Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Demokratie? Nein, Danke.

Published by Tom Sullivan on April 30, 2024

“We do not want to be a democracy”*

Republicans want to roll back the 20th century a quarter of the way into the 21st. They’ve made no bones about it for decades. In his heyday during the George W. Bush administration prior to the September 11 attacks, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform busily strong-armed Republicans into signing his anti-tax pledge. He dreamed of returning America to “the McKinley era, absent the protectionism.” He wanted, famously, to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Norquist was a radical for his day. But not so radical that he imagined chucking the Constitution itself along with the last 100 years. Among today’s MAGA Republicans, he’s a RINO.

Nancy MacLean, author of “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America,” suggests the remnant of the southern planter class, economic royalists and academic libertarians, undertook affecting a restoration of elite dominance beginning in the late 1940s. Their goal: to save capitalism from democracy. They want to roll back the 20th century and have been patient about achieving it. And subtly incremental, rarely revealing the sweep of their plans. “One fish, one hook,” as Norquist put it.

Then came the first black president. Subtlety was for pikers. McKinley? They want to roll back the Enlightenment, modernity, the works. Give us feudalism or give us death!

David Frum was late to his own party when in January 2018 he declared, “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” Three years later, MAGA foot soldiers sacked the U.S. Capitol at Donald Trump’s command. Last week, Trump’s attorneys argued before the U.S. Supreme Court for return to something like the divine right of kings: presidential immunity for life. The MAGA wing of the court is thinking it over.

“We do not want to be a democracy”

On the other side of the country in Spokane, Washington, state Republicans the prior weekend proved how much distance they’ve put between themselves and their party’s first president. At their state convention, they moved beyond the rhetorical “a republic not a democracy” to formally rejecting government of the people, by the people, for the people — the whole democracy thing.

Columnist Danny Westneat writes in the The Seattle Times:

A resolution called for ending the ability to vote for U.S. senators. Instead, senators would get appointed by state legislatures, as it generally worked 110 years ago prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

“We are devolving into a democracy, because congressmen and senators are elected by the same pool,” was how one GOP delegate put it to the convention. “We do not want to be a democracy.”

We don’t? There are debates about how complete of a democracy we wish to be; for example, the state Democratic Party platform has called for the direct election of the president (doing away with the Electoral College). But curtailing our own vote? The GOPers said they hoped states’ rights would be strengthened with such a move.

Then they kicked it up a notch. They passed a resolution calling on people to please stop using the word “democracy.”

If Democrats are their enemy, then any hint of democracy carries a taint. Out, out, damned one person, one vote.

“We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy,’ ” the resolution says. “Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.”

Ardently. “We … oppose legislation which makes our nation more democratic in nature.”

Westneat adds:

It wasn’t that long ago when Republican presidents would extol democracy as America’s greatest export. Or sometimes try to share it with others down the barrel of a gun (see George W. Bush, Iraq).

Now the party is saying they don’t even want to hear the d-word anymore.

Washington state Republicans only stopped short of demanding a swear jar in every Republican office.

Sure, our representative democracy contains flaws we are still struggling in fits and starts to perfect. But “Republicans Aren’t Against Democracy,” Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in a 2021 op-ed. “You can find the odd monarchist on the internet, but American conservatives … are generally committed to self-government.”

Ponnuru might want to review the transcript of last week’s oral arguments in Trump v. United States. MAGA Republicans are putting their opposition to democratic principles in writing.

Turn in your flags.

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atomkraft_Nein_Danke.svg

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Four Years Ago Today

Published by digby on April 29, 2024
How’d that work out?

“Conviction Sensitive” Persuadables

Published by digby on April 29, 2024

Are they the new soccer moms and NASCAR dads?

Dan Pfeiffer looks at the latest (outlier) CNN poll that has the whole beltway gasping with excitement over the prospect that Biden is in the dirt with young people, Black and Hispanic voters. He noted that the polls shows that 25% of Trump voters are what he calls “conviction sensitive” voters who might be persuaded to abandon him if he’s convicted of a crime:

Even more interesting, the topline numbers are the characteristics of these conviction-sensitive voters. According to CNN:

They tend to be younger than other Trump supporters (64% are younger than 50 compared with 37% of those who would not reconsider), are less likely to be White (49% are people of color compared with 17% of those who would not reconsider), are more apt to report being Biden voters in 2020 (20% of them say they backed Biden in 2020 vs. 6% of those who would not reconsider) and are likelier to acknowledge that Biden legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency four years ago (63% vs. 22% among those who would not reconsider). They are also more apt to be political independents (49% vs. 31%) and ideologically moderate (50% vs. 38%).

In other words, these are the exact voters who propelled Trump to his very narrow lead in the polling average. Younger voters, independents, Black and Latino voters are groups Trump struggled with in 2020 but is doing better with now.

You would think that all voters would be “conviction sensitive” but we live in a world in which corrupt, criminal politicians are revered because they’re very stable geniuses so being a felon who committed massive fraud, assaulted a woman and then defamed her, paid off a porn star, stole classified documents or tried to steal an election makes you “smart.”

Pfeiffer makes the case that at least some of these voters are persuadable and contends that this poll reveals “two broader truths about this election”:

First, Trump’s putative lead is fragile. He is propped up by people who don’t like him, disagree with him on most issues, and have a long history of voting for Democrats. Holding on to this coalition for the next six months would be a challenge for any candidate, let alone a megalomaniacal narcissist with little impulse control and 88 felony indictments.

Second, I am glad to know that some people would have some qualms about making a convicted felon president, but this is more than a conviction. These voters have some doubts about supporting Trump and are looking for an offramp. In other words, they are persuadable. Because everything seems so polarized and this election is a rematch, most assume there are no persuadable voters. That could not be further from the truth. If this poll is accurate, a historically large group of voters is willing to listen to our case.

It’s going to be a long hot summer and events may have more to do with this than anything. But you do have to wonder if the Young, Black and Hispanic voters will really be willing to vote for Trump once they get a good look at him again. It’s up to the Democrats, and all of us, to make sure they do.

Are They Going To Get Away With This?

Published by digby on April 29, 2024

Probably

Politicians who have faith in their leadership don’t need to lie as easily as they breathe.

“It’s All Too Easy To Fall Into Reflexive Habits”

Published by digby on April 29, 2024

Stephanopoulos brought the fire:

No American president had ever faced a criminal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election, or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president has faced hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse.

Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined by what’s happening in courtrooms than by what’s happening on the campaign trail. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering, that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflexive habits, to treat this as a normal campaign, where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But, that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenants of democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.

Indeed it is. And unfortunately, so far, the media is only sometimes meeting the moment. Steph meets it here but far too often the savvy DC press corps retreats into its cynical corners. Too many reporters obviously can’t stand Biden — he’s old and boring. And as a result they are not willing to be clear about the stakes or, perhaps even more importantly, fairly tell Biden’s story, which should have people emerging more decisively from their post-pandemic funk. It’s going to be hand to hand combat and journalists need to start telling the truth about just how fucked up this really is.

Trump Makes His Case In The Hallway

Published by digby on April 29, 2024

It’s not very convincing

Trump is highly, highly unlikely to testify in his NY hush money trial but he has been arguing his case (sort of) outside the courthouse every day. The NY Times did a fact check and it’s a doozy

He said:

“He puts in an invoice, or whatever, a bill. And they pay it and they call it a legal expense. I got indicted for that. What else would you call it? Actually nobody’s been able to say what you’re supposed to call it.”
— last Monday

The Times calls this false. Of course prosecutors know what to call them. They’re invoices for reimbursement of the $130,000 (plus taxes and bonus) second mortgage Cohen used to pay off Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet before the election.

They call Cohen’s payments “illegal campaign contributions” and the invoices “reimbursement intended to falsify business records.” In no way were they “legal expenses.”

He said

“Also the things that he got in trouble for were things that had nothing to do with me. He got in trouble. He went to jail. This had nothing to do with me. This had to do with the taxi cab company.”
— last Monday

Uh no.

Cohen did plead guilty to personal tax evasion related to the taxi medallions but the campaign finance violations were all about the Stormy scheme and they each carried up to five years in prison. He was sentenced to 3 years and he actually had to spend time behind bars as have many other Trump flunkies while he wines and dines his fans down at Mar-a-Lago.

He said:

“Federal Elections took a total pass on it. They said essentially nothing was done wrong or they would have done something about it.”
— last Monday

Au contraire

The Times reports that the commissioners deadlocked along partisan lines but an FEC OLC report found that Trump and the Trump org, along with Cohen “knowingly and willfully” violated federal election law. The GOPers on the commission wrote that pursuing the case wasn’t “the best use of agency resources.” It was enough that Cohen took the rap. (Yes, they actually said his punishment was enough.)

He said:

“I’m not allowed to defend myself, and yet other people are allowed to say whatever they want about me.”— on Tuesday

I think you know how dumb this is. He’s not allowed to talk about witnesses, jurors, court staff or their families but he can talk about the case. Obviously. He can’t shut up about it.

“This is all a Biden indictment. It’s in order to try and win an election.” –on Friday

Oh come on. It’s totally false. But here’s the Times’ fact check on this. …. sigh:

This lacks evidence. Mr. Trump again accused President Biden of orchestrating the legal woes he faces, offering no evidence to support that claim.

Mr. Bragg’s predecessor began investigating the hush money payments in 2018, years before Mr. Biden took office in 2021. As president, Mr. Biden has publicly emphasized the independence of the Justice Department. Moreover, news outlets including The Times have reported that Mr. Biden’s campaign strategy is to say nothing about Mr. Trump’s legal woes. Federal prosecutors in New York who work for the Justice Department have also declined to file charges against Mr. Trump.

Lacks evidence? Please. It’s the Manhattan District Attorney, not the Justice Department! The NY Times hedges as it so often does. Please.

That’s just a smattering of Trump’s courthouse babble. They tackle more statements at the link. And they are all 100% prime BS.

Duty To Warn

Published by digby on April 29, 2024

Dr. Elias Doonesbury is a fictional “veteran psychologist” warning the world about Trump’s dementia

But the real question is if he has a stiff gait. That’s the real sign of someone unable to perform the duties of president.

One Vote Away

Published by digby on April 29, 2024

One might have thought that after the political upheaval caused by the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade the conservative justices would feel that it was the better part of valor to play it cool for a while and let the smoke clear before they launch into another radical assault on American jurisprudence. But apparently, taking away established rights for half the population was just a warm up act. Last week, they signaled pretty clearly that they’re prepared to enshrine an imperial presidency into the U.S. Constitution.

First , we were all treated to the sickening spectacle of the five conservative men on the Court batting around ideas about how many organs need to be failing before an emergency physician can step in to save a pregnant woman’s life. You see, they value the rights of states, a government entity, far more than they value the rights of individuals. Well, individual women anyway. It was obvious that at least four of the Justices are fully prepared to say that any yahoo in a state can override the federal law against allowing people to bleed to death in their ER. We’ll have to see if they can get one of the others to join them in this grotesque display of callous indifference to the suffering of pregnant patients and their families in their worst moments of distress.

The hotly anticipated immunity case that was argued the next day really brought home just how far gone the high court really is. As you know, Donald Trump has severe psychological problems that make it impossible for him to admit that has ever lost or done anything wrong. In order to preserve the fragile hold he had on his psyche in the wake of his loss in 2020, he concocted a fantasy in which he actually won and cast himself as a big hero exposing the rigged election by the other side. He went so far as to plot a coup and incite an insurrection in a vain attempt to wrest back power and in the process broke a bunch of laws for which he is now being held to account. Naturally, he cannot accept that so he and his lawyers have come up with a novel legal defense in which they claim that a president is totally immune from the rule of law.

Trump’s argument is quite explicit:

Coming from the man who routinely accused former President Obama of committing crimes and demanded that his Justice Department investigate, that’s pretty rich. (And you have to love the way he slides his belief that police officers should be immune as well in there. It’s an authoritarian smorgasbord.)

Everyone has always understood that presidents are subject to the rule of law once they’re out of office. In fact, it wasn’t until 1973 that the Justice Department’s Office of legal Counsel found it necessary to write a department policy against indicting a sitting president under the assumption that it would interfere with his or her duties while in office. We’ve mercifully not had to deal with that except in the cases of Richard Nixon, who was pardoned, and Bill Clinton who took a plea deal and gave up his law license for five years, which clearly indicates that their understanding was that they had legal liability for the crimes of which they were accused.

That’s all in the past apparently. Today we have a former president accused of very serious crimes who contends that he must be given immunity. And if he doesn’t get it? Well, we’d better hope that he doesn’t win the presidency again because unless the court gives presidents total immunity, Joe Biden is going to jail:

That can’t be read as anything but a threat. (Nice little country you have here … )

I had no expectations that the right wing Supreme Court majority would act with restraint on this issue. Bush v. Gore cured me of faith that they have any integrity when a presidential election is on the line. But going into the Supreme Court arguments last week, I think most legal scholars expected the court to be at least somewhat disdainful of the idea that a president must be allowed to be a criminal or he can’t do the job. But it turns out that at least four of them and possibly even six are quite open to the idea. Justice Samuel Alito went so far as to turn the whole case inside out and upside down by stating:

“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”

I’m pretty sure that ship sailed on January 6th. But what that comment, and others made by the right wingers on the court, shows is that they’ve bought into Trump’s Big Lie that the prosecutions of Donald Trump are partisan exercises brought by his “bitter political opponent.” And they are clearly prepared to use their own vast, unaccountable power to even out the score.

If they had any concern about their institution’s credibility they wouldn’t have even heard the case. Obviously, they don’t care about that so it appears that the best we can hope for is that they don’t decide to grant this immunity outright but rather come up with some vague distinction between “official” and “private” acts and send it back to the trial court, delaying the case until after the election. If Trump wins, I think we can be quite sure there will be no immunity for Joe Biden.

It’s disconcerting to realize that the right wing legal intelligentsia is infected with Fox News Brain Rot all the way to the top. You see it from the legal commentators in partisan media, of course. That’s to be expected. But it’s permeated the entire GOP legal establishment from state Attorneys General to judges and to people like Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr who recently said that despite the fact that he believes Trump committed illegal acts and is unfit for the presidency he plans to vote for him because Democrats want to regulate kitchen appliances and are therefore a greater threat to democracy. And now we see this extremist majority on the Supreme Court acting as rank partisan operators to ensure that a blatant criminal gets every chance to seize power so that he can pacify his broken psyche by wreaking revenge on his enemies. And they seem to be open to taking down our democracy in the process.

As former former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman said on MSNBC over the weekend, “We are one vote away from the end of democracy as we know it.”

Salon

Dobbs Was Just The Beginning

Published by Tom Sullivan on April 29, 2024

The blood in the water is yours

Opponents of women’s reproductive rights are just getting warmed up. As if you needed reminding.

Abortion bans are a loser for Republicans, but they are slow learners. They need reminding.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

No Hot August Nights

Published by Tom Sullivan on April 29, 2024

The DNC’s Chicago convention won’t look like 1968

United Center, Chicago, site of the 2024 Democratic National Convention. Photo by Alacoolwiki via Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED).

When I told my partner-in-blog I’d been elected a North Carolina delegate to the 2024 DNC convention in Chicago, her advice was to bring a flak jacket. The thought had occurred to me. Those of a certain age remember too well what happened in Chicago at the 1968 convention. It is another reason a 2016 Bernie Sanders delegate insisted I run after Ezra Klein’s reverie about an open convention. Plus, anything might happen between April and August. He wanted me there in case things go off the rails. As things have in Chicago.

David Frum writes in The Atlantic why, security-wise, the kind of disruptions Chicago saw in 1968 are unlikely to happen again. Even as American campus protests over the Israeli prosecution of a war in the Gaza Strip draw headlines, 2024 is not 1968. Protesters presuming to replicate 1968 (as some will) are deluding themselves, Frum explains:

From 1968 to today, responsibility for protecting political conventions has shifted from cities and states to the federal government. This new federal responsibility was formalized in a directive signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998. The order created a category of “National Special Security Events,” for which planning would be led by the Secret Service.

National Security Special Events draw on all the resources of the federal government, including, if need be, those of the Defense Department. In 2016, the federal government spent $50 million on security for each of the two major-party conventions.

Those funds enabled Cleveland, the host of the 2016 Republican convention, to deploy thousands of law-enforcement personnel. Officers were seconded from across Ohio, and from as far away as Texas and California. Federal funds paid for police to be trained in understanding the difference between lawful and unlawful protest, and to equip them with body cameras to record interactions with the public. The city also used federal funds to buy 300 bicycles to field a force that could move quickly into places where cars might not be able to go, and that could patrol public spaces in a way that was more approachable and friendly.

Campuses are lightly controlled and lightly policed, Frum adds. “Pro-Palestinian protesters have proved considerably more circumspect when they march in places where laws of public order are upheld.”

Disruptions like blocking bridges and protests inside the Cannon Office Building on Capitol Hill involve “old-fashioned civil disobedience—lawbreaking that did not threaten injury to anyone, followed by peaceful acceptance of arrest.”

National Special Security Events are different animals. Security at the 2012 convention in Charlotte was tight. (I attended on a press pass.) No one gets past the security perimeter without credentials approved by the party host committee. Protests outside the 2016 Philadelphia convention by a few N.C. Bernie delegates from my district amounted to (in my friend’s reporting) mostly face-painting and fierce crying.

With Jan. 6 informing planning, and with subsequent prosecutions as a point of reference, it is less likely any hopes of disrupting the DNC convention will remain hopes. Frum concludes:

Maybe protesters will discover an unsuspected weak point, overwhelm police, wreak viral-video havoc, embarrass President Biden, and thereby help Donald Trump. The better guess is that they will not only fail in that but also be unable to mobilize any large number to attack police lines and risk serious prison time.

Guess I’ll leave the flak jacket at home.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.