, otherwise healthy people.

Public health agencies want to understand the COVID vaccine’s rare side effects to ensure safety and maintain public trust. Indeed, the rare emergence of bleeding associated with the Janssen/Johnson and Johnson vaccine led to a 10-day stoppage, out of an abundance of caution.

Myocarditis has emerged as another rare side effect of the COVID vaccine, one touted by Florida’s surgeon general in a Wall Street Journal op-ed he co-authored last spring. If you’re vaccinated, skeptics might note, you have a 1-10 per million chance of developing inflammation of the heart muscle. Skeptics also point out that myocarditis is more common among individuals less than 40 years old, who are statistically at less risk for developing serious COVID than older people.

But context is necessary. Among this same age group, 40 per million of people who’ve contracted COVID will develop myocarditis.

Yes, reported cases of myocarditis are somewhat higher among adolescents, ranging from 70-106 cases per million among males 12-17. But, again, context is necessary. Almost everyone who experiences vaccine-associated myocarditis has a full recovery. We also now know that extending the time interval between vaccine doses decreases myocarditis risks even further. The CDC now recommends extending the time interval between the first two vaccine doses to eight weeks for males 12-29 years of age.

Many vaccine skeptics strongly believe that SARS-CoV-2 is inconsequential to younger people, nothing more than an annoying cold. For a fair number of people, that may be true. But even in this group, there is risk for serious illness and hospitalizations—and though it’s rare, there is a risk of death.

As of March 4, there had been 663 COVID deaths among individuals 5-18 years of age, and 37,596 deaths among those 19-44 years of age. And then there are the long-term consequences with potentially debilitating “long-COVID,” serious organ dysfunction with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), or new-onset diabetes—which is 2.5 times more likely to develop after COVID-19 infection in those 18 years and younger.“The Kaiser Family Foundation finds that such misinformation is widespread, with 78 percent of adults saying they believe at least one false statement to be true or are unsure if it is true or false.”

Unvaccinated 12–29-year-olds are 10 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated adolescents. Data released from CDC on March 4 demonstrate that completion of the vaccine series, including the booster, raises effectiveness against infection among those aged 12-17 years of age—with restoration of effectiveness to up 81 percent, providing reassurance for this younger age group in combating infection.

When we look at vaccine effectiveness across all age groups, the data are still more convincing. Individuals who are unvaccinated are twice as likely to become infected, and 14 times more likely to die from COVID-19; and compared with those who also took a booster shot of vaccine, the unvaccinated are three times more likely to test positive for COVID-19, and 41 times more likely to die from COVID-19.

The depth of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines is stunning, including falsehoods like: vaccines alter your DNA, contain live coronavirus, insert microchips, cause you to be magnetic, and negatively affect fertility. Ladapo is a disgrace for making it state policy to effectively appease this crowd, especially when it comes to kids.

The Kaiser Family Foundation finds that such misinformation is widespread, with 78 percent of adults saying they believe at least one false statement to be true or are unsure if it is true or false.

There is also a huge gap in belief in false information based on political affiliation. Consequently, as of October 2021, 17 percent of Democrats were unvaccinated compared with 60 percent of Republicans. Currently, residents of red states have a 50 percent greater chance of dying from COVID-19 than in blue states. Of the eight states that continue to have high rates of COVID-19 (exceeding 30 cases per 100,000), seven are red states with an average full vaccination rate of 57 percent, below the national average of 65 percent as of March 4, 2022.

Almost two million COVID-19 cases have been diagnosed among children between the ages of 5-11 in the U.S. And yet, as of March 2, only 26 percent of children in that age group had completed their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series. In Florida, where Ladapo holds a prominent government position of high public trust, the figure of kids in that same age group who had even one shot was just 22 percent, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Although approximately 57 percent of adolescents nationwide ages 12-17 years have completed their vaccine series, only 21.4 percent of adolescents 12-17 have completed their additional booster dose. Much of the reluctance to complete the vaccines are based on the perception of possible side effects, and the expectation of mild disease in these age groups. Hence, even parents who themselves are up to date with their COVID vaccination are hesitant to complete the recommended vaccination series for their child.

These parents think they are protecting their child, but in fact are leaving them at needless risk and with potential for continued secondary transmission of infection to others. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

I will never understand this. We watch interminable drug commercials on TV in which they list dozens of horrific sounding side-effects (“may result in major organ failure and permanent brain damage and death. Consult your doctor if you experience total paralysis or blindness.”) As the article says, there can be very serous side effects from Tylenol and Robitussin and I doubt any of these people give it second thought.

The vaccines are medical miracles and we should all be amazed and grateful that science is so advanced that they were able to make them available so soon to so many people. These people are nuts.

He knew he was a snake before we let him in. Remember this?

July 20, 2016

CLEVELAND — Donald J. Trump, on the eve of accepting the Republican nomination for president, explicitly raised new questions on Wednesday about his commitment to automatically defending NATO allies if they are attacked, saying he would first look at their contributions to the alliance.

Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

Mr. Trump’s statement appeared to be the first time that a major candidate for president had suggested conditioning the United States’ defense of its major allies. It was consistent, however, with his previous threat to withdraw American forces from Europe and Asia if those allies fail to pay more for American protection.

Mr. Trump also said he would not pressure Turkey or other authoritarian allies about conducting purges of their political adversaries or cracking down on civil liberties. The United States, he said, has to “fix our own mess” before trying to alter the behavior of other nations.

“I don’t think we have a right to lecture,” Mr. Trump said in a wide-ranging interview in his suite in a downtown hotel here, while keeping an eye on television broadcasts from the Republican National Convention. “Look at what is happening in our country,” he said. “How are we going to lecture when people are shooting policemen in cold blood?” (Read the full transcript.)

During a 45-minute conversation, Mr. Trump re-emphasized the hard-line nationalist approach that has marked his improbable candidacy, describing how he would force allies to shoulder defense costs that the United States has borne for decades, cancel longstanding treaties he views as unfavorable, and redefine what it means to be a partner of the United States.

He said the rest of the world would learn to adjust to his approach. “I would prefer to be able to continue” existing agreements, he said, but only if allies stopped taking advantage of what he called an era of American largess that was no longer affordable.

Giving a preview of his address to the convention on Thursday night, he said that he would press the theme of “America First,” his rallying cry for the past four months, and that he was prepared to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada if he could not negotiate radically better terms.

And everyone laughed and laughed at the mere idea that the orange clown could ever become president.

Actually, Europe didn’t think it was so funny, although I’m sure they assumed he could never win either:

Within hours of Mr. Trump’s remarks calling into question whether, as president, he would automatically defend NATO allies, European officials who were already nervous about American commitments appeared a little stunned by his comments.

“Solidarity among allies is a key value for NATO,” Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general and a former prime minister of Norway, said in a statement. He said he did not wish to “interfere” with the American election, but added: “Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States.”

The United States created the 28-nation alliance, and Article 5 of the NATO treaty, signed by President Truman, requires any member to come to the aid of another that NATO declares was attacked. It has been invoked only once: NATO pledged to defend the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

That commitment has long been considered a central element of deterring attacks in Europe, especially against smaller and weaker nations like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which joined after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The president of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, one of the most pro-American allies in the region, quickly posted on Twitter evidence that his small country was meeting its defense commitments, and noted it had contributed to the mission in Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump also said he was pleased that the controversy over similarities between passages in a speech by his wife, Melania, to the convention on Monday night and one that Michelle Obama gave eight years ago appeared to be subsiding. “In retrospect,” he said, it would have been better to explain what had happened — that an aide had incorporated the comments — a day earlier.

Aaaand:

When asked what he hoped people would take away from the convention, Mr. Trump said, “The fact that I’m very well liked.”

It’s obvious that Putin heard all this and figured it was worth his while to wait and see if Trump would pull the trigger and leave NATO. No doubt in all those secret meetings between the two of them where they tore up the translators notes, this was a topic of conversation. Putin could see that Trump had zero understanding of the history of Europe, the NATO alliance or how it was organized. He kept talking about nations not be up to date on their dues, which is so stupid Putin must have laughed himself silly after the meetings.

It was certainly worth his while to give Trump a chance to blow up NATO without Russia having to lift a finger. And if he’d won in 2020 I don’t think there’s much doubt that he would have done it. They barely held him back in the first term.

I don’t want to get too worked up about this but let’s just say it’s interesting to note the GOP’s problems with recruiting and fundraising. That’s not normal in a cycle like this:

As the prospect of a red wave grows, a series of Republican missteps including recruiting stumbles, weak fundraising and intense infighting is threatening the GOP’s path to the Senate majority.

Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey dealt his party its latest setback late last week by announcing he would not challenge Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly this fall. His decision, which leaves no obvious front-runner in a crowded Republican primary, disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his allies who had spent months privately encouraging Ducey to run.

But the GOP’s shortcomings extend well beyond Arizona.

Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are struggling to keep pace with Democratic fundraising. Recruiting failures have dashed GOP hopes in reach states like Maryland and threaten a prime pickup opportunity in New Hampshire. And a recent plan that would raise taxes on low-income Americans and seniors, released by the Republican Senate midterm chief, Florida Sen. Rick Scott, is putting GOP candidates in a difficult position across states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.

The challenges amount to an early warning sign for Republicans less than two months before the opening Senate primaries of the 2022 election season. With Democrats confronting historic headwinds and the weight of an unpopular president, a Republican Senate majority is easily within reach. But, sensing discord within the GOP, Democrats are suddenly optimistic they may have a path to hold — or even expand — their majority.

Rep. Val Demings, the leading Democrat in the race to unseat Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, acknowledged that her party has struggled to highlight its accomplishments — including sweeping coronavirus pandemic relief and a massive infrastructure package — in the face of President Joe Biden’s political woes. But she seized on Scott’s plan as a clear contrast for how Democrats and Republicans would govern differently.

“This plan is toxic. It would hurt working families. It would hurt seniors. And Rubio’s going to own it,” Demings said in an interview.

Rubio’s campaign declined to say specifically whether he supported Scott’s plan when asked, issuing a statement instead that called Demings “a do-nothing member of Congress who has never even passed a real law, much less a tax cut.”

With eight months until Election Day, the political landscape remains in flux. The health of the economy, a Supreme Court decision on abortion and the war in Eastern Europe remain major variables. But history suggests Democrats would be lucky to preserve their fragile Senate majority in November.

In a 50-50 Senate, Democrats would lose control of Congress’ upper chamber if they lose a seat. And without the majority, they lose any hope of enacting Biden’s plans to bolster child care, education, family leave and environmental protection while protecting voting rights.

The GOP’s best pickup opportunities rest in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, according to Steven Law, a McConnell ally who leads the most powerful Republican-aligned Senate super PAC. He said he’s increasingly optimistic about the state viewed as the Democrats’ best pickup opportunity, Pennsylvania, and sees competitive races in Republican-held states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri trending in the right direction.

Given historic trends against the party that occupies the White House, Law predicted that a state like Colorado or Washington state could become more competitive than expected this fall as well.

“The fundamentals of this election cycle are still very, very good,” Law said. “I don’t think recent challenges or setbacks or issues are going to define it at all. There are going to be bumps in the road. But at the end of the day, this election is going to be about the historic unpopularity of Joe Biden and his agenda, which virtually all Democrats have blindly supported.”

Yeah, maybe. But these aren’t normal time so I’m not sure that “fundamentals” are the best way to look at this. I’m not complascent. There’s every chance that they’ll have a big victory. But it’s not guaranteed.

Still, this is juicy:

[E]scalating tensions among Republican leaders at the highest levels threatens to undercut the party’s ambitions. McConnell and former President Donald Trump have long sparred over Republican messaging and candidate endorsements. In some states, Trump favors far-right nominees who struggle in statewide general elections.

But for now, a simmering feud between McConnell and Scott has taken center stage.

Scott, the leader of the GOP’s Senate midterm efforts, released an 11-point plan late last month that would impose a modest tax increase for many of the lowest paid Americans, while opening the door for cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Senate Democrats’ political arm released a radio ad within 24 hours declaring, “If Senate Republicans win, we pay the price.”

Staffers from Scott’s Senate committee moved into triage mode almost immediately, reaching out to Republican campaigns across the country to gauge their frustration while offering messaging help, according to senior Republican strategists with direct knowledge of the situation.

The strategists, who requested anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said many Senate Republicans had been willing to ignore what they viewed as Scott’s presidential ambitions over the last year. But that changed when the Florida senator released his latest proposal, which they considered an “unforced error” that triggered a wave of anger across the party.

McConnell could not stay silent as he faced reporters last week on Capitol Hill.

The Senate Republican leader forcefully rebuked Scott’s plan during the Republican leadership’s weekly news conference, which Scott was part of.

“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said moments after Scott stepped away from the event. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half of the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”

Scott refused to respond on Sunday when asked about McConnell’s comments during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” offering instead a defiant defense of his broader plan.

“It’s my ideas,” Scott said. “There’s going to be other ideas.”

Amid such Republican infighting, Democrats are pressing their cash advantage on the ground in key states, even as GOP campaign committees in Washington report record fundraising hauls.

In Nevada, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the nation’s most endangered Democrats, reported $10.5 million cash on hand at the end of last year, compared to Republican former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s $1.7 million.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock finished the year with $22.9 million in the bank, while likely Republican challenger Herschel Walker, the former football star who has been endorsed by Trump, reported $5.4 million.

And Arizona Democrat Kelly, a former astronaut who won a 2020 special election to serve out the final two years of the late Sen. John McCain’s term, reported $18.6 million in the bank. Arizona’s Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the best-known Republican in a crowded primary field, reported less than $800,000 in the bank.

Warnock and Kelly pressed their financial advantages by launching an initial round of television ads in recent weeks as Republican candidates in both states focus on fighting each other. It’s much the same in New Hampshire, where Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan placed $13 million in initial TV and radio advertising reservations for the fall, much of it in the expensive Boston media market, while three Republicans will be locked in a primary through mid-September.

This piece by Luke Johnson is on point.

“Gradually, and then suddenly,” Ernest Hemingway wrote in The Sun Also Rises about how a character goes bankrupt. The same could be said about totalitarianism in Russia. Dissident Alexei Navalny was poisoned; numerous journalists were forced out of Russia or killed; the human rights organization Memorial was banned. All of it looked gradual and even illogical, and then the sudden part happened after Russia invaded Ukraine again.

Putin has brought back totalitarianism, shades of which have not been seen since Stalin. Strict censorship is now the law. Those found guilty of spreading “fake news” about the war — meaning to report on the war as a war and an invasion as an invasion — can be sentenced to a 15-year prison term. Over 13,000 people have been arrested for anti-war activities since February 24, according to the website ovd.info. 

On February 25, the Public Sphere newsletter contained quotes from a Moscow friend on Facebook and Dmitry Muratov, 2021 Nobel Peace Prize winner and editor of Novaya Gazeta, speaking to the independent television channel Rain.

The following week, Facebook was blocked in Russia. Novaya Gazeta, which was one of the few outlets to report on the Russian invasion in Ukraine, deleted all of its Ukraine content. TV Rain announced it was shutting down. In its final broadcast, the channel played “Swan Lake” — a reference to when Soviet television played the ballet on loop during the 1991 coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev.

Over the past week, the pace of censorship in Russia has been dizzying. Twitter was blocked. The semi-independent Echo of Moscow radio station ceased broadcasting, having operated since the collapse of the Soviet Union. BBC News announced its journalists could no longer work in Russia and said it was returning to broadcasting on short-wave radio. The Washington Post announced it would no longer put bylines or datelines on its journalists’ work from Russia. Bloomberg halted its work inside Russia. Several foreign correspondents left Russia, and others have gone silent on Twitter.

Other Russians who were not believing the propaganda and feared that borders could be shuttered under martial law have fled the country. International flights by Russian airlines were canceled due to sanctions.  Other international flights were packed. Tickets to nearby foreign cities unaffected by sanctions like Yerevan, Armenia jumped tenfold in price, despite airlines adding capacity.  Some Russian men were extensively questioned by border guards about why they were leaving and whether they supported the war in Ukraine.   

Putin is destroying Ukraine in this war. Ukrainian authorities say that over 2,000 civilians have been killed. The Russian military has bombed significant critical infrastructure that will take years to rebuild. Over one million Ukrainians have fled the country, according to the U.N. However, Putin is also destroying Russia. The trauma on both sides of the border will last years.

It’s been obvious to me that Russia was becoming increasingly authoritarian in the last few years, in more repressive and violent ways. The way the political opposition has been treated, the open use of propaganda and foreign interference, journalists being killed, the poisoning of apostates in other nations, all of it has signaled not just a turn toward totalitarianism but a desire to project that image to the world. I suspect that the regime believed their oil reserves would keep the rest of the world in check (not to mention their nukes) and they may end up being right about that. But it’s been coming for a while. And now it’s here.

This is what he’s ranting about:

But he really should mellow out. It’s not like he’s lost Barr’s vote or anything:

Bill Barr, after saying that Trump lied about the election and caused the attack on Congress, refuses to rule out supporting Trump in 2024 because Democrats are "the greatest threat to the country." pic.twitter.com/2KFbz2c9cX

— John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) March 7, 2022

Philip Bump debunked Trump’s claims in that hysterical letter here, if you’re interested. I don’t have the energy today. Both these men are just so deeply broken.

Here’s the whole Today show interview:

https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1499438087134453762?s=20&t=XqoUhLfQcF-w3gJqXEuwTQ

This man leads the party that yelled “love it or leave it” to anyone who voiced the slightest criticism of the US for decades.

At a time when the world is watching a horrific war unfold before our very eyes in Europe, one might expect that a formal speech given by a former president of the United States would be a serious discussion of world events. And if it was a former president who was clearly intent upon running again it would seem to be imperative. To be sure, he might want to give a critique of the current president’s politics under those circumstances but they would be carefully considered and heavily couched in rhetoric of national unity, patriotism and support for America’s allies. For instance we can look back to a speech given by former vice president Al Gore after 9/11. The election results the previous year were very dubious and there was widespread anticipation that Gore might run again in a rematch in 2004. But beyond expressing support for President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath, Gore waited for three months before giving any extended remarks. He opened that speech with this:

A lot of people have let me know they wished I had been speaking out on public affairs long before now. But in the aftermath of a very divisive election, I thought it would be graceless to do so and possibly damaging to the nation. And then came September 11th.

Imagine that.

Gore went on to praise Bush’s handling of the Afghanistan operation and declared his loyalty to the country in the War on Terror, which seemed to be required in those first months. And there was plenty of jingoism too. But he also went on to give a thoughtful speech about the underlying causes of the problem and made the case for a holistic approach to dealing with the problem of terrorism:

“Draining the swamp” of terrorism must of course in the first instance mean destroying the ability of terrorist networks to function. But drying it up at its source must also mean draining the aquifer of anger that underlies terrorism: anger that enflames the hearts of so many young men, and makes them willing, dedicated recruits for terror. Anger at perceived historical injustices involving a mass-memory throughout the Islamic world of past glory and more recent centuries of decline and oppression at the hands of the West.

Like it or hate it, it was a sober, intelligent speech by the man a majority of Americans had voted to be president at that moment. There were no jokes, no whining about the lost election, no insults. It was the speech of a statesman, which anyone would expect from a former vice president and presidential candidate at such a serious time.

I know that for Americans the Ukraine war is not the equivalent of 9/11, although it certainly is for Ukrainians. But it’s a dangerous moment for the planet with a nuclear power testing the limits of the post-war international order and nuclear war being openly threatened. It’s already had an effect on the institutions and agreements we’ve depended upon for more than 75 years. European nations like Finland and Sweden are considering joining the NATO alliance for the first time, Switzerland has given up the neutrality and banking secrecy that defined it for many decades and both Germany and Japan are rapidly arming up.

The world order we’ve known has been under strain for some time. Trump’s turn as the leader of the United States accelerated the meltdown. This war in Ukraine may have finally forced world leaders to grapple with the consequences. This is not fun and games about “NATO dues” or ostentatious flattery and pageantry. This is serious business.

Unfortunately, the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, the front runner for the presidential nomination in 2024, the man who spent four years in the White House and should be expected to understand the stakes for the nation and the world at this juncture, simply cannot rise to the occasion.

Over the weekend (when he wasn’t dashing off angry letters to NBC’s Lester Holt complaining about former Attorney General Bill Barr) Donald Trump gave a major keynote speech to a group of deep pocketed GOP donors. Rather than take the opportunity to make a serious speech about foreign policy and national security, he gave a typical Donald Trump speech, which is to say (paraphrasing Joe Biden) a noun, a verb and rigged election. He did mention foreign policy but it was typically shallow and self-serving. The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey wrote it up:

Former president Donald Trump mused Saturday to the GOP’s top donors that the United States should label its F-22 planes with the Chinese flag and “bomb the s–t out of Russia.”

He also praised North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “seriously tough,” claimed he was harder on Vladimir Putin than any other president, reiterated his false claims that he won the 2020 election, urged his party to be “tougher” on supposed election fraud, disparaged a range of prominent party opponents and called global warming “a great hoax” that could actually bring a welcome development: more waterfront property.

I guess they all had a great time yukking it up about war and dictators. The crowd laughed at his sophomoric “joke” about bombing the shit out of Moscow thought it was hilarious when he said how much he admired North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s hold on his people who “sat at attention” saying he wanted his people to do the same. (That’s not the first time he’s said that.)

In the span of a week, Trump has gone from praising Putin as "smart" for moving ahead with a land invasion because the penalty was relatively small in Trump's view, to saying let's create a more extensive war in which we blame someone else. https://t.co/603F7QbymH

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) March 6, 2022

He also reiterated his tiresome trope that Putin would never have invaded Ukraine when he was in office while also saying that the U.S. should do much more to stop the carnage without offering what that might be. In other words, he could have been any average guy calling in to a right-wing talk radio show.

Again, this man was president of the United States just a little over a year ago and this is the best he can do in a moment of crisis? Of course, we watched his ridiculous antics during the pandemic but at that point we didn’t know for sure that he would attempt a coup, incite an insurrection and then spend the next few years plotting his revenge. Observing him after all that in this particular crisis, with the threat of WWIII hanging in the balance, is downright terrifying.

I would just offer up this little clue as to what we should expect in a second term. Trump won’t be hiring any swamp creatures, he will be hiring people like this man, whom he previously nominated to be the Ambassador to Germany and installed in a senior position in the Pentagon right after the election.

https://twitter.com/AlexeiArora/status/1500046333968896004?s=20&t=09TezBOSBI0nkX0KZAymfg

Imagine that fellow as the National Security Adviser. Actually, you don’t have to. Trump’s first choice for that job was Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is even nuttier than he is.

If we thought that Trump might have gained some wisdom from his four years as president, maybe the thought of him gaining the White House once more wouldn’t send chills down my spine. But he’s made it crystal clear, over and over again, that he is incapable of learning anything. Sadly, that seems to be what his followers love and admire about him. 

So, this is about as cynical as it gets. Asked to establish safe corridors for civilians fleeing the fighting in Ukraine to western Europe, Russia made an offer Ukraine could refuse (Washington Post):

Moscow’s proposed evacuation routes to Russia and Belarus are “unacceptable,” Ukraine said, insisting that civilians fleeing battle zones should be allowed to reach western Ukraine or European Union countries.

Russia announced six evacuation routes from several Ukrainian cities, including the capital, Kyiv, and hard-hit Kharkiv and Mariupol — four leading to either Russia or its ally, Belarus. Meanwhile, local Ukrainian leaders cast doubt on Russia’s claims of a temporary cease-fire, as Moscow’s forces continued to bombard areas across Ukraine. Russia, without providing evidence, accused Ukraine of breaking the cease-fires.

“We do not have confirmation at the moment that a cease-fire started … [or] is settled for this day,” Sergei Orlov, deputy mayor of the port city of Mariupol, told the BBC. He said it was difficult to collect information, given that the city has been without electricity, heat, water or phones for days and that Russian shelling continues. “The route is not safe,” he said.

BBC: Ukraine condemned this condition as “completely immoral”.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.