Skip to content

Month: September 2022

Introducing Liz Truss

There’s a new Prime Minister in London Town

Look, I’ve been so focused on Donald “Fingers” Trump’s stolen state secrets, with trying to get Democratic campaigns to think outside the box, with leading horses to water, and with dropping off early voting literature to newly registered Democrats in my bluer-than-blue precinct that I’ve been only vaguely aware that the Brits were selecting a new P.M.

Well, they have one. Let Jonathan Pie tell introduce Liz Truss to you. She’s another conservative. Surprise.

“Twelve years of conservative rule have taken us from fifth-richest nation on the planet to being downgraded to an emerging market economy,” complains Pie for the New York Times. (There’s no YouTube or Tweet yet, so you’ll have to click over to watch the video.)

Update: Here’s the tweet (added below) and an example of Truss’ brilliance. Hint: She’ll open up new pork markets!

A sampling:

So what’s her plan? What’s her plan to help the millions of families who can’t afford to heat their homes? Well, she’s ruled out a windfall tax on energy companies because it sends the wrong message to foreign investors. Whereas thousands of frozen corpses of old people sat in armchairs is an “invest in Britain” billboard in the making.

[…]

In direct response to eye-watering energy profits in the face of poverty-inducing heating bills, she says profit isn’t a dirty word. And maybe she’s right. Profits aren’t necessarily evil. But people dying of hypothermia because they can’t afford your extortionate prices, that is evil.

Here’s Pie on Truss when she was foreign secretary.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Trump’s second term

It should be unthinkable but it isn’t

Jonathan Rausch wrote this for the Atlantic last week. I can’t get it out of my head. It’s just so … plausible. And possible:

Ever since the U.S. Senate failed to convict Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 insurrection and disqualify him from running for president again, a lot of people, myself included, have been warning that a second Trump term could bring about the extinction of American democracy. Essential features of the system, including the rule of law, honest vote tallies, and orderly succession, would be at risk.

Today, however, we can do more than just speculate about how a second Trump term would unfold, because the MAGA movement has been telegraphing its plans in some detail. In a host of ways—including the overt embrace of illiberal foreign leaders; the ruthless behavior of Republican elected officials since the 2020 election; Trump allies’ elaborate scheming, as uncovered by the House’s January 6 committee, to prevent the peaceful transition of power; and Trump’s own actions in the waning weeks of his presidency and now as ex-president—the former president and his allies have laid out their model and their methods.

Begin with the model. Viktor Orbán has been the prime minister of Hungary twice. His current tenure began in 2010. He is not a heavy-handed tyrant; he has not led a military coup or appointed himself maximum leader. Instead, he follows the path of what he has called “illiberal democracy.” Combining populist rhetoric with machine politics, he and his party, Fidesz, have rotted Hungarian democracy from within by politicizing media regulation, buying or bankrupting independent media outlets, appointing judges who toe the party line, creating obstacles for opposition parties, and more. Hungary has not gone from democracy to dictatorship, but it has gone from democracy to democracy-ish. Freedom House rates it only partly free. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s ratings show declines in every democratic indicator since Fidesz took power.

The MAGA movement has studied Orbán and Fidesz attentively. Hungary is where Tucker Carlson, the leading U.S. conservative-media personality (who is sometimes mentioned as a possible presidential contender), took his show for a week of fawning broadcasts. Orbán is the leader whom the Conservative Political Action Conference brought in as a keynote speaker in August. He told the group what it loves to hear: “We cannot fight successfully by liberal means.” Trump himself has made clear his admiration for Orbán, praising him as “a strong leader and respected by all.”

The U.S. is an older and better-established democracy than Hungary. How, then, could MAGA acolytes emulate Orbán in the American context? To simplify matters, set aside the possibility of a stolen or contested 2024 election and suppose that Trump wins a fair Electoral College victory. In this scenario, beginning on January 20, 2025, he and his supporters set about bringing Budapest to the Potomac by increments. Their playbook:

First, install toadies in key positions. Upon regaining the White House, the president systematically and unabashedly nominates personal loyalists, with or without qualifications, to Senate-confirmed jobs. Assisted by the likes of Johnny McEntee, a White House aide during his first term, and Kash Patel, a Pentagon staffer, he appoints officials willing to purge conscientious civil servants, neutralize or fire inspectors general, and ignore or overturn inconvenient rules.

A model for this type of appointee is Jeffrey Clark. A little-known lawyer who led the Justice Department’s environmental division, he secretly plotted with Trump and the White House after the 2020 election to replace the acting attorney general and then use the Justice Department’s powers to pressure officials in Georgia and other states to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. Only the threat of mass resignations at the Justice Department derailed the scheme.

Trump has plenty of Jeffrey Clarks to choose from, and a Republican-controlled Senate would confirm most or all of them. But no matter if the Senate balks or if Democrats control it. Trump will simply do more, much more, of what he raised to an art in his first term: appointing “acting” officials to circumvent Senate confirmation—a practice that, the Associated Press reports, “prompted muttering, but no more than that, from Republican senators whose job description includes confirming top administration aides.”

Second,intimidate the career bureaucracy. On day one of his second term, Trump signs an executive order reinstating an innovation he calls Schedule F federal employment. This designation would effectively turn tens of thousands of civil servants who have a hand in shaping policy into at-will employees. He approved Schedule F in October of his final year in office, but he ran out of time to implement it and President Biden rescinded it.

Career civil servants have always been supervised by political appointees, and, within the boundaries of law and regulation, so they should be. Schedule F, however, gives Trump a new way to threaten bureaucrats with retaliation and termination if they resist or question him. The result is to weaken an important institutional safeguard against Trump’s demands to do everything from harass his enemies to alter weather forecasts.

Third, co-opt the armed forces. Having identified the military as a locus of resistance in his first term, Trump sets about cashiering senior military leaders. In their place, he promotes and installs officers who will raise no objection to stunts such as sending troops to round up undocumented immigrants or intimidate protesters (or shoot them). Within a couple of years, the military will grow used to acting as a political instrument for the White House.

Fourth,bring law enforcement to heel. Even more intimidating to the president’s opponents than a complaisant military is his securing full control, at long last, over the Justice Department.

In his first term, both of Trump’s attorneys general bowed to him in some respects but stood up to him when it mattered most: Jeff Sessions by recusing himself from the Russia investigation and allowing a special counsel to be appointed; Bill Barr by refusing to endorse Trump’s election lies and seize voting machines. Everyday prosecutions remained in the hands of ordinary prosecutors.

That now changes. Trump immediately installs political operatives to lead DOJ, the FBI, and the intelligence and security agencies. Citing as precedent the Biden Justice Department’s investigations of the January 6 events, the White House orchestrates criminal investigations of dozens of Trump’s political enemies, starting with critics such as the ousted Representative Liz Cheney and whistleblowers such as the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. With or without winning convictions, multipronged investigations and prosecutions bankrupt their targets financially and reputationally, menacing anyone who opposes the White House.

Most actions carried out by the Justice Department and national-security agencies remain routine in 2025 and beyond, but that doesn’t matter: No prosecution is above suspicion of political influence, and no Trump adversary is exempt from fear. Just as important is whom the government chooses not to prosecute or harass: It stays its hand against MAGA street militias, election shysters, and other allies of the president. The result is that federal law enforcement and the security apparatus become under Trump what Trump claims they are under Biden: political enforcers.

Fifth,weaponize the pardon. In Trump’s first term, officials stood up to many of his illegal and unethical demands because they feared legal jeopardy. The president has a fix for that, too. He wasn’t joking when he mused about pardoning the January 6 rioters. In his first term, he pardoned some of his cronies and dangled pardons to discourage potential testimony against him, but that was a mere dry run. Now, unrestrained by politics, he offers impunity to those who do his bidding. They may still face jeopardy under state law and from professional sanctions such as disbarment, but Trump’s promises to bestow pardons—and his threats to withhold them—open an unprecedented space for abuse and corruption.

Sixth, the final blow:defy court orders. Naturally, the president’s corrupt and lawless actions incite a blizzard of lawsuits. Members of Congress sue to block illegal appointments, interest groups sue to overturn corrupt rulemaking, targets of investigations sue to quash subpoenas, and so on. Trump meets these challenges with long-practiced aplomb. As he has always done, he uses every tactic in the book to contest, stonewall, tangle, and politicize litigation. He creates a perpetual-motion machine of appeals and delays while court after court rules against him.

Ultimately, however, matters come to a head. He loses on appeal and faces court orders to stop what he is doing. At that point, he simply ignores the judgments.

A famous precedent suggests that he would get away with it. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that states were illegally seizing Indian lands. President Andrew Jackson, a racist proponent of forced assimilation, declined to enforce the verdict. The states continued stealing Indian lands, and the federal government joined in. Trump, who hung a portrait of Jackson near his desk in the Oval Office, no doubt knows this bit of history. He probably also knows the consequences Jackson faced for openly defying the Court: none.

With reelection in the balance, defying the courts was a bridge the president did not cross in his first term. From the beginning of that term, when the Supreme Court scrutinized his Muslim travel ban, to the very end, when the Court swatted away his blitz of spurious election lawsuits, the judiciary was the strongest bastion of the rule of law. Its prestige and authority were such that not even a belligerent sociopath dared defy it.

Yet having been reinstated and never again to face voters, Trump now has no compunctions. The courts’ orders, he claims, are illegitimate machinations of Democrats and the “deep state.” Ordered to reinstate an illegally fired inspector general, the Justice Department nonetheless bars her from the premises. Ordered to rescind an improperly adopted regulation, the Department of Homeland Security continues to enforce it. Ordered to provide documents to Congress, the National Archives shrugs.

At first, the president’s lawlessness seems shocking. Yet soon, as Republicans defend it, the public grows acclimated. To salvage what it can of its authority, the Supreme Court accommodates Trump more than the other way around. It becomes gun-shy about crossing him.

And so we arrive: With the courts relegated to advisory status, the rule of law no longer obtains. In other words, America is no longer a liberal democracy, and by this point, there is not much anyone can do about it.

In the first term, resignation threats acted as a brake on Trump. They thwarted the Jeffrey Clark scheme, for instance. A resignation threat by the CIA director deterred Trump from installing a hack as her deputy. A resignation threat by the White House counsel deterred him from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Now, however, the president has little to fear politically, because he will never again appear on a ballot. If officials threaten to resign, he can replace or circumvent them. Their departures may slow him down but cannot stop him. Besides, he finds ways to remind his subordinates that angering him is a risky business. Noisy resignations will result in harassment by his supporters (the sorts of torments that hundreds of honest election officials have endured) and—you never know!—maybe by federal prosecutors and the IRS, too.

Might he go so far as to turn even Republicans in Congress against him? Unlikely. We should rationally assume that if Republicans protected him after he and his supporters attempted a coup, they will protect him no matter what else he does. Republicans are now so thoroughly complicit in his misdeeds that anything that jeopardizes him politically or legally also jeopardizes them. He already showed in his first term that he can and will stonewall congressional investigations. Unless Democrats drive Republicans into the political wilderness, overriding his veto (which requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers) is nigh-on impossible. Impeachment no longer frightens or even concerns him, because he has weathered two attempts and come back triumphantly.

Of course, there are congressional hearings, contempt-of-court orders, outraged New York Times editorials. Trump needn’t care. The MAGA base, conservative media, and plenty of Republicans in Congress defend their leader with whatever untruths, conspiracy theories, and what-abouts are needed. Fox News and other pro-Trump outlets play the role of state media, even if out of fear more than enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, MAGA forces are busy installing loyalists as governors, election officials, district attorneys, and other crucial state and local positions. They do not succeed in every attempt, but over the course of four years, they gather enough corrupt officials to cast doubt on the legitimacy of any election they lose. They invent creative ways to obstruct anyone who challenges them politically. And they are not shy about encouraging thuggish supporters to harass and menace “traitors.”

And so, after four years? America has crossed Freedom House’s line from “free” to “partly free.” The president’s powers are determined by what he can get away with. His opponents are harried, chilled, demoralized. He is term-limited, but the MAGA movement has entrenched itself. And Trump has demonstrated in the United States what Orbán proved in Hungary: The public will accept authoritarianism, provided it is of the creeping variety.

“We should not be afraid to go against the spirit of the age and build an illiberal political and state system,” Orbán declared in 2014. Trump and his followers openly plan to emulate Orbán. We can’t say we weren’t warned.

And, by the way, it will be the same, maybe even worse, if Ron DeSantis wins.

Bad Hobbits

Yes, they’re mad about this too

Oy:

Brandon Morse has read J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” the “Lord of the Rings” series and watched extended editions of Peter Jackson’s ring trilogy so often that “I can almost quote them all line for line.”

But Morse is dreading a new addition to the Middle-earth canon that he says “perverts and corrupts” Tolkien’s mythical medieval universe because TV showrunners have committed this storytelling crime:

They are trying to “woke-ify” Amazon’s new series, “The Lord of the Rings: “The Rings of Power.”

Morse is deputy managing editor of RedState, a conservative news site. He says “The Rings of Power” producers have cast non-White actors in a story based on European culture and who look wildly different from how Tolkien originally described them. He says it’s an attempt to embed “social justice politics” into Tolkien’s world.

“If you focus on introducing modern political sentiments, such as the leftist obsession with identity issues that only go skin deep, then you’re no longer focusing on building a good story,” says Morse, who wrote an impassioned essay about his misgivings. “You’re effectively making propaganda, or art meant to fit a message, not a message to fit the art.”

The makers of “The Rings of Power,” which premiered Friday, promise viewers plenty of epic battles. Yet some of the biggest battles surrounding the Amazon Studios series have erupted offscreen. Middle-earth fans and scholars like Morse have clashed in online forums and dueling op-eds over this question: Does casting non-White actors enhance the new series, or is it a betrayal of Tolkien’s original vision?

It’s fantasy fiction. It’s not history. None of it is real. And everything is open to artistic interpretation anyway. Shakespeare has been done in modern dress played by people of color and if it’s good enough for Shakespeare it’s good enough for Tolkien.

Interpreting any work of art in light of modern sensibilities is exactly why these works stand the test of time: they are universal. The work speaks for itself no matter who is cast in the movie. And no, casting a person of color to play a white Hobbit does not mean you’re no longer focusing on building a good story. That’s just nonsense.

These people similarly had a fit over the possibility of Idris Elba playing James Bond because “James Bond isn’t Black.” But James Bond isn’t real and neither are Hobbits. And even if they were, who cares? Of course we know what this is really all about don’t we? Their little white slips are showing.

Just don’t use the “F” word

Are they even trying to hide it?

Cynthia Hughes, who runs a support group for J6ers, spoke at tonight’s Trump rally. She told the story of her nephew Tim Cusanelli, a convicted Capitol rioter — and Nazi sympathizer, who said “Hitler should’ve finished the job.” This is their poster child for J6 “injustice.”

Tim Cusanelli

An internal Navy probe found 34 colleagues who said he held “extremist or radical views pertaining to the Jewish people, minorities and women.” FBI found racist memes with the N-word on his phone. He told an informant that he hoped for “civil war.”

http://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/politics/timothy-hale-cusanelli-nazi-sympathizer-capitol-insurrection/index.html

He wasn’t charged with violent crimes, but has been in jail since his arrest on 1/17/21. This is one of the gripes his aunt Hughes mentioned at the Trump rally. So why is he in jail? Judge was afraid he’d turn his violent rhetoric into action if let out.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics/capitol-nazi-sympathizer-hale-cusanelli/index.html

Cusanelli was convicted on all counts at a jury trial this year. The judge — a Trump appointee, who has been skeptical of some J6 cases — panned Cusanelli’s testimony on the witness stand, where he claimed he didn’t know Congress met at the Capitol.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/politics/timothy-hale-cusanelli-verdict/index.html

He’ll be sentenced later this month. For his part, Cusanelli has denied being a member of any white supremacist groups. He testified that he is half Jewish and half Puerto Rican — and that his racist slurs were always meant to be “ironic” and “self-deprecating humor.”

Originally tweeted by Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) on September 3, 2022.

“Women are not without electoral or political power”

So says Samuel Alito. He may be about to see that exercised in living color

The NY Times published this oped by Democratic strategist Tom Bonior. He discusses the assumption that there was going to be a Red Tsunami this fall and why that’s changed:

But once the actual Dobbs decision came down, everything changed. For many Americans, confronting the loss of abortion rights was different from anticipating it. In my 28 years analyzing elections, I’ve never seen anything like what’s happened in the past two months in American politics: Women are registering to vote in numbers I’ve never witnessed. I’ve run out of superlatives to describe how different this moment is, especially in light of the cycles of tragedy and eventual resignation of recent years. This is a moment to throw old political assumptions out the window and to consider that Democrats could buck historic trends this cycle.

One of the first big signs that things had changed came from Kansas. After voters there defeated a constitutional amendment that would have removed abortion protections in the state in a landslide, I sought to understand how activists could have accomplished such an astounding upset. While it takes several weeks for state election officials to produce full reports on who voted in any given election, there was an immediate clue. I looked at new voter registrants in the state since the June 24 Dobbs decision. As shocking as the election result was to me, what I found was more striking than any single election statistic I can recall discovering throughout my career. Sixty-nine percent of those new registrants were women. In the six months before Dobbs, women outnumbered men by a three-point margin among new voter registrations. After Dobbs, that gender gap skyrocketed to 40 points. Women were engaged politically in a way that lacked any known precedent.

Repeating the Kansas analysis across several other states, a clear pattern emerged. Nowhere were the results as stark as they were there, but no other state was facing the issue with the immediacy of an August vote on a constitutional amendment. What my team and I did find was large surges in women registering to vote relative to men, when comparing the period before June 24 and after.

The pattern was clearest in states where abortion access was most at risk, and where the electoral stakes for abortion rights this November were the highest. The states with the biggest surges in women registering post-Dobbs were deep red Kansas and Idaho, with Louisiana emerging among the top five states. Key battleground states also showed large increases, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio, which are all facing statewide races in which the fate of abortion access could be decided in November.

The surge in women registering and voting helped the Democrat Pat Ryan prevail over Marc Molinaro — one of the more credible Republican recruits this cycle — in New York’s fiercely contested 19th Congressional District last month. This is not the type of performance you would see in a red wave election. Among the mail and early votes cast in the district, women outnumbered men by an 18-point margin, despite accounting for about 52 percent of registered voters.

With over two months until Election Day, uncertainty abounds. Election prognostication relies heavily on past precedent. Yet there is no precedent for an election centered around the removal of a constitutional right affirmed a half-century before. Every poll we consume over the closing weeks of this election will rely on a likely voter model for which we have no benchmark.

The stakes are high. Going into the midterms this fall, the G.O.P. need only gain six seats in the House and one seat in the Senate to retake control of those chambers, thwarting any hope of advancing federal abortion protections or any number of other liberal priorities.

Already, several Republicans seem to be sensing that they’re in trouble. In Arizona, the Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters, an ardent abortion opponent, recently wiped language advocating extreme abortion restrictions from his website.

Whether the coming elections will be viewed as a red wave, a Roe wave or something in between will be decided by the actions of millions of Americans — especially, it seems, American women. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority decision in Dobbs: “Women are not without electoral or political power.” He was right about that. Republicans might soon find out just how much political power they have.

It was called The Resistance and they used that power in 2018 and 2020. Let’s hope they use it again 2022.

You’re the puppet

The punditocracy has made it clear that Joe Biden’s remarks last week were totally out of bounds. Thank god the frontrunner for the GOP in 2024 is here to bring us together and heal the nation’s wounds:

There’s a lot more. Mostly the usual stuff. His new thing about executing drug dealers like the former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte seems to be a favorite. But the attacks on Democrats and individual Republicans is a reminder that there are tens of millions of people who follow this nutcase and he’s inciting them to violence and urging them to rig elections in his favor.

That is the context in which Biden gave his speech and the mainstream media instead used it as an excuse to show their “fairnbalanced” bona fides and they slammed him for it, They are still helping Trump after all these years. I am more worried than ever.

“Fish where the fish are”

Streaming, Citizens United changed News’ business model

You likely saw John Harwood’s swan song on CNN last week. One last burst of truth-telling and he was gone.

With CNN now under Chris Licht’s management, Harwood’s exit suggests a purge is underway (Washington Post):

His exit follows the abrupt departure of CNN’s chief media correspondent, Brian Stelter, host of the weekly media news show “Reliable Sources,” which had aired for three decades until it was canceled last month. Like Harwood, Stelter had time remaining on his contract. Another longtime CNN commentator, legal-affairs pundit Jeffrey Toobin, announced his departure on Aug. 12.

Several current and former CNN employees who spoke with The Washington Post — most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly — are interpreting the sudden exodus as evidence that Licht, who joined the network as chairman and CEO in May, is starting his tenure by casting out voices that had often been critical of former president Donald Trump and his allies, in an effort to present a new, more ideologically neutral CNN. That aligns with a vision repeatedly expressed by David Zaslav, the chief executive of Warner Bros. Discovery.

But enough about the politics. Twitter user YS @ReallyActivist explains the economics behind CNN’s shift. I know squat about this, but his take makes some sense:

1/

What happened to CNN?

I worked there for 18 years.

This is what happened.

Everyone wants to know why CNN is shifting.

Let me explain why.

What Fox News gets that MSNBC and CNN don’t get…

Each quarter, the Cable Operators release their subscriber base.

2/

For seven consecutive years, the cable operators have seen subscriber declines for 84 months

It’s called in the TV biz, “Cord Cutters”

97% of the “Cord Cutters” are under the age of 50

The majority of what is left watching cable like we have known, are very very old people

3/

As demographics for TV rapidly has changed to a very old age group, the networks remaining with any traction (ESPN, News Nets, etc.) have – HAVE TO – appeal to who is sitting on their couch watching news 24/7

Again, they are very very old people relative to the US population

4/

In the ratings war, the scorecard is usually based on A18-49 demographic.

But not for News.

No one buys news networks going after A18-49. No one.

All advertisers on these nets buy them for A50+.

MSNBC went left.

Fox News went right.

CNN tried to play the middle.

5/

The problem with CNN was they built a powerhouse in the 90’s. We printed money.

Cash. Hand over fist.

Then MSNBC and Fox News came along. The race was on.

MSNBC went velvet rope.

Fox News went diner.

CNN got caught in no man’s land.

6/

But the money kept coming in.

Then, technology changed the game.

CNN.com became THE defacto news source for America for a good 10 years.

Bernard Shaw hiding under the desk when Baghdad got bombed.

Aaron Brown broadcasting for 20 hours straight during 9.11.

7/

We loved the accolades.

We sold on it.

But what we didn’t do was take a look at what was happening.

The viewership started to splinter to MSNBC cause some folks wanted a left bent

But a lot went to Fox News

In fact between 2008 and 2016, CNN lost 60% of its 50+ audience.

8/

Fox News, saw a 70% increase in the same demo during the same period (mostly men)

Fox News gave the audience what they want, an aggrieved white man perspective

While we chased the “next shiny object”

not arguing Fox News is right. Absolutely not. They are evil to the core

9/

“Fish where the fish are.”

In 2010, the team at CNN got the Fox News Strategy for sales and that was their strategy (they got ours too and MSNBC, happens all the time)

Some of us, said “uh oh, they’re right”. The audience is no longer A18-49

others laughed and mocked it

10/

Trump came and CNN started to make a shitload of money again by being the “counter” to Fox News but it was based on perception not reality.

No one was still watching.

Why?

While rest of America is out there cutting the cord, Fox News doubled down on old people.

And won.

There’s more in the thread about CNN’s cost per thousand impressions (CPM). “Chris Litcht was given one edict,” says YS. “Raise CPM’s.”

Also, Citizens United changed the business model. “News Networks make more money during the 3 months leading up to mid-terms than they do all year.” And in presidential years? Hoo-ah!

PAC money keeps news networks’ doors open. After $770 million poured into news networks in 2012, says YS, they told anchors to stop talking about Citizens United.


Ironically, with UNAffiliateds now the largest tranche of registered voters here in North Carolina, I’m urging campaigns in competitive races to target them more efficiently than they can with VoteBuilder alone. I’ve generated 25 county spreadsheets showing by precinct the percentage of UNAs that voted for Biden in 2020. Basically, I’m showing them in each county where the fishing is good … and where it’s not. Also, where UNAs on the fence might be persuadable.

But as with For The Win, I can’t make campaigns use them. The data doesn’t come from VoteBuilder, and Democrats have trouble thinking outside the VoteBuilder box. Sort of the way the world changed and CNN was slow to adapt.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

GOP S.O.P.

Rejecting results they don’t like is how they roll

Jamelle Bouie returns to the “heads, we win, tails, you lose” approach to politics of the Republican Party. After President Joe Biden’s recent statements, we might call them MAGA Republicans. But that would discount prior efforts by Karl Rove, Roger Stone, the Brooks Brothers rioters, Hans von Spakovsky, Ken Blackwell, REDMAP, and North Carolina’s Rep. David Lewis and Thomas B. Hofeller. MAGA Republicans are latecomers to undermining free and fair elections. Bouie nonetheless documents more recent attrocities:

The first is in Michigan, where pro-choice canvassers obtained more than enough signatures to put an abortion-rights amendment to the state Constitution on the November ballot. The goal of such an amendment, beyond establishing the right to an abortion in the state, is to pre-empt a law, originally enacted in the 19th century, that bans abortion with only limited exceptions for the life of the mother.

Canvassers met the requirements, but Republicans on the Board of State Canvassers decided that was not enough. As the law professor Leah Litman explains for Slate magazine, Republicans “mounted a spurious challenge to the Michigan ballot initiative, arguing that the petitions contained less than optimal spacing between the words on the petition. That’s right: There were no missing words in the petition; no misleading words; no inaccurate words. Just some words they felt should have been spaced further apart.”

The word spacing ploy is right up there with time in 2004 when Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell rejected thousands of voter registration forms for being on the wrong weight of paper. So, there’s precedent for what Ohio’s Michigan neighbors did last week. Sort of.

The evenly split board split evenly on partisan lines, killing the effort to place the pro-choice measure on the ballot this fall, pending appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Bouie continues:

The whole debacle is practically farcical in its bad faith and insincerity. Had this been an amendment to ban abortion, there is no question that Republican officials would have allowed it on the ballot; after all, as the Supreme Court said in its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, each state is now able to decide for itself how it wants to handle abortion rights.

A neutral reader might understand this to mean that the people of each state can choose, democratically, to either protect or restrict abortion rights, but Michigan Republicans seem to see it as a more limited grant of freedom: Voters can either restrict abortion or do nothing at all. They cannot, and will not, be allowed to protect it.

Heads, conservatives win, tails, liberals lose. If it wasn’t for bad faith, etc.

The second example is Republican outrage at seeing Democrat Mary Peltola defeat Sarah Palin to win a special election to fill Alaska’s at-large U.S. House seat last week through 2022. Alaskans narrowly voted (50.5% to 49.5%) in 2020 to use ranked-choice voting. When the new system elected a Democrat, Republicans cried foul:

The process is straightforward, but in the wake of Peltola’s historic victory — she will be the first Alaska Native to serve in Congress as well as the first Democrat to hold the seat in 50 years — Republicans cried fraud. “Ranked-choice voting is a scam to rig elections,” said Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Twitter. Josh Hammer, a conservative commentator, said he was “calling for a complete and total shutdown of ranked-choice voting until we can figure out what the hell is going on.”

[…]

There’s nothing unfair or complicated about ranked-choice voting. The issue for Republicans, in this case, is that they lost. But rather than accept this loss and move on to fight another day, they have gone with what appears to be the now-standard response to defeat: to attack and undermine the system itself.

Republicans have done that for so long now that in the Trump-MAGA era they’ve simply abandoned all pretenses. Rejecting results when Republicans lose is now GOP S.O.P.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

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

Shamelessness alert

Guess who?

Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for the lengthy jailing of opponents of his who he claimed mishandled classified materials.

CNN’s KFile reviewed comments from the former President, dating back to his first presidential campaign in 2016, from speeches, interviews and comments made on social media.

The former President is in potential legal jeopardy after the Justice Department’s search of his Mar-a-Lago residence last month retrieved more than 100 classified documents, with the DOJ alleging that US government documents were “likely concealed and removed” from a storage room at the Florida resort as part of an effort to “obstruct” the FBI’s investigation. More than 320 classified documents have now been recovered from Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department said, including more than 100 in the FBI search earlier this month.

Speaking in 2016 about the government’s decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes related to their investigation into her handling of classified material and use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, then-candidate Trump repeatedly promised that his administration would strictly enforce all rules regarding classified material.

“On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, ” Trump said in August 2016. “In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”

“One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information,” he said in September 2016.

Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton’s mishandling “disqualifies” her from public service.

“Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information,” Trump said. “Again, that alone disqualifies her.”

It isn’t just Clinton who Trump has criticized, he also repeatedly called for the jailing of other opponents for what he said was the mishandling of classified material.

In 2017, when calls between Trump and foreign governments were leaked, along with communications between incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and foreign governments, Trump suggested those responsible for the leaks should go to prison.

“That is the most confidential stuff,” Trump said. “Classified. That’s classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that.”

Trump also said several times that former FBI Director James Comey should be “prosecuted” in tweets pushing unfounded accusations that Comey disclosed classified information. A DOJ inspector general report found “no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media.” The IG’s office referred the findings of its report to the Justice Department for possible prosecution and prosecutors declined to bring charges.

“He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted,” one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.

Trump also repeatedly and strongly called for the prosecution of his former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Following the publication of Bolton’s memoir from his time in the Trump White House, “The Room Where It Happened,” Trump said that the book contained classified information.

A federal judge involved in one of the Bolton cases did find that he likely put national security at risk with his book, but the judge also rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to block the book’s publication.

In 2020, Trump told Fox News that Bolton should go to jail for “many, many years” for releasing the memoir.

“Classified information; he should go to jail for that for many, many years,” Trump said.

In an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Trump again called for Bolton’s imprisonment.

“Here’s what he did: He released classified information, highly classified information and confidential information, all different categories,” Trump said. “John Bolton should never have been allowed to do that. You know, the young sailor that sent a picture home to his mother and other people. They go to jail for a long period of time. You can’t do that. And that was not nearly as vital, as important, as John Bolton.”

Trump tweeted in June 2020 that Bolton was “washed up” until Trump hired him.

“I brought him back and gave him a chance,” the tweet read. “[He] broke the law by releasing Classified Information, in massive amounts. He must pay a very big price for this, as others have before him. This should never to happen again!!!”

Trump later said in an interview with Brian Kilmeade that regardless of if Bolton unknowingly leaked information in his book “he should go to jail.”

A Justice Department probe into Bolton was dropped in 2021, and he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” last year that his book “did go through a pre-publication review process” and that it “was cleared by the expert team that reviewed it, arduously.”

Yes, we know they are hypocrites. But it’s good to keep a record anyway. Someday it might matter again.

An apology for the strongmen

We didn’t realize you were so fragile.

Dana Milbank FTW:

Who knew strongmen were so fragile?

The insurrectionists of Jan. 6 busted into the Capitol, hit police with fire extinguishers, flagpoles, bats, stun guns and pepper spray; they threatened to kill the vice president and tried to overthrow the 2020 election. And now, they want an apology.

MAGA Republican leaders have fomented violence, attacked the rule of law and deceived tens of millions of people into rejecting the outcome of free and fair elections. And now, they, too, want an apology.

I’m sorry, but these authoritarians have some terribly tender egos. They need to pull themselves up by their own jackboot-straps.

On Thursday, the very day President Biden spoke from Philadelphia’s Independence Hall pleading with Americans to “stop the assault on American democracy,” former president Donald Trump called for reparations for those who assaulted democracy on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump told a right-wing radio host that, if he returns to power, he plans “full pardons with an apology to many” who attacked the Capitol.

He also claimed he is “financially supporting” some of those charged in the insurrection to defend them from “sick” prosecutors and “nasty” judges. Oath Keepers? Proud Boys? Unclear. He didn’t say which insurrectionists he’s bankrolling.

Hours later, Kevin McCarthy, in Scranton, Pa., gave a prebuttal of Biden’s democracy speech in which the House Republican leader demanded that Biden apologize to MAGA Republicans for calling their ideology “semi-fascism.” “The first lines out of his mouth should be to apologize for slandering tens of millions of Americans as fascists,” McCarthy said.

Of course, Biden’s semi-fascism remark was directed at MAGA leaders such as Trump and McCarthy — not the masses they’ve hornswoggled with their anti-democratic lies. But McCarthy used a classic fascist tool: casting the powerful in-group as the persecuted.

McCarthy has tried this move before. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called McCarthy a “moron” last year over his objections to pandemic mask-wearing, he tried to sell T-shirts that said “Moron” in big letters and (falsely) claimed Pelosi had applied the label to all “freedom loving Americans.”

Is there no limit to the authoritarians’ hurt feelings? Insurrectionists are victims. Fascists are victims. Even right-wing fashion victims are victims. A new outlet calling itself “The Conservateur” just published an equine-themed fashion spread of Lara Trump, showing her atop a horse, barefoot, wearing a “gauze gown belted with clustered pearls.” Complains the Conservateur: “Despite her beauty and accomplishments … Lara was never interviewed by Vanity Fair, Elle, Marie Claire or any of the other fashion and lifestyle magazines.”

As the unauthorized spokesman for fashion magazines, I humbly and unreservedly apologize to the former president’s daughter-in-law for this unforgivable oversight.

While I’m apologizing, let me offer one to the insurrectionists, as Trump demanded:

I regret that the heads and bodies of police officers got in the way of your truncheons and flagpoles while you were engaging in Legitimate Political Discourse at the Capitol. I hope that you didn’t hurt your fingers while gouging their eyes, and that their blood didn’t stain your tactical assault gear; if it did, please send me the dry-cleaning bill! I am so sorry that, on your Normal Tourist Visit, you didn’t get to use your noose or all the guns stockpiled at the Comfort Inn in Alexandria. Please forgive me for previously quibbling with your plan to “hang Mike Pence” and your use of the Confederate flag in the halls of Congress. I apologize that you had to break windows and doors, climb scaffolding and rappel into the Senate chamber. My bad! Next time you want to overthrow an American election, just knock.

And here’s an apology to the semi-fascists, as McCarthy demanded:

I’m so sorry you’ve convinced millions of people to believe the egregious lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I’m sorry you are making heroes of the criminals who attacked our seat of government. I’m sorry you’re currently fomenting violence against the FBI and the IRS. I’m sorry you’re passing laws giving yourselves more power to overthrow the 2024 election results if you lose, and I’m sorry you’re nominating candidates committed to doing so. I’m sorry you don’t like it when the Justice Department enforces the law and protects national security. I’m sorry you’ve lionized Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban, and I’m sorry you say that the Democratic Party, not Vladimir Putin’s Russia, is the real enemy. I regret that you’ve taken away women’s rights. I regret that you’re banning books and censoring history lessons. I regret that you are shunning science, expertise and the truth. Above all, I’m truly sorry that, because of such things, Biden called you semi-fascists. There’s really nothing “semi” about it.

The American white nationalists are the whiniest bunch of sore-loser strongmen in human history.