Skip to content

Month: March 2022

About that Latino vote

This polling on the Hispanic vote is a mixed bag but it does refute the conventional wisdom that the Democrats are massively losing Latinos. The numbers haven’t really changed much at all:

Heading into the 2022 midterm elections, Republicans have been riding a wave of positive press about their gains among Hispanic voters as Democrats fret about hemorrhaging support from the fast-growing demographic.

But while Democrats clearly have a problem, the GOP’s growing support among Latinos is less dramatic than some headlines suggest, according to a new poll conducted by a top Latino Democratic pollster and underwritten by a conservative Spanish-language network.

About 48 percent of Hispanics nationwide consider themselves Democrats, and only 23 percent identify as Republican, the poll found. Hispanic voters give President Joe Biden a positive job-approval rating, 48 percent to 29 percent, in contrast to disapproval of 54 percent to 44 percent among registered voters overall in the most recent NBC News poll.

By a margin of 10 percentage points, they said their opinion of the administration has improved in the past year, while a third said their opinion hasn’t changed.

But it’s not really a rosy result:

Still, the poll bears numerous warning signs for Democrats. By a double-digit margin, more Hispanic Democrats are considering leaving their party compared to Hispanic Republicans. Such potential party-switchers are mainly becoming independents or third-party voters — and they also tend to line up more with Republicans on some issues.

Overall, Hispanic voters are more likely than not to think the country is moving in the wrong direction, by a margin of 5 percentage points, according to the poll. Also by a margin of 5 percentage points, a majority agreed with the statement “The Democratic Party has been kidnapped by progressives.” Most opposed vaccination mandates. On each of these, independents aligned more with Republicans than Democrats.

“The results showed good news, but not great news, for the Republican Party and conservative candidates,” Jorge Arrizurieta, the president of the Americano network, wrote in a polling memo obtained by NBC News. 

“We confirmed what we thought might be true: Hispanic voters are moving toward the center-right, but continuing this trend will require engagement by the party and its candidates,” Arrizurieta wrote. “Republicans must show up in the Hispanic community.”

Arrizurieta and Americano officials wouldn’t comment on the poll. Neither would pollster Eduardo Gamarra, a Democrat and professor at Florida International University in Miami, who conducted the bilingual survey from Feb. 20 to March 11 of 1,500 Hispanics drawn from 15 Latino-heavy states. It reported a margin of error of +/- 3.5 points.

The poll, one of the largest samples of Hispanic voters taken in recent months, provides both a blueprint for conservative outreach efforts like Americano’s, as well as a more complete picture of the challenges both parties face in courting the demographic.

Chuck Rocha, a Texas-based Democrat who specializes in Latino outreach, said the poll confirms what he has seen nationwide: Republicans aren’t making massive gains.

But they don’t need to, Rocha said, because Hispanic voters are a part of the Democratic Party’s base, so the more Republicans eat into Latino margins — even if it’s just a few points — the more it can make a difference in state or congressional races in California, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada or Florida, where sizable Latino populations live.

“For the first 20 years of my 32-year career, Republicans didn’t spend a dime on Latinos in Spanish,” Rocha said. “But then they realized they can get 2, 3, 5 or 10 more points, and they’ve wised up, and Democrats were caught on their heels.”

Trump made a difference in 2020 but it’s unclear whether that will hold going forward:

That surprise came into sharp focus in 2020, when President Donald Trump improved his margins among Latino voters nationwide, compared to his performance in 2016. The gains were most notable along the Texas border, home to many Mexican Americans, and in Florida, which has a mix of Puerto Rican and Cuban American and other South and Central American voters.

Asked whether “the Republican Party today has become Donald Trump’s Party,” Hispanic voters agreed by 56 percent to 17 percent, the poll found.

I don’t know if that’s necessarily a positive for the GOP, actually. Some of those people may not think that’s such a great idea.

However:

Trump also marginally topped all other potential 2024 presidential candidates when respondents were asked an open-ended question about whom they would like to win the White House. Trump’s name was volunteered by 20 percent of respondents. Former first lady Michelle Obama was the second most named, at 19 percent, followed by Biden, at about 18 percent. 

“This is a more significant finding for Republicans,” pollster Eduardo Gamarra wrote in an executive summary of the survey he conducted, noting that apart from Trump, not a single candidate including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis “could muster over 10%.”

They named Michelle Obama just out of the blue? That’s interesting. But it’s also interesting that Trump and Biden are actually very close. If the Dems don’t ignore this part of their base they can stop the bleeding.

The King of Real America

In case you were wondering what the leader of the Republican Party and front-runner for the 2024 nomination has to say about current events:

Aaaaaand:

Mark Meadows has a problem

And it’s not just because he fraudulently voted in the 2020 election:

Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff and a national campaign spokesperson were involved in efforts to encourage the president’s supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That’s according to a person who says he overheard a key planning conversation between top Trump officials and the organizers of the Jan. 6 rally on the White House Ellipse — and has since testified to House investigators about the phone call.

Trump and his allies have tried to minimize his role in calling his supporters to the Capitol and argue he was simply participating in a lawful, peaceful demonstration.

Scott Johnston — who worked on the team that helped plan the Ellipse rally — says that’s just not so. He claims that leading figures in the Trump administration and campaign deliberately planned to have crowds converge on the Capitol, where the 2020 election was being certified — and “make it look like they went down there on their own.”

Johnston, who says he described the phone call to House select committee investigators, detailed his allegations in a series of conversations with Rolling Stone. Johnston says he overheard Mark Meadows, then-former President Trump’s chief of staff, and Katrina Pierson, Trump’s national campaign spokeswoman, talking with Kylie Kremer, the executive director of Women for America First, about plans for a march to the Capitol. Johnston said the conversation was clearly audible to him since it took place on a speakerphone as he drove Kremer between the group’s rallies in the final three days of 2020.

“They were very open about how there was going to be a march,” Johnston says. “Everyone knew there was going to be a march.”

According to Johnston, Meadows, Pierson, and Kremer discussed the possibility of setting up a permit to make the march from the White House to the Capitol official. He says the trio decided against officially permitting the march, citing concerns about security costs and about the optics of a sitting president organizing a push towards Congress as lawmakers certified his loss in the 2020 election. Ultimately, Johnston tells Rolling Stone, they planned to “direct the people down there and make it look like they went down there on their own.”

Kremer’s group, Women for America First, helped lead the Jan. 6 rally at the White House Ellipse, where Trump delivered a speech and told supporters to “fight like hell” and said he expected them to march on the Capitol. “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said. As Trump spoke, people began leaving the rally to walk toward the Capitol.

The president’s camp insists this wasn’t part of any pre-planned push. In the book where he recounted his time in the White House, Meadows called the Jan. 6 violence “the actions of a handful of fanatics across town.”

Johnston’s account suggests there was a deliberate strategy by Trump’s allies to have supporters descend on the Capitol. Such a connection would implicate top White House and campaign officials in drawing crowds to Congress without a permit — a step that could have required added security and may have allowed law enforcement to better prepare for the day’s events. Those crowds overwhelmed the Capitol police and engaged in an hours-long battle with law enforcement. Four people died during the attack.

Trump telling his frenzied crowd to march to the capitol was clearly pre-planned. And he said he would be with them because he knew they’d want to be there as he led them to this historic confrontation.

We knew they had contemplated it officially and decided not to get the permits. And for good reason. If they’d had permits, there would have been more security.

Get ready for the oldest political attack in the book

You would think after five years of the Republican standard-bearer telling anyone who will listen that the United States is “stupid” and that “the whole world is laughing at us” while kissing up to dictators and insulting U.S. allies, that members of the GOP would now be embarrassed to fall back on their old playbook of calling Democrats unpatriotic and soft of defense. But as we know, they are shameless so that isn’t something that would stop them.

As it stands, after a few weeks of confusion and disarray (which I wrote about here) — not really sure if their supporters’ adoration for that gorgeous hunk Vladimir Putin was so deeply felt that they would support the invasion of Ukraine — GOP leadership has mostly come around to the idea that Russia probably shouldn’t be ruthlessly murdering massive numbers of civilians. Being the timorous followers these leaders really are, they couldn’t just take a moral and principled stand at the outset, particularly since the leader of the party, Donald Trump, was out there saying that Putin was a genius and very savvy for just going in and taking the prime property he coveted. (Perhaps it reminded him of the good old days when he would take elderly widow’s land under eminent domain to build parking lots for his casinos.) But they needn’t have worried too much. The muscle memory of right-wing anti-communism is still viable in the GOP’s body politic. Advertisement:

A majority of Republican voters easily relinquished their love for the Russian president without really even knowing why. To GOP leadership’s relief, they found they were free to engage in bellicose denunciations of Putin without fear of offending their followers. Even Trump has moderated his support for his good buddy Vlad, although he’s so used to giving him props that they just slip out anyway. He told Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro this week:

You say, what’s the purpose of this? They had a country. You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love and we’re doing it because, you know, somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was when actually it didn’t work very well.

There was just so much love in the old Soviet Union and “somebody” just wanted to make his country larger and put it back the way it was. What’s the problem?

Although Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday claiming that there were only a few such “lonely voices,” there are still some pretty influential people making the case for Putin:

Nonetheless, Republicans have settled back into their comfortable groove of calling Democrats a bunch of weak sisters who don’t know how to defend the country or lead the world. If there’s one thing they can all agree on, it’s that.

Former Republican ad man Rick Wilson, one of the most brutal of all of them, sounded the alarm about how that’s going to play out as we launch into the midterm election season. He wrote in the Washington Post that it won’t be pretty:

[The GOP] wants to play the most beloved game in the GOP playbook: that the Democrats are weak on defense. In my decades as a GOP ad maker and strategist, I made some pretty notorious ads about it. And I can tell you they work.

Democrats too often miss the optics and politics of foreign policy, hoping good choices will outweigh the dark, emotional games Republicans like to play when it comes to national security. Republicans specialize at turning Democratic successes overseas into disasters. It’s a slow-burn strategy designed to trigger an outrage culture that doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. GOP leaders don’t care about reality; their audience doesn’t care about the truth, and their political media apparatus always stays on message.

Donald Trump bungled the 2020 negotiations ending the war in Afghanistan, freeing the Taliban at scale and setting a date certain for U.S. withdrawal. When Biden stuck with that commitment to exit, Republicans leveraged the inevitable chaos in Kabul into a cataclysmic political fable; if only the weak Democrats had held on for another year, victory was ensured.

Similarly, the terrorist attack on the Benghazi facilities in 2012 was another faux scandal-in-a-box because it gave Republicans — me included — a populist tale to be weaponized, embedded in the right’s mythos and deployed repeatedly. I distinctly recall being in a focus group that year and watching the pollster tease from participants how Benghazi could be used to offset the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden under Barack Obama and transformed into a political millstone for Hillary Clinton.

Recall that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy helped blow his chance to become Speaker of the House when he went on TV and admitted the GOP’s plan to exploit Benghazi for political gain:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”

And think about John Kerry, a decorated war hero who was painted as a cowardly liar who faked his record. The GOP conventioneers all wore purple band-aids on their faces to mock him. Wilson lays out exactly how Republicans are going to do the same with Ukraine:

[T]he GOP will soon try to flank Biden on Ukraine. Some, like Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), will try to box him in on a no-fly zone — ignoring the negative externality of a nuclear exchange — while others will push him further than he wants on lethal aid to Ukraine. Win or lose, the GOP will declare that Biden blew his main chance. Even many sober foreign policy thinkers in the GOP will try to leverage Democratic “weakness” in Ukraine in the 2022 elections.

Sadly, this will end up folding very neatly into their pre-existing narrative that Biden is a doddering old fool who can barely tie his shoes.

The latest Pew poll shows that large majorities of both parties support Biden’s leadership in gathering allies to put pressure on Russia and support Ukraine and most are in favor of the sanctions even if it means some personal sacrifice. At the moment, only a third would back a no-fly zone even if it risks nuclear war (which it would.) So, it would seem that Democrats are in a strong position. But they must remember what Wilson says: “GOP leaders don’t care about reality; their audience doesn’t care about the truth, and their political media apparatus always stays on message.”

Biden’s leadership has been steady and stalwart but the “Democrats are a bunch of weak-kneed wimps” is a powerful meme in American politics. I hope they are prepared for it this time. 

Salon

“Bombs are falling every 10 minutes”

A CNN dispatch from about 6:20 a.m. EDT this morning carries the headline above:

Mariupol came under further heavy bombardment overnight, according to a Ukrainian officer inside the city.

“Bombs are falling every 10 minutes; Russian navy warships are shelling. Yesterday the soldiers defused four tanks, [as well as] armored vehicles and troops. We still need ammunition, anti-tank weapons and air defense,” Captain Svyatoslav Palamar of the National Guard Azov Regiment in Mariupol told CNN.

Palamar said he and his fellow fighters would not surrender in Mariupol.

Some background: The Russian-issued deadline for Mariupol authorities to surrender the city passed at 5 a.m. Moscow (10 p.m. ET Sunday), with Ukrainians rejecting the ultimatum.

The port city of Mariupol, which before the war was home to around 450,000 people, has been under near constant attack from Russian forces since early March with satellite images showing significant destruction to residential areas.

The fog of war grows thicker as more Ukrainians flee the Russian invaders. Communications grow sketchier and independent reporters fewer. Russian war propoganda is more ham-fisted, but Ukraine, led by the head of a media company, has its own, and it is savvier. As destruction rains down, it becomes harder and harder to verify the real from the information warfare.

When news came that Russia had bombed a theater in Mariupol where perhaps a thousand civilians sheltered, I refreshed news sites for hours for word of survivors and found none. Only the same sketchy statements from two or three government spokespersons recycled in dispatch after dispatch. For days. Statements that a few survivors were rescued, but no news photos of them, or names, or rescuers’ efforts as we had seen from reporters on the ground after the bombing of the Mariupol maternity hospital a week earlier. It would have made excellent pro-Ukraine propaganda. So were the accounts exaggerated or not? Certainly fighting in the city had intensified and battles in the streets hampered rescue efforts. Five days later, however many were sheltering inside are likely entombed. No one is coming to save them.

News that Russia bombed a Mariupol art school sheltering 400 is more of the same. “The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.” “Hundreds might be dead, the mayor said, but some of those sheltering at the school could have fled ahead of the bombing along evacuation routes that have opened up.” Were there dead and wounded or was the school empty? No news of survivors’ rescue there either. Their fate may be sealed. Mariupol authorities claims Russians forcibly deported” several thousand residents to Russia. “Reuters could not independently verify the claims.

So it goes.

The New York Times this morning offers some advice before recirculating what could be war propaganda from either side. “Experts in misinformation say everyone has a responsibility to pause and do a bit of work to verify content before sharing it,” writes Daniel Victor, “even if it would benefit the side you support in a conflict.” He continues:

Here are some quick red flags to think about before you share:

    • Are they verified? On Twitter, Instagram or Facebook, many people, including journalists, have blue check marks next to their names to indicate their identities have been confirmed. These accounts make mistakes, too, and good information can come from people who are not verified, but the absence of a check could give you a reason to look for other red flags and pause before hitting that retweet button. Also be wary of parody or impostor accounts.Even when you come across verified accounts, look for hints that they have some reason to know what they’re telling you: Are they reporters on the ground or researchers who have studied the area? Or are they a celebrity having the same quick-twitch reaction you’re trying to avoid?
    • Beware TwitterBot120362824. A user name consisting of a noun followed by a long series of numbers is often a sign that an account has been created inauthentically, Dr. Donovan said. A brand-new account with few prior or unrelated tweets or a low follower count might be a sign to move along.

When an Instagram post seems a bit desperate for engagement, adding unrelated hashtags that might be popular like #catoftheday, it’s likely the post is coming from a disreputable place, Dr. Donovan said.

If you do a quick web search and can’t find any news articles about what you’re seeing, it’s possible you could be looking at miscaptioned images from a previous war, Dr. Wardle said. If you’re feeling especially Sherlockian, you can search for the original source of a viral image yourself.

In one recent example, a 2012 video of a Palestinian girl confronting Israeli soldiers was widely recirculated by people suggesting it happened in Ukraine.

Many news organizations have special teams to fact-check or debunk claims that spread during high-intensity news moments. ReutersThe Associated Press, the BBC and Agence France-Presse all have dedicated hubs that you can check first to see if that post you’re about to share was debunked days ago.

Scammers prey on creating emotional responses and might say they’re raising funds for victims. Carefully look into any organization you’re tempted to donate to or post about by using a site like Charity Navigator to ensure it is legitimate.

I’m using Charity Navigator for that purpose. Note, however, that some pop-up war relief efforts inside Ukraine have not been around long enough to earn any rating. That’s on you to suss out.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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.

Putin’s Rovian move

Timothy Snyder’s 2018 “The Road to Unfreedom,” referenced here and here (I have not read it yet), formed the basis of Mehdi Hasan’s monologue last night on MSNBC. Snyder traces Vladimir Putin’s worldview to Ivan Ilyin (died 1954) who imagined “a Russian Christian fascism.” Snyder argues that Ilyin is Putin’s muse. Putin cites him frequently. “By 2014, the Kremlin was sending copies of Ilyin’s writings to regional governors as well as Russian civil servants,” Hasan continues.

Putin’s recent Moscow rally and rhetoric, Hasan argues, is a far worse incarnation of the authoritarian modern Republican Party led by Donald Trump. Ukraine is under attack now because, as Snyder wrote in 2018, “Putin has used Ilyin’s ideas about geopolitics to portray Ukraine, Europe, and the United States as existential dangers to Russia.”

After Ukrainian President Zelensky’s speech to the Israeli lawmakers, Hasan wrote to his Twitter critics, “[Y]ou don’t have to like Zelenskyy, agree with his pro-Israeli politics, or every word of his speech, to stand with Ukrainians against Russian aggression & my main objection is to the nonsensical ‘NATO imposed this war’ line. That’s indefensible, sorry.”

Putin apologists on the right see Putin as a standard-bearer for white nationalism. Apologists on the left see Russia as a victim and the U.S. as an insistent aggressor. European Union and NATO expansion forced Putin to invade Ukraine the way a perceived slight “forces” an abusive husband to beat his wife and kids. In this view, expanding the North Atlantic defense alliance is imperialism, weirdly defined, and Ukraine’s desire to join both coerced by Western puppet masters.

Striking in those arguments is any the lack of agency on the part of Europeans who, for economic and security reasons, see advantage in joining both. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine proves the latter.

No sooner had the Baltic States regained their independence than they sought security from invasion in NATO membership. President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia said in 2002 that the main impulse for joining the alliance was “the fact that you can go to bed and not worry about somebody knocking on the door and putting you on a train for Siberia” (Washington Post, 2002):

Latvians regard NATO as a “security blanket,” as a top Western diplomat here put it, and a means to separate themselves once and for all from Russia. Their constant frame of reference is World War II, when first the Soviets, then the Germans, then the Soviets again swallowed up the Baltics. “NATO has given security for people since the end of World War II,” said Girts Valdis Kristovskis, the Latvian defense minister. “More than anyone, we understand how important this is.”

Ethnic Russian were more reluctant, Susan B. Glasser found.

“Latvia will become a slave state again,” said Svetlana Khristicha, an ethnic Russian. The only difference, she said, is that this time “it will have to submit to NATO.”

Nonetheless the Baltic States sought stronger ties to Europe.

A Talking Points Memo reader JI from Finland wrote (subscription) to comment on Europe’s latest land war. While he does not call out Karl Rove, he suggests Putin has tried to weaken NATO in Rovian fashion by attacking NATO’s strongest member:

In short, I see your role for the Russians as a tool, as a rebound board, or as a western backdoor to Europe.

Since Western Europe and the USA together (in the form of NATO and otherwise) has been too strong for Russia to expand, and since the USA is the greatest military backup fortress of NATO/Europe, they simply circumvented Europe and went to the core of the power using the kitchen door, the internal political structure of the USA.

I understand you would like to see your heroic country as the navel of the world and as the main focus of any operation, but I am sorry to inform that, in this case, you are only cheap tools. You had to be weakened (and Britain manipulated to Brexit etc) in order to facilitate invasions to Ukraine, Belarussia and a list of other neighboring pieces of land in Putin’s future Menu.

How to do that?

They professionally built an operation web among the rural redneck cowboys, evangelical christians, the NRA, the most republican of all republicans, your law enforcement, some military people, big business etc etc. They popped up to the surface from within the “core americans”, but their long dive before that was planned and had started from the Kremlin’s operation board.

On January 6, Trump’s authoritarian GOP nearly succeeded. “It was no coincidence that some crucial (and criminal) incidents of the Trump term had to do with the Ukraine,” writes JI. “It was one of Putin’s main targets already then. Trump was because of Ukraine, not vice versa!” The problem now for the U.S. is that no one has held him/them to account, he ends, frustrated:

So, if you really want to do something for the Ukraine, for the Europe and to any other decent country or person, please also Do. Your. Own. Homework! Show to both your home audience and to the rest of the world that also the western flank of Putin’s army, the one located in your country, is kept accountable! No special treatment, just f**king enforce your old existing laws to ultra-rich/influential white dudes, as well! You are just tools, but you are very important tools for Putin also in the European front. Don’t let him use you.

As social media feeds reveal, many on the “dark cloud in every silver lining” left are lining up to be used as well, advocating fierce accountability for Trump and not so much for Putin. But it is also plain to see why a Russian Christian fascism attractes politically and culturally threatened conservatives in the U.S.

Ilyin, wote Snyder, “made of lawlessness a virtue so pure as to be invisible, and so absolute as to demand the destruction of the West. He shows us how kleptocrats feign innocence, fragile masculinity generates enemies, how a perverted Christianity denies mercy, and how fascist ideas flow into modern media. This is no longer just Russian philosophy. It is now American life.”

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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 Fox. Let’s not kid ourselves.

This piece about the alleged “rebellion” among parents is very instructive:

Tucked into a New Yorker article by Jill Lepore about the spate of school board fights over just about everything was a statistic that caught my eye. Despite all the ink spilled lately about clashes over maskingcritical race theory and which books to assign (or ban), American parents are happy overall with their children’s education. Lepore explains:

In “Making Up Our Mind: What School Choice Is Really About,” the education scholars Sigal R. Ben-Porath and Michael C. Johanek point out that about nine in 10 children in the United States attend public school, and the overwhelming majority of parents — about eight in 10 — are happy with their kids’ schools.

Though I am quite happy with my children’s public school, am surrounded by parents who are mostly happy with their kids’ public schools and, when I was a kid, attended a public school that my parents were basically happy with, I was still surprised the number was that high.

I would have thought that the latest numbers about parental satisfaction might be lower because of all the pandemic-related chaos. But according to Gallup, which has tracked school satisfaction annually since 1999, in 2021, “73 percent of parents of school-aged children say they are satisfied with the quality of education their oldest child is receiving.” More parents were satisfied in 2021 than they were in 2013 and 2002, when satisfaction dipped into the 60s, and in 2019, we were at a high point in satisfaction — 82 percent — before the Covid pandemic dealt schools a major blow.

Digging deeper into the Gallup numbers revealed that the people who seem to be driving the negative feelings toward American schools do not have children attending them: Overall, only 46 percent of Americans are satisfied with schools. Democrats, “women, older adults and lower-income Americans are more likely than their counterparts to say they are satisfied with K-12 education,” Gallup found. My hypothesis is that it’s a bit like the adage about Congress: People tend to like their own representatives (that’s why they keep sending them back year after year) but tend to have a dim view of Congress overall.

Polling done by the Charles Butt Foundation shows a similar dynamic playing out in Texas, a state where book bans have been well publicized and an anti-critical race theory bill was signed into law in December. The third annual poll, which was of 1,154 Texas adults, found:

The share of public school parents giving their local public schools an A or B grade is up 12 percentage points in two years to 68 percent in the latest statewide survey on public education by the Charles Butt Foundation. In contrast with the increase among parents, there’s a decline in school ratings among those without a child currently enrolled in K-12 schools. Forty-eight percent of nonparents now give their local public schools A’s and B’s, versus 56 percent a year ago.

This isn’t to say that our education system, broadly speaking, is humming along perfectly. There are so many ways it can improve, particularly in serving students in schools with higher poverty rates and those with physical disabilities and learning differences. But it does mean that we should take stories with a grain of salt when they present the American education system as a fact-free zone, no longer focused on teaching the basics, that parents are or should be fleeing from in any significant or sustained way.

As the Gallup polling also showed, home-schooling is back to its prepandemic rate of 4 percent, and data from the National Center for Education Statistics found that by far the steepest drops in public school enrollment during the 2020-21 school year were among children in pre-K or kindergarten. These kids likely will not be away from public schools permanently; their start was merely delayed.

It should also make us a bit more reflective about election results that are framed as a result of displeasure with schools. TargetSmart, which bills itself as a Democratic political data and data services firm, analyzed records showing who voted in Virginia’s 2021 gubernatorial election, which has been touted as a win for the Republican, Glenn Youngkin, that was based on unhappiness over the way the previously Democratic-led state handled the pandemic in schools.

TargetSmart found:

Turnout among voters age 75 or older increased by 59 percent, relative to 2017, while turnout among voters under age 30 only increased by just 18 percent. Notably, turnout of all other age groups combined (18-74), which would likely include parents of school-aged children, only increased by 9 percent compared to 2017 … This “silver surge” is an untold story that fundamentally undermines the conventional wisdom that Covid-19 protocols in schools and fears about critical race theory in curriculum determined the outcome of the election.

All of this at least raises the question of whether some of the people driving the outrage, even animus, against schools might not have much skin in the game and might not have any recent experience with teachers or curriculum. As we head into the midterms, at the very least we should resist easy conclusions about who is angry about what’s happening in our public schools and whether it has anything to do with the reality of what’s going on day to day for millions of children and their families.

Yes, there are some loud-mouthed Trumper parents making scenes at school board meetings. But they are not representative of voters any more than the people screaming “lock her up” at Trump rallies represent the majority of Americans.

The fact that voters over the age of 75 surged in the off-year elections suggests to me that this is the Fox effect more than anything. These aren’t even boomers. They’re older than that! The media needs to be more discerning before they jump on these narratives. It’s laziness as much as anything and also a desire for conflict which we have more than enough of already, thank you. I hope they are reading these polls.

Effective inspiration

War propaganda has been with us forever. But I have to say that Zelensky and the Ukrainians are doing a masterful job of using social media and modern methods to keep their allies on board. This is very effective:

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1505583211702886411

I guess it all depends on your perspective but I think it’s smart to not just hit the grotesque consequences of war but give people the vision of a better future. This does both.

It helps to have a professional performer for something like this. Zelensky is very talented.

This is a journalist?

Project Veritas ratfucker James O’Keefe calls himself a journalist. If he is, English must not be his native language.

Here’s the story from the NY Times O’Keefe was responding to in the quote above:

A month before the 2020 election, Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s daughter, Ashley, received a call from a man offering help. Striking a friendly tone, the man said that he had found a diary that he believed belonged to Ms. Biden and that he wanted to return it to her.

Ms. Biden had in fact kept a diary the previous year as she recovered from addiction and had stored it and some other belongings at a friend’s home in Florida where she had been living until a few months earlier. The diary’s highly personal contents, if publicly disclosed, could prove an embarrassment or a distraction to her father at a critical moment in the campaign.

She agreed with the caller to send someone to retrieve the diary the next day.

But Ms. Biden was not dealing with a good Samaritan.

The man on the other end of the phone worked for Project Veritas, a conservative group that had become a favorite of President Donald J. Trump, according to interviews with people familiar with the sequence of events. From a conference room at the group’s headquarters in Westchester County, N.Y., surrounded by other top members of the group, the caller was seeking to trick Ms. Biden into confirming the authenticity of the diary, which Project Veritas was about to purchase from two intermediaries for $40,000.

The caller did not identify himself as being affiliated with Project Veritas, according to accounts from two people with knowledge of the conversation. By the end of the call, several of the group’s operatives who had either listened in, heard recordings of the call or been told of it believed that Ms. Biden had said more than enough to confirm that it was hers.

The new details of Project Veritas’s effort to establish that the diary was Ms. Biden’s are elements of a still-emerging story about how Trump supporters and a group known for its undercover sting operations worked to expose personal information about the Biden family at a crucial stage of the 2020 campaign.

Drawn from interviews, court filings and other documents, the new information adds further texture to what is known about an episode that has led to a criminal investigation of Project Veritas by federal prosecutors who have suggested they have evidence that the group was complicit in stealing Ms. Biden’s property and in transporting stolen goods across state lines.

And by showing that Project Veritas employed deception rather than traditional journalistic techniques in the way it approached Ms. Biden — the caller identified himself with a fake name — the new accounts could further complicate the organization’s assertions in court filings that it should be treated as a publisher and granted First Amendment protections. Project Veritas regularly carries out undercover stings, surveillance operations and ambush interviews, mostly against liberal groups and journalists.

At the same time, new information about the case suggests that the effort to make the diary public reached deeper into Mr. Trump’s circle than previously known.

A month before the call to Ms. Biden, the diary had been passed around a Trump fund-raiser in Florida at the home of a donor who helped steer the diary to Project Veritas and was later nominated by Mr. Trump to the National Cancer Advisory Board. Among those attending the event was Donald Trump Jr., though it is not clear if he examined it.

Project Veritas is a criminal enterprise. We know this because James O’Keefe, the founder, has been convicted of illegally entering government property under false pretenses. The charge came in the midst of an “undercover operation” at then-Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) New Orleans office. He got 3 years probation. And there is ample evidence that he and his crew are anything but “journalists.”

Anyway, he’s in trouble again for being a rat-fucking, dirty trickster because that’s what he is. And he appears to have broken the law again:

Federal prosecutors have been investigating how Project Veritas obtained the diary, and last fall carried out searches at the homes of three of the group’s operatives, including that of its founder, James O’Keefe. In court filings, prosecutors have suggested that the organization was complicit in the theft of some of Ms. Biden’s other belongings, which interviews show the group obtained as it was seeking to confirm the diary’s authenticity.

Project Veritas — which is suing The New York Times for defamation in an unrelated case — has denied any wrongdoing or knowledge that the belongings had been stolen. It has portrayed itself as a media organization that is being unfairly investigated for simply doing journalism and has assailed the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for their handling of the case.

Prosecutors have signaled that they view the circumstances very differently, all but dismissing in one court filing the group’s defense that it was acting as a news organization, saying that “there is no First Amendment protection for the theft and interstate transport of stolen property.”

[…]

The Times has previously reported that the story of Project Veritas’s involvement with the diary began in the months leading up to Election Day.

In July 2020, a single mother of two moved into the rented home of a former boyfriend in Delray Beach, Fla. The woman, Aimee Harris, a Trump supporter, told the former boyfriend that she had little money, had nowhere to live and was in a bitter custody dispute. Shortly after moving into the rental, Ms. Harris learned that Ms. Biden — also a friend of the former boyfriend — had been staying at the home earlier that year during the pandemic.

Ms. Biden had moved back to the Philadelphia area in June 2020, around the time her father clinched the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. She stored a couple of bags of her belongings at the rental house along with her diary, and she told her friend, who was leasing the home, that she planned to return to retrieve her things in the fall.

In August, Ms. Harris reached out to Robert Kurlander, a friend who had been sentenced to 40 months in prison in the 1990s on a federal fraud charge and had expressed anti-Biden sentiments online, to say she had found the diary. The two believed they could sell it, allowing Ms. Harris to help pay for the lawyers representing her in the custody dispute.

New details from interviews and documents have further fleshed out what happened next. Mr. Kurlander contacted Elizabeth Fago, the Trump donor who would host the fund-raiser attended by Donald Trump Jr. When first told of the diary, Ms. Fago said she thought it would help Mr. Trump’s chances of winning the election, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Richard G. Lubin, a lawyer for Ms. Fago, declined to comment.

On Sept. 3, Ms. Fago’s daughter alerted Project Veritas about the diary through its tip line.

Three days later, Ms. Harris and Mr. Kurlander — with the diary in hand — attended the fund-raiser attended by Donald Trump Jr. at Ms. Fago’s house in Jupiter, Fla., to see whether the president’s re-election campaign might be interested in it. While there, Mr. Kurlander showed others the diary. It is unclear who saw it.

After the criminal investigation into Project Veritas became public last fall, a prominent Republican lawyer who was lobbying on behalf of the organization and Mr. O’Keefe briefed a group of congressional Republicans on the case, to urge them to try to persuade the Justice Department to back off the investigation because the group did nothing wrong, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The lawyer, Mark Paoletta, said that upon learning about the diary at the fund-raiser, Donald Trump Jr. showed no interest in it and said that whoever was in possession of it should report it to the F.B.I. But shortly thereafter Mr. Paoletta, who had served as Vice President Mike Pence’s top lawyer in the White House, called back the congressional Republicans to say he was unsure whether the account about Donald Trump Jr.’s reaction was accurate.

Lobbying filings show that Mr. Paoletta was paid $50,000 during the last two months of last year to inform members of Congress about the F.B.I. raid on Mr. O’Keefe. Mr. Paoletta and a lawyer for Donald Trump Jr. did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Once Project Veritas learned about the diary in early September, the group sought to acquire it. About a week after the fund-raiser, Ms. Harris and Mr. Kurlander flew to New York with the diary. The pair met with several Project Veritas operatives at a hotel on Manhattan’s West Side.

The two sides began negotiating an agreement, but no final deal was struck at that stage and Ms. Harris and Mr. Kurlander returned to Florida. In response to questions about what Project Veritas may have asked him to do to help authenticate the diary, Mr. Kurlander, through his lawyer, Jonathan Kaplan, declined to comment.

But Project Veritas had to confront tricky questions: Was the diary really Ashley Biden’s, and not a fake or a setup? How could Project Veritas, best known for its undercover sting operations, be sure it was not a victim of its own deceptive tactics?

To authenticate the diary, one of Mr. O’Keefe’s top lieutenants, Spencer Meads, was dispatched to Florida to do more investigative work.

What happened next is a matter of dispute and one of the major issues in the investigation. Project Veritas has said in court filings that its operatives obtained additional items belonging to Ms. Biden that their “sources” had described as “abandoned,” suggesting that it had no knowledge of any theft and that it had gotten access to Ms. Biden’s belongings in the same way that journalists receive information.

The sources arranged to meet the Project Veritas journalist in Florida soon thereafter to give the journalist additional abandoned items,” lawyers for the group wrote in a federal court filing.

Project Veritas’s lawyers had long instructed its operatives that encouraging or incentivizing sources to steal documents or items could ensnare the group in a crime. In a memo to Mr. O’Keefe in 2017, one of the group’s lawyers concluded: “Under controlling precedent, PV enjoys substantial legal protections to report and disclose material that may have been illegally obtained provided it played no part in obtaining it.”

But at least one of the “sources” told others that a Project Veritas operative had asked them whether they could retrieve more items from the home that could help show that the diary belonged to Ms. Biden, according to a person with knowledge of the exchange. Additional items were then taken out of the home and given to the operative, one of the sources has told others.

In response to assertions from Project Veritas that it had done nothing wrong and that its role in the case was protected by the First Amendment, prosecutors accused the group in court filings of making unsworn statements that are either “false or misleading and are directly contradicted by the evidence.” They also stated that even a legitimate news organization would have no First Amendment defense for acquiring material through theft or another crime.

“Put simply, even members of the news media ‘may not with impunity break and enter an office or dwelling to gather news,’” prosecutors said.

Without citing specific evidence, prosecutors directly challenged one argument from Project Veritas in particular: the group’s “repeated claim that they had ‘no involvement’ in how the victim’s property was ‘acquired.’”

The plan for Ms. Biden to have a friend retrieve the diary from the person who called her in early October fell through. And the accounts that Project Veritas has laid out in court papers and to the local police in Florida about how it obtained the diary and dealt with it in the final weeks leave open questions about how the events played out.

Project Veritas told a federal judge that on Oct. 12, Mr. O’Keefe sent an email telling his team that he had made the decision not to publish a story about the diary, adding, “We have no doubt the document is real” but that reactions to its publication would be “characterized as a cheap shot.” The date provided by Mr. O’Keefe for the email was shortly after the call to Ms. Biden.

But four days after Mr. O’Keefe told his staff that it would not publish the diary, a top lawyer for Project Veritas told Mr. Biden’s campaign that it had the diary and wanted to interview Mr. Biden on camera about it, The Times reported in December.

Less than a week after that, Project Veritas finalized a deal with Mr. Kurlander and Ms. Harris to buy the rights to publish the diary for $40,000, wired them the money and signaled that the group planned to soon publish it, according a person with knowledge of the case.

In the end, Project Veritas chose not to publish. Instead, an obscure right-wing website published the diary in late October, but it got little attention before the election. Mr. O’Keefe was furious, and some within Project Veritas thought that one of its own operatives, frustrated with the group’s unwillingness to publish the diary, had leaked it.

Project Veritas decided to have one of its operatives take the diary and Ms. Biden’s other belongings back to Florida.

According to a Delray Beach Police Department report, a lawyer showed up at the department and gave the items to an officer. The lawyer, according to police body camera footage, said the items were “possibly stolen.”

The police alerted the F.B.I., which had an agent retrieve Ms. Biden’s diary and other belongings. Almost a year later, the F.B.I. approached Ms. Harris and Mr. Kurlander.

About two weeks later, F.B.I. agents obtained search warrants to raid the homes of Mr. O’Keefe and two of his operatives: Mr. Meads and Eric Cochran, both of whom left the organization after the diary project. In the case of Mr. Meads, his lawyer said the F.B.I. broke down his apartment door. Court documents indicate that the F.B.I. seized 47 devices, including a dozen phones from Mr. Meads.

O’Keefe’s operation is not journalism! They are political operatives. And they are criminals. I can’t believe this is even a question. It’s one thing for them to be out there saying they are just doing “oppo research” as a form of ugly ratfucking, but they are not journalists.

I don’t know where this is going but if the fed have the goods on these scumbags I hope they throw the book at them. They’re disgusting.