Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

He’s not good at this

Now excuse me while I try to destroy the Orlando economy because Mickey Mouse disagreed with me once. https://t.co/EqkXvuWwXA

— Schooley (@Rschooley) July 18, 2023

Jonathan Chait points out that he just refuses answer questions and he does it so obviously that even gullible GOP voters can see it:

Florida governor Ron DeSantis abandoned his policy of only speaking to Republican Party–aligned media by giving an interview to CNN’s Jake Tapper. Unfortunately, taking questions is just one part of doing an interview. The other part is answering them. DeSantis conspicuously refused to answer any of the most newsworthy questions posed to him.

Tapper asked DeSantis if he would sign a national six-week abortion ban like the one he signed in Florida: “Yes or no, will you support that?” DeSantis did not say yes or no:

So I’ve said I’m pro-life, I will be a pro-life president, um, and we will support pro-life policies. Um, at the same time, I look at what’s going on in the Congress, and I don’t see them making very much headway. I think the danger from Congress is, if we lose the election, they’re gonna try to nationalize abortion up until the moment of birth.

Tapper asked if he would stop arming Ukraine or stop giving it financial support. DeSantis did not answer that, either. Instead, he framed the question as being about sending American troops there. “A vital national interest means we would send troops to Ukraine.”

He eventually said, “I am not gonna diminish our stocks, and not send to Taiwan, and not gonna make us less capable to exigencies. And you have to care more about your own border than you do about foreign borders.” That sounds like a promise not to continue arming Ukraine, since any weapons sent to Ukraine would by definition come at the expense of domestic weapons stocks. But his answer was evasive rather than straightforward.

Tapper asked if he would push Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make territorial concessions to end the war, and DeSantis said only that “the goal is gonna be a sustainable peace that does not reward aggression.”

DeSantis’s most overt dodge came when Tapper asked if he thought Jack Smith should indict Donald Trump if he finds evidence of criminality. DeSantis just refused to say:

Tapper: “If Jack Smith has evidence of criminality, should Donald Trump be held accountable?”

DeSantis: “So here’s the problem: this country is going down the road of criminalizing political differences. I think that’s wrong. Alvin Bragg stretched the statute in Manhattan to be able to try to target Donald Trump. Most people, even people on the left, acknowledge if that wasn’t Trump, that case would not have likely been brought against the normal civilian. And so you have a situation where the Department of Justice/FBI have been weaponized against people they don’t like. And the number one example that happened to be against Donald Trump with the Russia collusion. That was not a legitimate investigation. That was being done to try to drive Trump out of office. And so what I’ve said, as President, my job is to restore a single standard of justice, to end weaponization of these agencies. We’re going to have a new FBI director on Day One. We’re going to have big changes at the Department of Justice. Americans across the political spectrum need to have confidence that what is going on is based on the rule of law, not based on what political tribe you’re in.”

Tapper followed up by noting Smith has prosecuted Democrats, too. “Are you saying that if he finds evidence of criminality,” he repeated, “he should not charge Donald Trump anyway?” DeSantis dodged again:

“What I’m saying is that, if you’re going after somebody on the other side of the political spectrum, if you’re stretching statutes to try to criminalize maybe political disagreements, that is wrong. Now, look, this is all speculation. But I think we’ve gone down the road in this country of trying to criminalize politics rather than say, okay, if you don’t like somebody then defeat them in the election rather than use the justice system.

On all three questions, DeSantis chose to answer a different and much easier question than the one he was asked. Rather than say if he would sign a national abortion ban, he said he opposed a national law to protect abortion through birth. Rather than say whether he would send military and economic aid to Ukraine, he said he wouldn’t send troops there (which the Biden administration is also not doing).

And when asked if Smith should prosecute Trump if he has evidence of criminality, DeSantis talked about Alvin Bragg and insinuated Smith is charging Trump because he’s a Republican without directly saying either that Trump is innocent or that he should be immune from prosecution.

Trump is very good at refusing to answer questions. His technique is to ramble incoherently through so many different subject areas that the audience and the interviewer forget what he was asked. DeSantis is cursed with having a normal, functioning brain, so his refusals to answer are painfully conspicuous.

Tapper didn’t really press him either which is, sadly, par for the course. I suppose he wanted to make sure DeSantis would come back but really, is it worth it?

These lies and non-answers will satisfy no one, especially those who follow politics — on either side. He has spent the last two years being the most hardcore, far-right, asshole culture warrior and he goes on CNN for the first time and tries to wriggle his way out of it with a bunch of evasive gobbldygook? Good luck with that.

lmao this is amazing pic.twitter.com/zVjoA7Wppm

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 19, 2023

This is a perfect example of how the little cogs in his mind creak to life to cover for the fact that he knows fuck-all about what she’s talking about. Think about all the times he’s said exactly that, “we’re working on that”, “we have a plan” “It’s so ridiculous”, “It’ll be easy.” He’s said that about everything from health care to nuclear weapons to COVID 19. He’s very stupid but his ego demands that he pretend he knows everything.

We’ve all met people like this in our lives. What continues to astonish me is that at least some of his followers must be able to see that he’s completely clueless but they cheer anyway. I guess they just admire liars.

Used car salesmen must see them coming a mile away…

Good news about the electorate

Pollsters Celinda Lake and Mac Heller discuss the changing age demographics of American voters:

It’s easy to envision the 2024 presidential election becoming the third straight contest in which a veteran Democrat goes up against Donald Trump. Once again, the Democrat wins the popular vote but swing states are tighter. Could go either way — and has, right?

But things are very different this time, and here’s why: The candidates might not be changing — but the electorate has.

Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote. In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.

Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die. So in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.

Which means that between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 percent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.

And unlike previous generations, Gen Z votes. Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 percent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 percent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 percent higher in midterms.

Similarly, though not as drastic, we have seen a 7 percent increase in voter registration among under-30 voters since Gen Z joined the electorate. In midterm elections, under-30s have seen a 20 percent increase in their share of the electorate, on average, since Trump and Gen Z entered the game.

Yet Trump is not the deciding factor for these voters. When pollsters ask why, Gen Z voters say their motivation is not a party or candidate. It is, instead, strong passion on one or more issues — a much more policy-driven approach than the more partisan voting behavior of their elders.

That policy-first approach, combined with the issues they care most about, have led young people in recent years to vote more frequently for Democrats and progressive policies than prior generations did when of similar age — as recent elections in Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin have shown.

In last August’s Kansas abortion referendum, for example, women under 30 turned out at a rate of 41 percent and helped win the contest. A similar Michigan abortion referendum brought youth midterm turnout to 49 percent — and 69 percent of voters younger than 30 voted to put abortion rights protections in the state constitution compared to just 52 percent of voters 30 and older. Michigan voters elected Democratic majorities in both state houses for the first time in years, and reelected their Democratic governor, attorney general and secretary of state.

While American voters historically have tended somewhat to become more conservative as they age, no one should expect these voting patterns to change drastically. About 48 percent of Gen Z voters identify as a person of color, while the boomers they’re replacing in the electorate are 72 percent White. Gen Z voters are on track to be the most educated group in our history, and the majority of college graduates are now female. Because voting participation correlates positively with education, expect women to speak with a bigger voice in our coming elections. Gen Z voters are much more likely to cite gender fluidity as a value, and they list racism among their greatest concerns. Further, they are the least religious generation in our history. No wonder there’s discussion in some parts of the GOP about raising the voting age to 25, and among some Democrats about lowering it to 16!

There are lessons — and warnings — here for both parties. For Republicans, the message is obvious: Listen to the voices of this soon-to-be-dominant group of voters as you formulate your policies on climate, abortion, guns, health care, inclusion and everything else. Unlike some older voters, they are listening to what you say — and to how you say it. Change your language and style from the unmitigated male id of “Never Back Down” and “Where Woke Goes to Die” to words of community, stewardship, sharing and collaboration. That’s the new patriotism, and young voters believe that approach will solve problems more effectively than what they’ve seen over the past two decades.

There are stark messages for Democrats too. Meet young voters where they are: on social media, not cable news. Make your messages short, funny and somehow sarcastic yet authentic and earnest at the same time. Your focus should be issues first, issues second, candidates third and party identity never.

A final word of warning: Both parties should worry about young voters embracing third-party candidates. Past elections show that Gen Z voters shop for candidates longer and respond favorably to new faces and issue-oriented candidates. They like combining their activism with their voting and don’t feel bound by party loyalty. And they can’t remember Ross Perot, Ralph Nader — or even Jill Stein.

We suspect both campaigns know most or all of what we have written here. Habit may prevent them from acting on it, but they have these numbers. In one of life’s great ironies, the group that doesn’t know it is young voters. They think of themselves as ignored, powerless and marginalized in favor of big money and shouting boomers. But over the next year, they’ll figure it out. Gen Z will tire of waiting for Washington to unite to solve problems, will grab the national microphone and will decide the 2024 presidential race.

Issues should be front and center under the banner of freedom — abortion, guns, gender and sexual identity, democracy, climate change. I don’t think this is that hard to do. And the Biden administration, to its credit, has not triangulated against the young people who care about these things, as Democrats we wont to do in the past, and instead has included them in the coalition as equal partners.

I hope they come out in big numbers and give the Democrats a little breathing room this time. And I really hope they don’t fall for the siren’s call of third party candidates. I understand where that comes from in a young idealist’s worldview. But we can’t afford a spoiler this time.

I confess that I hadn’t thought of it this way but I think it’s absolutely right:

A reckoning for the failed coup

Former president Donald Trump’s Truth Social feed was active with ragging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and re-posts of his fandom’s superhero memes on Monday which seemed to be just another day in the Trump 2024 presidential campaign. You would never have known that the night before he had been presented with a target letter from Special Counsel Jack Smith until Tuesday when he posted a rambling, incoherent official two page “statement” announcing it to the world.

“Deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden’s DOJ, sent a letter … stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation, and giving me a very short 4 days to report to the Grand Jury, which almost always means an Arrest and an Indictment” the statement began after which it immediately devolved into whining and crying over his alleged persecution at the hands of well… everyone. He lamented, “it is a very sad and dark period for our nation.”

It is a sad and dark period for our nation that an accused criminal ex-president is the front runner for the Republican presidential nomination. In fact, it’s tragic.

Late last night several news outlets reported that the target letter specified three crimes they are contemplating charging Trump with. According to ABC, it mentions “three federal statutes: conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States, deprivation of rights under color of law, and tampering with a witness, victim or an informant.” Contrary to much speculation the letter apparently did not mention sedition or insurrection.

Despite the fact that the letter refers to a conspiracy charge, no other targets have come forward to say they have been similarly informed. Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani would be a likely choice but he spent many hours with the Special Counsel during two “proffer” sessions and claims that he is neither a cooperator nor a target. His spokesman told ABC,

Any speculation that Mayor Rudy Giuliani ‘flipped’ against President Donald Trump is as false as previous lies that America’s Mayor was somehow a Russian Agent. In order to ‘flip’ on President Trump — as so many in the anti-Trump media are fantasizing over — Mayor Giuliani would’ve had to commit perjury because all the information he has regarding this case points to President Trump’s innocence.”

We’ll have to see how that shakes out because it could mean almost anything. It’s entirely possible that Giuliani remains more assured of his lawyerly prowess than he should be and those sessions actually implicated Trump — and himself. As for the other potential conspirators like John Eastman and Sidney Powell, who knows? All we are sure of at this point is that Donald Trump is very likely on the cusp of another federal indictment and this one is the big enchilada.

CNN reports that Trump has been on the horn to his allies on Capitol Hill twisting their arms to use their power to defend him. McCarthy stepped up to the microphone immediately and said, “Well, I guess under a Biden administration, Biden America, you’d expect this. If you noticed recently, President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection.” (Recall that McCarthy took to the floor of congress after January 6th and said the attack on the capitol was “was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal,” and that “the president bears responsibility.” )

Trump also had a long conversation with House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik brain storming talking points for the caucus to circulate in his defense. This was apparently what they came up with:

WITCH HUNT!#StandWithTrump pic.twitter.com/Eixv5ar8C6

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) July 18, 2023

Stefanik didn’t stop there, however, she also brought in yet another conspiracy theory which was echoed by other members and on Fox News. She tweeted:

It is no coincidence — on the same week that IRS whistleblowers are testifying about illegal corruption protecting the Biden crime family, Biden’s DOJ targets President Trump with yet another corrupt Witch Hunt.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was typically restrained in her recitation of the talking points, calling the target letter “bullshit” and saying that “the only way that the Democrats have to beat President Trump is to arrest him, smear him, charge him with ridiculous charges, all in a cover-up of Joe Biden’s crimes, Hunter Biden’s crimes.” She later tweeted out this charming comment:

Jack Smith is a lousy attorney.

His career is filled with mistrials, overturned cases, and judicial rebukes.

He only targets Republicans because he’s a weak little bitch for the Democrats.

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) July 18, 2023

Why do I have the feeling she’s also been on the phone with Donald Trump?

On the campaign trail, Trump’s rivals were predictably wishy washy. The NY Times reported that former S. Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley didn’t address the merits of the issue and instead complained that it was a distraction from important issues and said “we don’t need all this drama.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis went with the talking points that it is “an attempt to criminalize politics and to try to criminalize differences” but tepidly pointed out that Trump could have come out more forcefully on January 6th. Vivek Ramaswamy said, “it is un-American for the ruling party to use police power to arrest its chief political rivals” while Sen. Tim Scott, (R-S.C.), who has been accusing the Democrats of weaponizing the DOJ in his speeches, boldly pointed out that “it’s part of the distractions that are always going to be surrounding the former president…”

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson was the only one who actually addressed the big picture:

While Donald Trump would like the American people to believe that he is the victim in this situation, the truth is that the real victims of January 6th were our democracy, our rule of law, and those Capitol Police officers..”

The overriding theme among Trump’s defenders is this notion of a “weaponized” DOJ. Someone should remind them of the 27 different people that Trump said he wanted thrown in jail, from Hillary Clinton and James Comey to Marco Rubio to Tim Kaine to Robert Mueller to Presidents Biden, Clinton and Obama. He wanted to sic the IRS on his political enemies and there’s good reason to suspect he succeeded.

The reason Trump is being indicted for all these crimes is not because the “deep state” is out to get him but because he imperiously insists he is above the law and continually breaks it. He always has. When it came to taxes and various kinds of fraud he was able to worm his way out of any legal consequences because he was just another rich, white guy with friends in high places. When he became president his extreme narcissism and grandiosity took over completely and he stopped even pretending to believe that he had any limits. He used to say it all the time:

He was protected from legal liability while he was president and since he refuses to acknowledge that he lost his re-election bid, he seems to think it should still apply to him now as he runs for president again. It does not.

Nobody’s “weaponizing” the Justice Department against this poor innocent MAGA martyr. There is a mountain of evidence that he broke the law in half a dozen different ways and he is long overdue for a reckoning. It looks as though it’s finally here.

Salon

That's pretty remarkable. https://t.co/9uNFySwNL5

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) July 18, 2023

Hahahahaha…

Reporters typically don’t write headlines, but…

Is Trump fit to serve? Is Trump fit to serve?

Okay, the question is posed up front in this Politico article:

Donald Trump’s announcement on Tuesday that he expects to soon be a thrice-indicted candidate is forcing GOP candidates to fully contend with the fundamental question of the 2024 presidential primary.

Is the former president fit to reoccupy the office?

Who the hell with a handful of functioning brain cells thinks Trump’s fitness is an open question?

The rest is pointless horse-race coverage about how good GOP contenders are at tiptoeing around referencing Trump’s legal problems on the campaign trail. How do they even mention them without ginning up the Trump base, as one consultant put it.

“This is the kabuki dance they’re going to be doing for months — it ain’t going to be the first time and it ain’t going to be the last time,” said Mike Madrid, the Republican strategist and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “The kabuki dance is trying to have it both ways while they try to wait for dust to settle on his legal problems.”

But it’s Politico’s headline that set me off, Dan Froomkin-style.

President Joe Biden is focusing on his administration’s significant accomplishments. He’s even received unintentional assistance from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia on that. He clearly appreciates her shout-out.

But Trump’s unfitness for office was a winner for Democrats in 2018 and 2020. Biden does not want to comment on pending independent investigations. But that does not mean Democrats cannot remind their voters at every turn of the stench of corruption Trump brought to the Oval Office, the international embarrassment he was for the country, the aid and comfort he represents to our enemies, and the GOP’s plans for burning the U.S. Constitution like incriminating documents in Mark Meadows’ fireplace.

MI fake electors face criminal charges

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel on Tuesday filed eight felony charges against each of the 16 fake Trump “electors” who participated in the 2020 scheme to overturn the presidential election results in the state. Prosecutors in Arizona and Georgia are also investigating possible crimes involving the GOP electors scheme, and civil lawsuits are underway in in Michigan and Wisconsin. Somebody had to be first with criminal charges. Nessel wins the prize.

Axios reports, “Among those charged include Kathy Berden, the national committeewoman of the Republican Party of Michigan, and Meshawn Maddock, former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party.”

Washington Post:

In Michigan, each Trump elector was charged with eight criminal counts, including forgery, conspiracy to commit forgery and election law forgery. Some of the counts carry sentences of up to 14 years in prison.

In an online video announcing the charges, Nessel noted the 16 Republicans had submitted paperwork to the Senate, National Archives and elsewhere claiming to be the state’s official electors. “That was a lie,” she said.

“Undoubtedly, there will be those who claim these charges are political in nature,” Nessel said. “But where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in respect to multiple crimes, the most political act I could engage in as a prosecutor would be to take no action at all.”

The 16 people charged, Nessel said in her statement, transmitted false documents to the United States Senate and National Archives “in a coordinated effort to award the state’s electoral votes to the candidate of their choosing, in place of the candidates actually elected by the people of Michigan.”

John Haggard, 82, of Charlevoix told The Detroit News he did not believe there was any policy anywhere that prevented voters from making a “statement.”

“Did I do anything illegal? No,” Haggard said.

But the 16 knew what they were doing was at best highly suspect:

Electors in every state met on Dec. 14, 2020, to cast their votes for president. Since Biden won Michigan by more than 150,000 votes, his electors gathered at the state capitol to cast their ballots. Republicans in Michigan had discussed hiding overnight in the state capitol so they could simultaneously have pro-Trump electors cast a competing set of votes, according to testimony former state GOP chairwoman Laura Cox provided to the Jan. 6 committee. Cox rejected the idea.

By then, Republican leaders knew they had lost a court case over the election and legislative leaders had told them they would not further challenge the results, according to an investigator’s affidavit released Tuesday. The Trump electors met at the state Republican Party headquarters anyway to fill out the paperwork while others were kept out of the room. The Trump electors were told not to bring recording devices and were asked to surrender their cellphones to ensure no one recorded what they did, according to the affidavit.

Donald Trump himself invited Michigan legislators to the White House on November 20, 2020. Did he bring them there to persuade them to overturn the election results? Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and House of Representatives Speaker Lee Chatfield issued a joint statement after the meeting saying that they had uncovered no information that would change the election’s outcome. They would follow normal procedures.

The 16 are charged with crimes for stepping outside those lines. Nessel filed the state charges after waiting for Department of Justice action that is still pending.

“Had she not taken this action,” writes Jennifer Rubin in her column, “she would have been hard-pressed to pursue future cases involving fraudulent documents submitted to the state or election chicanery.” Presidential pardons do not apply to state convictions, she adds.

White Makes Right

This coordinated effort by Republicans to overturn the 2020 election should appear under Wikipedia’s entry for white privilege. Donald Trump sold himself as a white savior who would restore America to a time when it was “great.” That is, to a time of unquestioned white rule: when men were men, women were barefoot and pregnant, children were seen and not heard, minorities knew their place, and Christianity dominated “lesser” faiths.

That these Michiganders and GOP fellow travelers in other states felt entitled to, as Nessel put it, “the candidate of their choosing,” no matter what the majority of voters wanted, is emblematic of that privilege. As is their belief that, being white, they could get away with it.

So far, they have. That thousands of Trump supporters felt entitled to throw a violent, mob tantrum at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, says everything one needs to know about their level of civic and developmental maturity.

Hundreds of those who participated in that Trump-inspired insurrection have been charged, many convicted, and others face trial. It remains to be seen whether as a group they have learned from the experience. Personal growth is not among the values cherished by this bunch.

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that RFK Jr made a preposterous claim over the weekend about COVID being a bioweapon designed to spare Jews and Chinese people which has created quite the brouhaha. His family has spoken out against him (again) and he’s tried unsuccessfully to dance his way out of it. (It’s on video.)

Joe Perticone at the Bulwark points out that he’s still got some important friends, however:

But Kennedy is not without supporters and defenders, and if it seems like most of them are coming from a certain political corner, it’s because that’s exactly what’s happening.

The plurality of Kennedy’s maximum contribution donations are coming from Republicans, many of his media appearances are in the conservative space, and he’s about to receive his biggest megaphone yet—from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

This Thursday, Kennedy is scheduled to testify at a hearing hosted by the House Judiciary Committee’s select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. The stated purpose of the hearing is to examine the Biden administration’s “role in censoring Americans, the Missouri v. Biden case, and Big Tech’s collusion with out-of-control government agencies to silence speech.” Kennedy will be speaking alongside Breitbart politics editor Emma-Jo Morris and Louisiana Special Assistant Attorney General D. John Sauer, who is accusing the Biden administration of colluding with social media companies to suppress speech.

Naturally, many are upset that a congressional committee plans to give a mic and an audience to an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. But the line Republicans are taking is that Kennedy must testify, for the good of the Constitution.

“I don’t agree with what he said but we’re not gonna censor him,” Jordan told reporters on Monday. “That’s what Democrats do.” This is not true, though. House Republicans absolutely take action against lawmakers for things they’ve said, as evidenced by the removal of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich.) from the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year for her past antisemitic comments.

Speaking of antisemitism: On Monday, after condemning purportedly antisemitic remarks critical of Israel by a Democratic representative and calling for Democrats to take “action against their own,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy executed a sharp pivot and told reporters that while he disagrees “with everything [Kennedy] said,” it would be wrong to disinvite him from appearing at the hearing:

The hearing that we have this week is about censorship. I don’t think censoring somebody is actually the answer here. I think if you’re gonna look at censorship in America, your first action is to censor him? Probably plays into some of the problems we have.

Republicans have shown consistent message discipline on the issue, framing any potential disinvitation as a hypocritical attempt at “censorship.” But by keeping Kennedy on the hearing schedule, they’re not simply defending his constitutional right to speak: They’re handing him a microphone, pointing an array of cameras at him, and entering his words into the Congressional Record.

When I spoke to Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, one of the Democrats on the subcommittee, he described the situation in blunt terms:

This is an individual who has repeatedly espoused antisemitic and anti-Asian conspiracy theories, and an official committee of the Congress is not a platform that should be used for him to perpetuate these unfounded and baseless and discriminatory views. . . .

I find it consistent with the Republicans’ misunderstanding of the concept of censorship. The speaker has said that disinviting him would be censoring him. He is of course free to make whatever statements he wants, wherever he wants. But he does not have a right to be a witness in the United States Congress, and by allowing him to have the platform of the United States Congress, the Republican party is tacitly promoting his views, which are very hurtful and dangerous, especially to Jewish and Asian communities. 

But Goldman can’t change the hearing’s itinerary, so he plans to probe Kennedy to the best of his ability. “Some of it will depend on what he says. I generally take the view that if their witness is in front of them, I’m prepared to question him,” he says.

Jordan will likely want Republicans to avoid leading Kennedy into a discussion of his beliefs regarding the specific ethnicities the COVID-19 virus may be favoring or singling out.

“We’re gonna talk about the fact that Democrats tried to censor this guy on the third day of the [Biden] administration,” Jordan added. “They sent an email to Twitter saying, ‘Take down this tweet ASAP’ We’re gonna talk about that kind of stuff.”

But Kennedy wants to defend himself, and Jordan may not have a say in which lines of reasoning his guest pursues. It could get hot in there. Tune in on Thursday.

Oy vey…

I’m not actually sure why they are supporting him. Sure, he’s criticizing Biden and I guess they think he’ll turn some Democratic voters against him. (Never doubt the ignorance of the fringe in either party.) But he’s running in the Democratic primary so he isn’t going to affect the general election.

I guess it’s just owning the libs all the way down. It’s all they do.

That they are doing this now, of all times, is just outrageous

With No Labels launching into high gear, with Joe Manchin playing ‘will-he-or-won’t-he”, it appears that we are going to be dealing with this garbage whether we like it or not.

Dan Pfeiffer had a good piece on this :

No Labels is officially launching its effort to throw the election to Donald Trump. On Sunday, the centrist group released its policy agenda, which was credulously covered by the New York Times and others. Yesterday,  Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Jon Huntsman Jr., the former Republican Governor of Utah, headlined a high profile town hall in the battleground state of New Hampshire.

No Labels raised tens of millions of dollars from billionaires who support Donald Trump on the ballot all across the country. I have written before about how a No Labels candidacy could easily tip the election to Trump, but their policy agenda and yesterday’s event highlight the absolute disingenuous grift at the center of No Labels as an organization and centrism as a political strategy.

Centrism’s Core “Values”

The agenda released by Third Way makes clear that liberal, conservative, and even moderate are ideologies, but “centrist” is an identity. No Labels and other centrist organizations are not working towards a set of ideological principles or policy preferences. They simply pick the midpoint between the two parties to indicate to voters — and donors — that they are somehow better than both parties. The goal is to avoid taking a stand and to be as bland and inoffensive to the most people possible. No Labels is peddling political applesauce.

Don’t believe me? Here is how the New York Times described No Label’s policies on the issue of abortion:

A woman must have a right to control her reproductive health, but that right has to be balanced with society’s obligation to safeguard human life.

For the last five decades, particularly in the year since the Dobbs decision, no issue in American politics has been more divisive than abortion. Yet, No Labels takes No Position to avoid being polarizing.

Politics strives to win power to help people based on the principles and ideas that you believe in, but what happens when you believe in nothing? You get No Labels. A billionaire-funded effort designed to enrich the people running it and potentially help Trump return to the White House.

There is No Appetite for No Labels

The No Labels effort to get a centrist, bipartisan candidate on the ballot in 2024 is founded on the premise that a likely rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden presents a unique opportunity for a centrist candidate to ascend to the White House. Of course, none of us want to return to 2020 — one of the worst years in American history. Conversations with voters of all stripes are filled with a sense of dread about having to spend another cycle watching Trump and Biden battle it out. While enthusiasm wanes for a Biden-Trump rematch, the polling doesn’t support No Labels’ contention. For there to be a real opening for a third-party candidate, huge swaths of Democrats would need to be unhappy with Biden, and Republicans unhappy with Trump. That’s not what’s happening. Both Biden and Trump have approval ratings in the low to mid-40s depending on the poll, but they both have the support of approximately 80 percent of voters in their own party. If those levels of support remain steady (and they have been for both candidates for a number of years), there is simply no room for a third-party candidate.

A Doomed Effort

Even if there was some growing grassroots movement for a bipartisan, centrist ticket of billionaire-funded applesauce peddlers, there is still no way for them to win.

Polling conducted by No Labels shows that a hypothetical, generic centrist candidate would receive about 20 percent of the vote. That sounds like a lot compared to the small but decisive number of votes won by third-party candidates like Jill Stein in 2016 and Ralph Nader in 2020. But to understand how far a No Labels candidate is from the White House, just look at recent history. In 1992, businessman Ross Perot leveraged a tough economy, a high deficit, dissatisfaction with President George H.W. Bush, and concerns about Bill Clinton to become a real candidate in the race. Perot dominated the media, was on the ballot in all 50 states, and even participated in the presidential debates. In the end, Perot received 18.9 percent of the vote. The largest share by a third-party candidate in modern political history. However, despite getting nearly one in five voters, Perot received ZERO electoral votes.

This is the problem for No Labels — and how you know that the whole effort is designed to help Trump win. For better or worse (I’d argue for worse), the U.S. presidential election process is built on a two-party system. Electoral votes are winner-take-all. Whether a candidate gets 18 percent like Perot or 0.18 percent like Kanye West, if they get zero electoral votes they do not win a state.. Importantly, the presidency does not go to the person with the most electoral votes — they must win a majority. If a candidate does not get 270 electoral votes, the election is thrown to the House of Representatives. In that process, the House votes by state delegation. The votes of California, a large state with an overwhelming Democratic Congressional delegation, and Wyoming, a small state with a Republican one, are counted equally. Let’s say that No Labels is correct about the viability of their candidate. Under this fantastical scenario, they receive 230 electoral votes while Biden gets 180 and Trump gets 128. But the House, where Republicans control the majority of delegations, would almost certainly award the presidency to Trump. Under our current, constitutionally mandated system, it is close to impossible for someone outside of the two major parties to win the White House. This is why Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, ran twice for Democratic Party nomination — as opposed to an independent or third party bid.

The Grift

The billionaires and political strategists behind No Labels are fully aware of the folly of their effort. They understand the polls and the Constitution. So, why are they proceeding full speed ahead with a doomed effort?

Some of the people involved are just greedy grifters seeking money and political relevance. They are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to separate naive, rich people from their money. No Labels exemplifies inherent corruption. They pay a company called HarrisX for its polling. HarrisX is owned by Mark Penn who also happens to be married to Nancy Jacobson, the founder of No Labels.

Others are explicitly using No Labels to help elect Donald Trump. It’s not a coincidence that No Labels’ biggest financial supporters also gave millions to Trump. No Labels’ own polling shows that their candidate would take more votes from Biden than Trump.

None of this is subtle. Time to call it out.

I’ve been calling it out for months….