Month: July 2022

Is he being too optimistic? I hope not

Even this optimistic view has Ukraine suffering unimaginable horrors for some time to come. It’s a nightmare. Putin is a nightmare:

It seems to me, from a distance, that Putin’s rule is weakening.  We now regularly hear from people aside from Putin (for example former prime minister and president Dmitry Medvedev) about the meaning of the war, the catastrophic consequences that await Ukraine and the West, and so forth.  This is interesting, because it seems like a sign that Putin is losing control.

Usually the news coverage of such pronouncements focuses on their content. When Medvedev tells us that the war is Poland’s fault, or that Ukraine is a Jewish conspiracy, or that this or that action will lead to dreadful consequences, we pay attention.  He is playing to a news cycle organized around fear.  But the deeper story, I think, is that he and other people aside from Putin now feel authorized to make such colorful proclamations.  Before the war there was less of this.

The doom propaganda serves a couple of purposes.  On the surface, it shows (or rather seems to show) loyalty to Putin.  At a time when Russia is losing the war, the best hope is to convince the West that Russia is somehow unstoppable — which it isn’t.  Russia has had to pull back, just in this war, from a great deal of Ukrainian territory. Its forces in the south are in an unenviable situation right now. Russian history, like American history, is littered with defeat in war. 

At the same time, the doom propaganda is rhetorical preparation for a power struggle after Putin falls.  If Russia loses the war, the people saying radical things now will have protected themselves.  For my part, I tend to see the drastic proclamations as evidence that important Russians (Medvedev, also Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov) understand that Russia can lose wars, and is losing this one.  

I am not convinced that Medvedev, who for years was seen as the liberal alternative to Putin, believes the anti-Ukrainian, antisemitic, anti-Polish, and anti-Western hate speech he publishes on his Telegram channel.  He is creating a profile that might be useful after Putin (just as his technocrat profile was once useful to Putin). Lavrov’s bluster has a similar feel. He doesn’t want to left out of the chorus of celebration of atrocity, but he can’t be bothered to make sense. His recent claim that Russia must annex any territory from which any weapon could reach Russia implies that Russia must keep expanding until it controls the entire surface of the earth.

Another interesting example is Ramzan Kadyrov, who has run Chechnya as his own personal satrapy since he helped Putin win the Second Chechen War.  Kadyrov commands a kind of personal armed guard that appears alongside the Russian army in its foreign wars.

In Ukraine, Kadyrov has spoken of the need to take Kyiv, and then has seemed hesitant to risk his men for the less prestigious goals available to the Russian offensive at the moment.  According the Russian statistics, Chechen casualties are among the lowest of all the regions, which would be odd, given the presence in Ukraine of a specifically Chechen force.  From the perspective of Kadyrov’s own interests, though, this would makes sense.  His men have to be present in Ukraine, because for now he must seem loyal.  But for him it is more important that they be available for a future power struggle in a post-Putin Russia.

It does seem that his mind is now on the future.  Kadyrov now proposes that Russia locate air defense systems in Chechnya.  His justification is that Ukraine might attack Chechnya, which is not at all credible.  He has also announced that a new battalion raised in Chechnya to fight in Ukraine will instead remain in Chechnya.  It sounds more like he is preparing for a post-Putin Russia in which Chechnya would claim independence.  

Another sign of weakness for Putin is the army itself.  The argument over whether Russia is winning or losing can be made in military terms.  But the army itself is a source of Putin’s political strength.  The claim of its eternal invincibility is a consistent element of Putin’s own propaganda.

Russians might think that Russia is winning the war.  But out there in the real world, on Ukrainian territory, the Russian army is taking losses, in equipment and in officers, that threaten its integrity as an institution, not to mention its ability to fulfil its many other missions beyond Ukraine.  

Sanctions make this worse.  A world-class army is not one that goes hunting in Teheran for drones reverse-engineered from Western technology.  But that is where Russia is right now.  Putin can survive the army not being strong.  But at a certain point, not being strong becomes not looking strong.  Putin’s power is based upon an image; by choosing to fight an actual war, he has made illusion hostage to reality.

The Russian army is also taking horrible losses in men, which suggests the next sign of Putin’s weakness.  The Russian state is not designed for a war of this kind.  It looks fascist at the top, but it lacks the fascist capacity for total war.  Its daily power arises from the demobilization of its population, not its mobilization.  The old communist joke went “we pretend to work and you pretend to pay us.”  In Russia today the reality is something more like “you pretend to win a war and we pretend to show enthusiasm.”

Putin seems afraid that a general mobilization would undo his popularity and bring down his regime.  The dramatic rhetoric on Russian television and on the Telegram channels of Russian leaders is thus rather a substitute for than evidence of a national consensus about the war.  So long as everyone says nationalistic things, a certain equilibrium is preserved.  But this amounts to everyone bluffing everyone else.

The equilibrium that keeps Putin in power — mastery over rivals, soft support in the population,  the integrity of the army — is challenged by the realities of an unpredictable, costly war.  Putin has been good at keeping us all in a fog.  But now he himself seems lost in the fog of war.  

No one can say what exactly is happening inside the Kremlin.  But a general predicament does seem clear.  The trap laid before Putin (willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously) by rivals, by the public, and by the army looks like this: we will all agree with you that we are winning the war — and we will all have no one to blame but you if Russia loses it.  This is all quite vague, half-unsaid, clouded by emotion, displacement, taboo, and fear.  But it is the general picture.  And in its fundamentals the trap was laid by Putin himself.

No one can say how power will change hands in Russia, or what the next stage in Putin’s rule will be like. Personally, I don’t imagine that the weakening of Putin’s rule has to lead to the dramatic coup scenarios that people envisioned at the beginning of the war (though they are possible, if Putin lets the war go on too long).  Nor do I expect that a moment will come when Putin will decide that doing something drastic on the battlefield will save him, which it wouldn’t.  It would also amount to an open admission of defeat, which he has to avoid. What I expect instead is something much more banal: that Putin’s voice will count for less and less as the war goes on, and that he will at some point have to decide whether pursuing it is worth risking his position. 

This is really frightening

I don’t know why, but this terrifies me as much as anything they’ve done. It’s one thing to try to take over school boards but taking over hospitals is life and death:

When his blood oxygen dropped to what he described as a critically low level in September, Victor Rohe knew he had “a bad case of covid.”

But like growing numbers of conservatives here in southwest Florida, Rohe didn’t trust the doctors at Sarasota Memorial Hospital to treat him, even though it’s part of one of the state’s largest and highest ranked medical systems.

Rohe, a longtime Republican activist and self-described strict “constitutionalist,” instead rented his own oxygen unit and hooked it up at home. For the next several days, Rohe battled his coronavirus infection in his living room, relying on medical advice from friends and family members.

“If I went to the hospital, I believed I would die,” said Rohe, pointing to online videos and conspiracy theories he watched raising questions about the care some coronavirus patients received at the hospital.

Now a year later, Rohe is part of a slate of four conservative candidates trying to take over control of the board that oversees Sarasota’s flagship public hospital, highlighting how once-obscure offices are emerging as a new front in the political and societal battles that have intensified across the country since the start of the pandemic in 2020.

Although the contenders are considered underdogs to win on Aug. 23, health policy experts say the campaign isa troubling sign of how ideological divisions are spilling into the world of medical care as fights over abortion, the coronavirus and vaccines increasingly fall across party lines — alarming doctors, hospital administrators and medical experts.

“All you need to do is look at how [school boards] have now become very political … and how boards of education have ignored the science of education,” said Michele Issel, a public health professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “There’s this new disregard for the professional training that medical people have, and a disregard for the science of what is best for the population.”

The Sarasota candidates, at least three of whom are skeptical of coronavirus vaccine mandates, are rallying behind the theme of “medical freedom.” The term is increasingly being utilized by the conservative movement nationwide and hits a belief that patients aren’t given enough control over their medical care. Proponents point to vaccine mandates and difficulty accessing unproven coronavirus treatments like Ivermectin that were touted by politicians but rejected by physicians.

“All 4 of us are devoted Christians, conservatives and patriots who deserve to make the [Sarasota Memorial Hospital] system stronger, more accountable with greater transparency,” one of the candidates, Joseph S. Chirillo, a retired physician, wrote in a social media post.

Several Florida-based conservative or far-right organization are supporting Rohe and his running mates in their bid to join the nine-member Sarasota hospital board.

Tamra Farah, senior director of MomForce, the education-focused branch of Moms for America,a group pushing for conservative women to become more engaged in the political process, said campaigns for low-profile positions demonstrate those on the right have “woken up.” Issues involving medical care also increasingly galvanize conservatives to the polls, Farah said, amid their growing distrust of the health care establishment.

“No one should ever feel threatened by one group of doctors’ thoughts versus another group of doctors,” Farah said. “Everyone should have their debates. Everyone should have all the information available. And people should be able to decide for themselves.”

I guess it’s fine if people decide to kill themselves because they are ignorant fools. But they should open unaccredited ignorant fool hospitals where they can rub ivermectin all over each bodies while singing YMCA to their hearts content. Taking over municipal hospitals that are used by everyone is outrageous.

Florida is home to a whole lot of elderly, sick people. Do they all have a death wish?

Will she destroy herself for corporate greedheads?

If Krysten Sinema decides to blow up this deal it’s clear that she is no longer interested in being a Democratic Senator. It will be unforgivable. If she decides to try to run as a Republican she will lose. The Arizona GOP is is one of the most batshit in the country. So she will be out of politics. And I don’t think she wants that. She looks in the mirror and sees a president.

Here’s Manchin on the subject:

As Sinema (D-Ariz.) weighs whether to support the party-line energy, tax, deficit reduction and health care legislation, the West Virginia senator fanned out across all five Sunday shows to make the case for his deal. The moment reflected how intensely Manchin is now pressing to pass a package that only a few weeks ago he was lukewarm on, at best — and why he thinks Sinema should support it.

And Manchin had plenty of work to do during his quintet of appearances, with hosts pressing him whether the bill really fights inflation and how imposing a new minimum tax on large corporations might affect the economy. Faced with those questions, Manchin said simply on “Fox News Sunday”: “We did not raise taxes. We closed loopholes.”

He also made sure to credit Sinema with cajoling Democrats into that tax-skeptic position after many in her party weighed surtaxes on high earners and pushed for rate increases. Though Sinema’s stayed quiet since Manchin and Schumer announced the deal on Wednesday, Manchin said that he “would like to think she’d be favorable to it.”

“Kyrsten Sinema is a friend of mine, and we work very close together. She has a tremendous, tremendous input in this legislation,” Manchin said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “She basically insisted [on] no tax increases, [we’ve] done that. And she was very, very adamant about that, I agree with her. She was also very instrumental” on prescription drug reform.

Manchin and Sinema were aligned for months last year on pushing back against Democrats’ plans to spend as much as $3.5 trillion. Sinema worked on the prescription drug piece and helped shape the revenue package significantly late last year before Manchin rejected what was once called Build Back Better.

Now they are in different places. Manchin negotiated the deal one-on-one with Majority Leader Schumer while Sinema was caught completely off guard by its announcement, particularly the inclusion of a provision narrowing the so-called carried interest loophole, which brings in $14 billion of the bill’s $739 billion in new revenues.

Manchin said he didn’t brief Sinema or anyone else in the Democratic Caucus on his negotiations because of the very real possibility they would fall apart. He said on CNN that when Sinema “looks at the bill and sees the whole spectrum of what we’re doing and all of the energy we’re bringing in, all of the reduction of prices and fighting inflation by bringing prices down, by having more energy, hopefully, she will be positive about it.”

Sinema had no new public comments on Sunday as she studies the bill and waits for the Senate parliamentarian to rule on whether it meets the conditions to evade a GOP filibuster. Sinema’s always been cooler on changing the tax code than Manchin, citing concerns over changing tax policies that might restrict economic growth or competitiveness.

I’m sure she will extract a pound of flesh. Hopefully they built something into the deal to give her. They had to know she would want one.

Imagine that…

Candidates on the ground see the contours of the race changing:

[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in June to repeal a woman’s federal constitutional right to abortion has scrambled the political dynamics heading into the fall elections, when control of Congress is at stake. A half-dozen of the most vulnerable House members — all of them women, all representing swaths of suburban voters — see the issue as one that could help them win in an otherwise difficult political climate.

In addition to Davids, these incumbents include Reps. Angie Craig of Minnesota, Cindy Axne of Iowa, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Abigail Spanberger and Elaine Luria of Virginia, and Susan Wilds of Pennsylvania. They all face Republican opponents who support the high court’s abortion ruling. Some are contending with rivals who back efforts to ban abortion in all circumstances, including when the mother’s life is at risk.

It’s unclear whether the focus on abortion alone may be enough to mean reelection for many of these Democrats, who are running at a time of high inflation and frustration with President Joe Biden’s performance.

“In a close, toss-up election, which I think all of these are, it can make a difference,” said national pollster Christine Matthews, a self-described moderate who has worked for Republicans. “It’s not going to be what drives everyone to make a vote choice, but it will drive some people to make a vote choice.”

Twenty-two percent of U.S. adults named abortion or women’s rights in an open-ended question as one of up to five problems they want the government to address in the next year, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in June. That has more than doubled since December.

Since the Supreme Court decision, as state governments have moved to act on abortion rights, AP-NORC polling has found a majority of people in the United States saying they want Congress to pass legislation guaranteeing access to legal abortion nationwide.

Overwhelming majorities also think states should allow abortion in specific cases, including if the health of the pregnant woman is endangered or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Like those questioned overall, a majority of suburbanites think abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to AP-NORC polling. Suburbanites also were slightly more likely than city residents and significantly more likely than people living in rural areas to say abortion or women’s rights are among the top issues for the government to address, according to the AP-NORC poll from June.

That’s particularly important in districts such as Axne’s in Iowa, which includes Des Moines’ teeming suburbs. Dallas County, west of Des Moines, has been one of the country’s fastest-growing counties since 2000, with the cornfields from decades ago now covered in new homes, schools and commercial developments.

In an interview, Axne was adamant that she would make abortion a central theme of her campaign. Axne’s GOP opponent is state Rep. Zach Nunn, who indicated in a primary debate that he opposes abortion without exceptions.

“I can’t even believe I have to say this. I have an opponent who would let a woman die to bear a child,” Axne said. “This is crap we don’t see in this country. This is the stuff we talk about in other countries and women not having rights.”

In Michigan, Rep. Elissa Slotkin faces state Sen. Tom Barrett, who supports only an exception to save a woman’s life.

“That’s more extreme than the 1931 law that’s on our books,” Slotkin said in an interview. “So I think that that’s an important contrast to make.”

The Adkins, Barrett and Nunn campaigns did not reply to telephone, email and text messages seeking comment for this story.

In Virginia, Yesli Vega, the Republican challenging Spanberger in a district that spans the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Richmond, has not dismissed the debunked theory that pregnancy is unlikely in cases of rape. In audio published by Axios late last month, Vega was asked during a campaign event in May whether “it’s harder for a woman to get pregnant if she’s been raped.”

Vega responded, Axios reported, “Maybe, because there’s so much going on in the body. I don’t know. I haven’t seen any studies. But if I’m processing what you’re saying, it wouldn’t surprise me, because it’s not something that’s happening organically. Right? You’re forcing it.”

The answer was reminiscent of what Todd Akin, a Missouri congressman who was the Republican nominee for Senate in 2012, said during that campaign. In discussing his opposition to exceptions for rape victims, Akin claimed, “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

I know it’s hard to believe but it may just be that Americans are capable of caring about more than gas prices. The Democrats who are running in swing districts seem to think so anyway and I imagine they know. They are talking to real voters.

Oh No. No no, no…

He cheats. But you knew that:

 Walking alongside Donald Trump as he plays golf is a lot like watching his presidency: He tells you how well he’s doing, mistakes are disregarded and the one constant is an endless stream of group photos with Trump blithely flashing a toothy grin and a thumbs up.

It was as entertaining, revealing and inexplicable as it sounds.

On Thursday, Trump was a contestant in the pro-am tournament on the eve of the Saudi-backed LIV Golf event he is hosting this weekend at the lavish golf course he built in northwestern New Jersey. The intent of the outing was to team some celebrities and everyday golfers with the professionals, and Trump was, naturally, in the featured first grouping of the day.

While Trump played a plethora of golf rounds as president, other than his guests, few were able to witness his golf game during his four years in the White House. The news media was kept at a removed distance. But on Thursday, nearly 50 media members credentialed for the tournament — as well as some event officials — would accompany Trump on foot for 18 holes.

Trump’s golfing party, which included security, drove in a dozen golf carts, generally two to a cart. But there was one cart predominantly occupied by a single person, and it was the only ex-president on the property at the wheel.Trump was grouped with Dustin Johnson and Bryson DeChambeau in the pro-am.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

For the pro-am, Trump was grouped with two of the best players to defect to the rival LIV Golf circuit from the PGA Tour: Dustin Johnson and Bryson DeChambeau, who have won three major championships between them.

About 15 minutes late for his 10 a.m. tee time, Trump stepped onto the first tee dressed in a white shirt and black pants and sweating profusely under his signature MAGA hat. He looked pale. To be fair, at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, which has little shade, no one walking the grounds on a humid day with temperatures in the mid-90s was comfortable.

Stepping onto the tee, Trump quickly became the focal point of more than a handful of photos. He would organize the lineup of the people in the picture, often giving instructions on who should stand where, like a concierge of photo ops.

Finally, it was time to start the round, and Trump’s opening drive bounded into the left rough. But it was a respectable distance from the tee for a 76-year-old, roughly 220 yards.

[…]

The format for the pro-am was that each group would select the best tee shot and then play their second shots from that spot. For the rest of the hole, they were expected to play their own ball, wherever it came to rest. It often made it impossible to assign exact scores for any player, but on the par-4 first hole, Trump needed five strokes to get his ball in the hole for a bogey.Trump with the LIV golfer Dustin Johnson during the pro-am tournament Thursday.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

But on the second hole, a telling rhythm for the day’s journey was set by Trump, and it defied the polite golf protocol of waiting your turn.

After hitting his second shot to the green, Trump ignored other players in his group who had yet to hit and jumped into his cart and roared ahead. He parked within a few feet of the putting surface (also a no-no since it can damage the delicate short grass in that area). Standing in the fairway half a hole behind Trump, Johnson yelled ahead since he had yet to play his second shot and could have beaned the former president near the green.

Trump put his cart in reverse and moved out of range. But his barge-ahead style of play continued for much of the round. Often, Trump had putted out on a hole while his playing companions were still 125 yards away in the fairway.

A few holes later, Trump stopped to talk with a gaggle of reporters. He was asked how much he could earn by hosting the LIV Golf tournament at his course.

“I don’t do it for that. I do it because I think it’s good for golf,” he said.

Trump smiled.

“The important thing is that we’re all playing well,” he said.On one hole, when a birdie putt rolled nearly six feet past the hole, Trump casually scooped the ball up to end the hole, apparently conceding himself a par. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

By that point, Trump had registered, at best, one par. He had also not finished a hole after his blast from a bunker had failed to reach the green and was nestled in some nasty rough. Instead, he had his caddie pick up the ball and march to the next tee. On another hole, when a birdie putt rolled nearly six feet past the hole, he casually scooped the ball up to end the hole, apparently conceding himself a par. Try that this weekend in your match with your usual foursome. Or any foursome.

At other times, a Trump mis-hit would simply be ignored. As if understanding the drill, his caddie would retrieve the golf ball from the sand or deep rough and walk forward.

[…]

Trump, however, did exhibit a sunny countenance throughout. That included a scene that he could not have expected. As he stepped onto the tee of a par-3, 176-yard hole over a large pond, he was approached by three comedians who, in concert with LIV Golf, were conducting what they called the “Back Off Challenge” during the pro-am. The idea was that the comedians, whose project is called Country Club Adjacent, would try to insult, mock or harass each golfer on the tee to see if they would back off from the shot before hitting it. The scenes were being videotaped for the group’s various social media networks.

Trump agreed to play along.“The important thing is that we’re all playing well,” Trump said.

As he stood over the ball, one of the comedians, Blake Webber, said: “What would your following say if you hit this one left?”

Said Jake Adams: “You built a golf course just to miss the green?”

And finally, from Griff Pippin: “Your swing looks broken. Was it made in China?”

Trump did not flinch. But he did slice his shot into the water.

Then, Trump posed with the comedians for a group picture. He paused a beat and smiled while simultaneously raising his right thumb.

He doesn’t do it for the money. LOL…

Yet another something to ruin your day

Sorry folks. But it’s important to be aware of everything the extremists are doing. They play the long game:

As former Republican senator Rick Santorum addressed Republican lawmakers gathered in San Diego at the American Legislative Exchange Council policy summit, he detailed a plan to fundamentally remake the United States.

It would become a conservative nation.

And the transformation, Santorum said, culminates with an unprecedented event: a first-of-its-kind convention to rewrite the Constitution.

“You take this grenade and you pull the pin, you’ve got a live piece of ammo in your hands,” Santorum, a two-time GOP presidential candidate and former CNN commentator, explained in audio of his remarks obtained by the left-leaning watchdog group the Center for Media and Democracy and shared with Insider. “34 states — if every Republican legislator votes for this, we have a constitutional convention.”

The December 2021 ALEC meeting represents a flashpoint in a movement spearheaded by powerful conservative interests, some of whom are tied to Trumpworld and share many of Trump’s goals, to alter the nation’s bedrock legal text since 1788. It’s an effort that has largely taken place out of public view.

But interviews with a dozen people involved in the constitutional convention movement, along with documents and audio recordings reviewed by Insider, reveal a sprawling, well-funded, at least partly by cryptocurrency, and impassioned campaign taking root across multiple states.

Notably fueling them: success.Conservatives played the long game for decades to secure a supermajority on the Supreme Court.Andrew Harnik/AP

During an extraordinary few weeks in June, the Supreme Court’s three new Trump appointees powered the reversal of Roe v. Wade. They fortified gun rights and bolstered religious freedoms. Future presidents now have less power to confront the climate crisis. Each win is the product of a steady, and in some cases, decades-long quest by conservatives to bend the arc of history rightward.

This isn’t an exercise, either. State lawmakers are invited to huddle in Denver starting on Sunday to learn more about the inner workings of a possible constitutional convention at Academy of States 3.0, the third installment of a boot camp preparing state lawmakers “in anticipation of an imminent Article V Convention.”

Rob Natelson, a constitutional scholar and senior fellow at the Independence Institute who closely studies Article V of the Constitution, predicted to Insider there’s a 50% chance that the United States will witness a constitutional convention in the next five years. Whether it happens, he said, is highly dependent on Republicans’ success winning state legislatures during the 2022 midterm elections.

But not everyone in the conservative constitutional convention movement believes such a gathering is so imminent. It will likely take years more work to reach their goal, if they ever do. At minimum, Republicans will need to flip several Democratic-controlled state legislatures and convince remaining GOP holdouts of the necessity for a convention.

But during the past several decades, they’ve made progress. Lately, a lot.

And now, they have a plan.

Conservatives are pushing a never-before-tested convention

Article V to the US Constitution provides two ways to amend the nation’s organizing document — the most difficult, but most dramatic way to alter American society’s very foundation.

The first is for a two-thirds majority of Congress to propose an amendment, with three-fourths of states ratifying it. This is how all 27 of the current amendments to the Constitution were added, but it’s a path that today is largely blocked because of intractable partisan divisions. No American under 30 has experienced the nation amending the Constitution in his or her lifetime.

The second method — never before accomplished — involves two-thirds of US states to call a convention. The power to call for a convention belongs solely to state legislatures, who would pass and ratify amendments without a governor’s signature, Congress’ intervention, or any input from the president.

Some states have tried and tried — without result — to prompt a constitutional convention. They’ve together issued hundreds of pro-convention resolutions or calls over 200 years to reroute constitutional amendment powers away from Washington. What’s new now is the ever-evolving power coupling of a corporation-backed ideological juggernaut led by ALEC, a nonprofit organization with close ties to large tobacco and drug companies, and a determined Republican Party increasingly dominating many of the nation’s 50 statehouses.

If they were successful, a constitutional convention led by conservatives could trigger sweeping changes to the Constitution.

Their goals include gutting federal environmental standards, nixing nationwide education requirements, and creating an incredibly high threshold for Washington, DC, or a territory to earn statehood. Some would like to make it difficult, if not impossible, for someone — National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, for example — to work for decades within the federal government.

Former President Donald Trump, close to announcing a campaign for a second term in office, would find much to love about the convention movement.

He’s argued that Article II gave him sweeping presidential powers akin to Richard Nixon’s famous declaration that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Trump also attempted to claim that he could unilaterally end birthright citizenship (he could not) and repeatedly argued the White House didn’t have to comply with congressional subpoenas.Alex Brandon/AP

The planks of the Convention of States’ movement — such as term limits for federal bureaucrats in addition to members of Congress — stand to attract acolytes of Trumpism savoring the means to MAGA-fy the Constitution, and therefore, the nation.

In fact, it already has. Constitutional convention boosters include many of Trump’s current and former allies, including conservative legal scholar John Eastman, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Eastman, who recently had his phone seized by federal agents investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, attended a 2016 mock convention hosted by the Convention of States.

“It’s the most extraordinary thing in my career that I’ve ever been a part of,” Eastman said in a video produced by the convention simulation organizers. “The process actually works.”

Six years later, the Academy of States 3.0 is taking place Sunday ahead of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ 2022 summit in Denver. On its website, the group boldly forecasts that a new constitutional convention could take place in 24 months and quotes former President Barack Obama in emphasizing, “You can’t change Washington from the inside.”

“​​It’s a heavy lift, but it’s not out of reach,” Arn Pearson, the Center for Media and Democracy’s executive director and a close watcher of the convention movement, told Insider. “I think it’s a real threat.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is a high-profile endorser of the Convention of States movement.

Conservative activists are playing the long game

Conservatives have embraced the political long game in achieving their most prized policy goals, like the overturning of Roe v. Wade — and the movement to call a convention may be no different.

“For the last 25 years, people in the pro-life movement did the blocking and tackling necessary for this day to come,” Santorum said at the December 2021 ALEC summit. “No one five years ago would have said that Roe vs Wade would be overturned. No one in this room.”

The GOP spent decades investing in control of state legislatures through well-funded and resourced groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has spent tens of millions over the last few decades locking down GOP control of state legislatures, statewide offices, and judgeships.

Those sustained investments have secured GOP dominance in state legislatures for a generation — and guarantee the GOP would also have the upper hand in a convention.

A new report by the Center for Media and Democracy first shared with Insider finds that Republicans would control at least 27 and up to 31 out of 50 delegations to a convention, based on delegate selection processes in applications passed thus far.

That’s still a tad short of what would ultimately be needed to make any changes: two-thirds of the state legislatures are needed to call a convention and three-fourths must vote to ratify any amendments. Notably, governors, Congress, and the White House have no role in this specific process.

But the movement’s most devoted supporters, like Santorum, say they are in for the long haul — and they argue that changing the Constitution is a goal existential to America’s existence that looms larger than a single election cycle.

“Yeah, we’ll have a good election. But the movement is inextricable. Why? Because every institution in America is against us,” Santorum said, invoking the founders and their vision of federalism. “I say to you, as Republican state legislators, that you actually have the key.”AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins

Activists also say that with Congress sharply divided, a convention would send an unmistakable message to Washington that lawmakers need to change their way — or be prepared to get run over.

“The states have sort of lost their voice, and all we can do now is beg from the cheap seats and say, ‘Hey, don’t do that,” said state Rep. Bill Taylor of South Carolina, who led his state’s push to pass a call for a convention.

Faced with a Washington dominated by Democrats, many conservatives want to unleash a force to put the nation’s Capitol on notice.

“The idea of states coming together is going to scare the living hell out of Washington,” Taylor told Insider. “They are going to be terrified of the states.”

The right isn’t alone in pursuing a convention. On the left, Cenk Uygur, a progressive commentator, founded Wolf PAC in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that accelerated an era of big-money politics. Five Democratic states passed Wolf PAC’s call for a campaign finance reform-focused convention: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Uygur’s organization is pressing forward even as Illinois and New Jersey rescinded their calls out of fear of a conservative-dominated convention. Wolf PAC’s early momentum also spooked some on the right, an illustration of the unusual alliances on both sides of the movement. In 2012, the Republican National Committee went so far as to pass a resolution formally opposing the convention movement.

But now in 2022, convention proponents have political winds at their backs.

“The movement right now seems to be gaining steam. And what’s interesting is it seems to be gaining steam on both left and right,” Karla Jones, senior director of international relations and federalism at ALEC, told Insider. “The feeling that Washington, DC, has become a cause for the nation’s problems rather than a solution … is becoming universal on both sides of the aisle.”AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

A convention is gaining momentum but still far away

So far, 19 GOP-controlled states, including four in 2022 alone (Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), have passed applications and calls for a constitutional convention under the model pushed by the conservative nonprofit group Convention of States, an offshoot of Citizens for Self Governance.

Because of their efforts, “it’s the first time any of these applications have had this much movement in quite some time,” Viki Harrison, director of Constitutional Convention and Protecting Dissent Programs at Common Cause, told Insider. She called the passage of four new convention calls in states including South Carolina “a brutal loss.”

Citizens for Self Governance and Convention of States, led by former Tea Party activist and ex-Parler CEO Mark Meckler, are relatively newer and well-funded players on the scene with connections to wealthy and powerful conservative interests.

Tax filings obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy reveal the groups, which are not required to disclose their donors, have received millions from the Koch-connected DonorsTrust, the Mercer family, and groups linked to powerful conservative lawyer Leonard Leo. A 2020 internal audit of Convention of States obtained by the group revealed that a $1.3 million donation made in Bitcoin made up 16% of the group’s budget in 2019. Two donations totaling $2.5 million accounted for 36% of the group’s 2020 budget.

While the various offshoots of the movement may have momentum on their side, they don’t yet have the math to get to 34 states, as would be necessary to call a convention. Some are skeptical they ever will, no matter how well Republicans do at the polls in 2022 and beyond.Senator Ted Cruz, left, told Insider the convention movement could pressure Congress to amend the Constitution themselves.Mike Theiler/AFP via Getty Images

“It’s clear to everybody working on this that the convention proponents have no honest path to 34 states,” David Super, a professor, and constitutional law expert at Georgetown University Law Center, told Insider. “They’ve reached their limit.”

But several convention organizers and supporters say they don’t even need a convention to change the Constitution. They point to how fed-up states pushed for a convention to directly elect US senators after the Senate, for years, refused to consider resolutions calling for direct election. The 17th amendment, ratified in 1912, is a testament to that strategy.

More than a century later, one prominent Republican sees history — at least procedurally — repeating itself.

“What is most likely is that as we move closer to a convention of the states that at the last minute, Congress will blink and pass the underlying amendments. That’s what history shows us is likely to happen,” GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a former presidential candidate who is eyeing another run in 2024, told Insider.

Cruz, who is himself pushing a term-limits amendment, also did not express definitive support for a convention.A convention of states would be the first of its kind since the original Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787.DeAgostini/Getty Images

The fear of a ‘runaway’ convention looms large in the debate

Because the states have never called a convention under Article V since the Constitution’s creation, the exact mechanics are the subject of intense debates between legal scholars and activists

The prospect of a free-for-all convention has scared lawmakers away from other historic efforts to rewrite the nation’s Constitution, fearing that a debate on imposing term limits or a balanced budget could quickly morph into a full-fledged redesigning of gun, abortion, religious, or free speech rights.

Right-wing organizations such as the John Birch Society oppose a convention out of fear that it could open the door to weakening constitutional rights.

So does Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, a staunch Trump defender who wrote an entire book, “The Con of the Con-Con,” about the dangers of conventions.

“In states where you would have expected this to pass because they have Republican leadership, they’re firmly on our side because they’re scared about losing guns,” Harrison said.

Natelson, who has published numerous writings and academic articles on Article V, charged that people who fear a runaway convention “don’t know what they’re talking about” and GOP legislatures that have resisted calling a convention out of those worries “have been sold a bill of goods.”

“Those academics who go before the legislature and say things like, ‘we don’t know anything about the process, it could be a runaway convention’ without exception, are people who have never published any scholarship on the subject,” he said.

And advocates for a constitutional convention have pushed narrow visions for a convention that they say would bind future delegates from passing extreme amendments. Natelson argued that not a single convention of colonies, compact of states, or simulated convention held since the nation’s founding has “run away” from its mandate.John Eastman, seen here alongside Rudy Giuliani, attended a Convention of States simulation in 2016.Jim Bourg

At the Convention of the States’ 2016 mock convention in Williamsburg, Virginia, delegates, including Eastman, voted out six amendments, including a proposal that would eviscerate the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the ability to impose an income tax.

The resolution the group is pushing would limit a convention to amendments that “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.”

But limiting “the power and jurisdiction” of the federal government is an expansive mandate that could encompass virtually anything and enable delegates to pass extreme amendments while technically staying within the bounds of the convention.

“I defy you to name a Constitutional amendment that you might want that I couldn’t characterize as one of the three things in the Convention of States,” Super said. “You want to repeal the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause? That’s limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with state laws. Almost anything you want, you can characterize as one of those things.”Convention of States invokes hot-button issues like abortion on its website.

‘A brilliant strategy for controlling a political agenda’

Recent blog posts on the Convention of States’ website explicitly reference the need for a convention to limit federal overreach on abortion, guns, and immigration.

“The Supreme Court has said that amending the Constitution is a political question in which the federal courts cannot get involved,” Super said. “The president has no role at all in the process. And the whole point of the convention route is to sideline Congress. So Congress can’t overrule the convention … there’s no one to intervene. There’s no one to stop a convention from doing whatever they want to do.”

States have the flexibility to caveat their calls for a convention, and some have included penalties to keep delegates in line. Indiana and Florida have even made it a felony for convention delegates to defy the legislature’s intent, measures they passed alongside their pro-convention resolutions.

Super, however, said that criminal penalties punishing rogue delegates are not “constitutional” or “enforceable” because of the Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore that their home state’s laws don’t bind state officers performing national duties.

Legal constraints aside, Natelson argued that a runaway convention could only happen in “horse and buggy times” with minimal communication between delegates and legislatures, and would be “practically impossible” in 2022, a world driven by a 24-hour news cycle and instant methods of communication like calling and texting.

“They’re going to be under the glare of publicity, and everybody’s going to be watching every minute,” Natelson said.A convention in the 21st century would take place in the ecosystem of social media and the 24-hour news cycle.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The framers also added a second buffer to the process. Conventions or Congress can propose a constitutional amendment, but three-fourths of the state legislatures, 38, need to ratify it into the Constitution, a process that is also not subject to a governor or president’s veto.

Conservatives and liberals alike say this requirement would doom hyperpartisan or plain loony amendments.

“The convention has way more safeguards than Congress itself,” Nick Tomouldies, executive director of US Term Limits, a group pushing for a convention solely focused on imposing congressional term limits, told Insider. “Controversial issues like taxes and guns and abortion need not apply, because you’re never going to get through that gauntlet.”

But Pearson countered that a convention just passing a polarizing amendment would allow conservatives to play the long game and “dominate the political debate in the country for the next decade” with contentious ratification battles in the states.

“It’s a brilliant strategy for controlling a political agenda for quite some time,” he said.Former GOP Senator Rick Santorum is a prominent face of the Convention of States movement.AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The Convention of States movement is ‘the full package’

Behind closed doors, Meckler, Santorum, and Natelson pitched a convention to GOP lawmakers gathered at a December 2021 ALEC workshop as a way for ordinary citizens to force sweeping changes to every facet of government.

“We would be aiming at the Deep State and potentially the federal judiciary as well,” Meckler told lawmakers in the closed-door session, a recording of which was obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and shared with Insider.

Meckler argued in the session that a convention focused on only term limits, which he criticized as “dangerous,” or only a balanced budget amendment, wouldn’t be enough to rein in the federal government — or to mobilize enough people behind the convention movement.

“We have to be able to show people that they have a chance to get their hands around the throat of the federal government and put it back in the Constitutional box,” he said in the audio obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy. “None of the individual efforts do that. The only thing that provides the narrative that drives 5 million people to participate in Convention of States … is the full package.”Convention of States wants to seize on conservatives’ discontent and anger with their government.Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Moments later, Meckler said his effort could be judged by its “enemies,” railing against a slew of “leftist” advocacy groups who oppose a convention.

“It’s every leftist group in America, radical leftist group in America that stands for, I would argue, the destruction of America, the destruction of babies in the womb, the destruction of life itself,” he said. “They hate America, they want to destroy America, and they’re against Convention of States.”

Santorum also assured lawmakers that conservative interests would be strongly represented in a one-vote-per-state convention due to the outsize influence of lower-population states, saying, “we have the opportunity, as a result of that, to have a supermajority, even though…we may not even be in an absolute majority when it comes to the people who we agree with.”

The conservative movement isn’t resting on the laurels of its victories in the Supreme Court arena but is aggressively pioneering new frontiers to reshape every aspect of American law and society.

And while a no-holds-barred Constitution convention may seem far-off, the ideological fervor driving the convention movement and the ambitious aims of its proponents guarantee it won’t be going away anytime soon.

“This is the opportunity the founders gave you, state legislators. They gave you the power to fix this country,” Santorum told lawmakers gathered at the 2021 ALEC meeting, his voice booming. “With all due respect, how dare you not try? How dare you, in the face of what’s going on in this country?”

This is not Bizarro World.

“Norms around anti-violence are eroding”

Some people worry more about inflation, or about a recession. Members of Congress have to worry more these days about personal security (The Guardian):

Members of the US House of Representatives will now receive up to $10,000 to upgrade security at their homes in the face of rising threats against lawmakers, the House sergeant at arms announced last week, in yet another sign that American politics has entered a dangerous, violent new phase.

As support for political violence appears to be on the rise in the US, experts warn that such threats endanger the health of America’s democracy. But they say the country still has time to tamp down violent rhetoric if political leaders, particularly those in the Republican party, stand up and condemn this alarming behavior.

The announcement over increasing security for people in Congress came days after a man attacked Lee Zeldin, a New York congressman and Republican gubernatorial candidate, with a sharp object during a campaign event.

Two weeks before that, a man was arrested outside the home of Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, for allegedly shouting racist obscenities and threatening to kill her. Last month, authorities filed federal charges against a man who they say traveled from California to Maryland with the intent of murdering the supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Public service has clearly become an increasingly dangerous endeavor in America.

Public service includes election workers (some I know myself). Facing increased hostility, my local elections staff recently requested that the reception area get bulletproof glass (WRAL):

More than three-quarters of election officials say threats against them have increased, and more than half say they’re concerned about the safety of their colleagues, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Benenson Strategy Group in late January and early February on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank affiliated with the New York University School of Law.

Security concerns were evident this month during a convention in Wisconsin for the nonpartisan National Association of State Election Directors. The agenda was focused on a variety of risk management topics. Organizers attempted to keep the event location and some agenda topics hidden from the public. They also encouraged attendees—election officials from across the country—to remove their name tags in public, the Associated Press reported.

Those concerns have been present in North Carolina this year, too. In Surry County, for instance, the elections director requested police presence in the office’s parking lot to ensure workers get to their cars safely. The request came after a Surry County Republican Party leader threatened the director and demanded access to voting equipment, according to state elections, who have been monitoring the matter.

Our local staff did not get the bulletproof glass, WRAL reports, but public access now is more controlled.

The ongoing threats and attempts at intimidation make it more difficult to hire and retain temporary as well as permanent election workers.

The Guardian again:

According to a mega-survey conducted by researchers at University of California, Davis, and released this month, one in five US adults say political violence is justified at least in some circumstances. A much smaller portion of survey respondents, 3%, believe that political violence is usually or always justified.

Those may still be relatively low numbers, says Liliana Mason, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University. But ?

“The problem is that, if you go from 7% to 20%, that means that there are certain social spaces where the norms around anti-violence are eroding.”

The US Capitol police reported 9,625 threats and directions of interest (meaning concerning actions or statements) against members of Congress last year, compared to 3,939 such instances in 2017.

The members of the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection have frequently been the targets of violent threats, requiring them to get personal security details.

One member of the committee, Republican Adam Kinzinger, recently shared a threatening letter sent to his wife last month. The sender vowed to execute Kinzinger, his wife and their newborn son. He is not seeking re-election in 2022.

One does not need to read the articles closely to know from which political party the bulk of the threats and intimidation is coming.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

The new abnormal

At least 25 people, including a half-dozen children, died in flash flooding last week in eastern Kentucky. The search continues for the missing. Gov. Andy Beshear expects the death toll to rise as floodwaters recede.

The deluge was the worst among a string of floods scattered across the country. A heat dome lying over the Pacific Northwest continues to bring death and triple-digit temperatures that echo the 2021 event that killed nearly 1,000 (confirmed) and several hundred excess deaths (estimated).

Politico’s flood coverage takes a few paragraphs to get to why:

Extreme rain events have become more common as climate change bakes the planet and alters weather patterns, according to scientists. That’s a growing challenge for officials during disasters, because models used to predict storm impacts are in part based on past events and can’t keep up with increasingly devastating flash floods and heat waves like those that have recently hit the Pacific Northwest and southern Plains.

Evelyn Smith of Knott County lost everything (Politico):

After fast-rising floodwaters from nearby Troublesome Creek swamped her rental trailer, Smith moved in with her mother. At age 50 she is disabled, suffering from a chronic breathing disorder, and knows she won’t be going back to where she lived; her landlord told her he won’t put trailers back in the same spot. Smith, who didn’t have insurance, doesn’t know what her next move will be.

“I’ve cried until I really can’t cry no more,” she said. “I’m just in shock. I don’t really know what to do now.”

For many people who lost their homes, connections with family and neighbors will only grow in importance in the aftermath of the floods, which wiped out homes and businesses and engulfed small towns. Still, in a part of the state that includes seven of the 100 poorest counties in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, they may not be enough for people already living on the margins.

Appalachia has been synonymous with “the margins” pretty much forever.

Coal once dominated the economy of this corner of the Appalachian Mountains, offering the best-paying jobs in a place that had difficulty sustaining other kinds of work, but production has plunged by some 90% since the heyday of 1990, according to a state report. And as production declined, the jobs went away.

More rain is forecast today (Sunday) in eastern Kentucky. A heat advisory remains in effect in Portland, Ore. and Seattle, Wash. through today. Cooling shelters remain open.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us.

Big cats rejoice, the House passed a resolution that would ban breeding big cats, including tigers and lions, by private owners or for commercial “cub petting” ventures. 

Advocates who have long sought an end to private breeding of exotic animals as pets or as performance animals are celebrating the passing of The Big Cat Public Safety Act. The new act would close loopholes in the 2003 Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which banned the sale and trade of big cats as pets. The new resolution bans the private breeding and possession of tigers, lions, leopards, and panthers, making exceptions for zoos, sanctuaries, and colleges. 

The bill, brought forth by Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) has been cosponsored by 259 representatives, including 52 republicans, and was adopted in a vote of 278-134. A joint statement released Monday by several animal welfare organizations implored congress to “finish the job and close loopholes.”

In a statement to Rolling Stone, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, explained that “Far too often, the people who own and breed lions, tigers, and other wild cats aren’t doing it because they love animals—they’re doing it because they know they can make a quick buck with photo ops and other problematic tourist traps.” Grijalva said that the animals trapped in these operations are given “the cheapest care and the lowest standard of safety” by owners, “putting both these creatures and people at risk.”  

“I’m proud to see so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of this legislation,” Grijalva added, urging his colleagues in the Senate to usher these “commonsense protections for these animals and ourselves into law.”

Animal welfare advocates believe that placing controls on the breeding, sale, and ownership of exotic animals is not only vital for animal welfare but for the preservation of public safety. Private ownership of exotic animals of all varieties has resulted in deaths, maulings, and escapes that often result in law enforcement having to euthanize the animal involved. In 2011, dozens of animals, including lions, tigers, monkeys, bears, and wolves, were intentionally released from a private zoo in Zanesville, Ohio. Law enforcement was ultimately forced to kill 48 of the animals. 

While the Big Cat Safety act does ban breeding of large exotic cat species, it does not require that current private owners of these animals surrender them. Current owners will be allowed to keep their animals if they register with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Naturally 134 Republicans were against this. Because they are just bad.