Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Big Announcement was lit!

Actually it was a joke…

That’s what happened. It glitched and went silent and people lost connections and they left and then they started a new “space” and only a few people stuck around so hardly anyone heard this catastrophe of an announcement speech.

You couldn’t make up a better metaphor.

Oh, and a wiseacre took a shot too:

When they got it back up, this was an example of the discussion:

The cover of The Daily Mail:

Meanwhile, the front runner had this to say:

Hookay… It must be prescription drugs.

Josh Marshall has the full take:

Okay, here’s my take. Obviously the tech snafu at the beginning is going to be the irresistible headline. A major fail. The announcement he read was a mess. Once they actually got down to talking, DeSantis is fairly good at talking about the issues that matter to him. But the issue is what matters to him. This is a way way WAY online minded campaign. And really lives within the keyboard warrior world of the right. What are the issues a winning GOP presidential campaign is going to run on? Border, Inflation, weakness abroad, etc. 

They hit on the border a bit at the end, sort of realizing they’d all but ignored it. But almost the whole thing was fluffing Musk for buying Twitter, the freedom fighters who were left back on Twitter, the mainstream media, and then at the end DEI and “gender ideology.” 

This is super niche stuff that most of the country doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. I noted that just a short time ago Sacks said DeSantis would be like a “cool headed ruthless assassin” turning back to the woke mob. To most people that sounds kinda nuts. 

Something that comes off 4Chan and weird mass slaughter chic. Anyway, DeSantis did get his stride. But again, this is almost all within the conversation of the Twitter far right. That’s not where the country is. 

“A cool-headed ruthless assassin” for president. Booyah.

Where in the world is Mark Meadows?

I’ve been wondering this for ages. Is he cooperating? He doesn’t seem to be a presence at Mar-a-lago. Is Trump unhappy with him?

CNN takes a look at what he’s been up to:

In January, as Kevin McCarthy fought to win the House speakership through 15 rounds of grinding votes and late-night sessions at the Capitol, a few blocks away a group of right-wing holdouts huddled with a familiar but surprising source – former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

A founding member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, Meadows spent years in the House agitating against GOP leadership, trying to move his party increasingly to the right. Now, Meadows was counseling a new batch of Republican rebels, advising them on specific demands to make and gaming out how McCarthy would react to their maneuvering, according to multiple GOP lawmakers who were part of the planning sessions.

The group was so taken by Meadows, at one point they considered nominating him for speaker. Meadows ultimately rejected the suggestion, telling lawmakers he preferred to operate behind the scenes.

“We talked to him about being speaker. We asked would he mind if we put his name up,” Rep. Ralph Norman, one of the McCarthy holdouts, confirmed to CNN. “That’s not something he thought he could win. His best use is doing what he does now. He can freelance and offer advice.”

Sources tell CNN that in recent weeks Meadows has also been advising right-wing lawmakers on negotiations over the nation’s debt ceiling, where McCarthy’s right-flank may try to stand in the way of any concessions made in a compromise with President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats.

The former chief’s hands-on role in both the debt fight and the speaker’s battle – details of which have not been previously reported – underscores how Meadows has managed to stay politically relevant even as he covertly navigates potential criminal exposure for his role in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Meadows is viewed as a critical first-hand witness to the investigations of both special counsel Jack Smith and Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. He’s been ordered to testify before the grand jury in both investigations, and to provide documents to the special counsel after a judge rejected Trump’s claims of executive privilege.

The special counsel’s criminal investigation into January 6 and Trump’s mishandling of classified documents appear to be barreling toward a conclusion. There’s been a flurry of grand jury activity, as anticipation builds for any sign that Meadows is cooperating.

It is unclear whether Meadows has responded to the special counsel’s requests or appeared in front of that grand jury in Washington. In front of the grand jury in Georgia, Meadows declined to answer questions, one of the grand jurors revealed in February.

While Meadows has faded from the public spotlight, interviews with more than a dozen Republican lawmakers and aides, Trump allies and political activists in Meadows’ home state of North Carolina show how he has quietly worked to shape conservative policy and wield influence with MAGA-aligned lawmakers — even as his relationship with Trump remains fraught.

Meadows has maintained a lucrative perch in the conservative world as a senior partner at the Conservative Partnership Institute, the pro-Trump think tank that pays him more than $500,000 and has seen its revenues soar to $45 million since Meadows joined in 2021, according to the group’s tax filings.

Rep. Jim Jordan, one of Meadows’ closest confidants when they served in Congress together, said he still considers Meadows one of his “best friends” and talks to him “at least” once a week. But when it comes to legal matters, Jordan said: “We make a point not to talk about that.”

A spokesman for Meadows declined to make him available for an interview and declined comment for this story.

‘No one really knows what he’s doing’

A source close to Trump’s legal team said Trump’s lawyers have had no contact with Meadows and his team and are in the dark on what Meadows is doing in the investigation, fueling speculation about whether Meadows is cooperating with the special counsel’s probe – or if Meadows himself is a target of the investigation.

The silence from Meadows has irked lawyers representing other defendants aligned with Trump who have been more open, according to several sources familiar with the Trump-aligned legal teams. In particular, they point to a $900,000 payment Trump’s Save America political action committee paid to the firm representing Meadows, McGuireWoods, at the end of last year.

“We’ve all heard the same rumors,” one Trump adviser told CNN. “No one really knows what he’s doing though.”

The Justice Department decided not to charge Meadows with a crime for refusing to testify before the House January 6 committee. In its final report last year, the January 6 House select committee said that Meadows appeared to be one of several participants in a criminal conspiracy as part of Trump’s attempt to delay and overturn the results of the 2020 election. The report paints Meadows as an integral part of that effort, as documented by the more than 2,000 text messages Meadows turned over to the committee before he stopped cooperating.

Meadows was also the key point of contact for dozens of people trying to get through to the president as the attack was unfolding, and the special counsel’s investigation has been trying to comb over many of those interactions.

A lawyer for Meadows declined to comment.

‘He still wants to talk about politics’

Despite silence on the legal front, Meadows remains in touch with members of Trump’s inner circle on political matters. He was actively involved in securing Trump’s endorsement in 2021 for now-US Sen. Ted Budd ahead of what was a contentious Republican primary in North Carolina. While less-and-less frequently since Trump left office, Meadows has been known to attend fundraisers and events at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where he also helped organize a donor retreat for CPI last year.

“[Meadows] still checks in,” said the Trump adviser, who has spoken to the former chief of staff in recent months. The adviser stressed that Meadows had not indicated any desire to join the Trump campaign team. “He still wants to talk about the politics.”

Allies say Meadows – who fashioned himself as a savvy political operator during his time in Congress and the White House – is motivated by a desire to help steer the direction of the country. But some people who worked closely with him are more skeptical, and think Meadows is driven by a desire for power.

“He is all about getting information so he can be seen as important to donors, other members, the media,” said a senior GOP source close to Trump world, who used to work for a Freedom Caucus member. “People don’t trust him.”

One source close to Meadows suggested that he has not expressed interest in running for office again, but could be open to a job in a future Trump administration – an idea a source close to the former president scoffed at, hinting that Meadows’ direct relationship with the former president had run its course.

“I think he enjoys what he’s doing,” Jordan said of Meadows’ current gig. But the Ohio Republican added: “I’m sure he misses certain aspects of the job as well. You know how involved Mark was.”

‘Mark’s in the middle of all that’

After leaving the White House in 2021, Meadows joined CPI, a “MAGA”-centric advocacy group headquartered just blocks from the Capitol that has become a clubhouse for conservative lawmakers, staffers and activists.

Members of the Freedom Caucus hold their weekly meetings at CPI. During the speaker’s race, CPI was home to some consequential strategy sessions involving Meadows.

Sources who attended those meetings say Meadows pushed for concessions like the ability for a single lawmaker to force a vote on ousting the sitting speaker, which McCarthy ultimately agreed to after initially calling it a red line.

Meadows also encouraged them to push for a committee on the “weaponization” of the federal government, which Jordan now helms as chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Five months later, some of those same Republicans say they are once again turning to Meadows as they ramp up for a brawl over the debt limit. Meadows has been encouraging the far-right flank of the House caucus to stick together in insisting on spending cuts and other demands in exchange for lifting the nation’s borrowing limit.

“You’re talking about one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus,” Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, said of Meadows.

“He obviously wants it to continue to be successful. I think it has been. And so I think his role at CPI is to make sure that occurs,” Donalds said, adding that he had not personally spoken to Meadows about the debt limit debate.

When Meadows is in town, he will occasionally pop into Freedom Caucus meetings at CPI or huddle with members of the group beforehand. Norman said Meadows also recently helped him with a fundraiser in North Carolina. And Meadows is also known to dial up members frequently to talk shop.

“He called me today and he said that he wanted me to convey to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that he really appreciated her working with me and others on the stock bill,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, a staunch Trump ally, said earlier this month of legislation to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks.

Aside from outreach to lawmakers, Meadows and CPI have also helped congressional offices find and train conservative staffers, particularly when it comes to conducting oversight, multiple sources familiar with the group’s work told CNN. That issue has been a top priority for the right now that Republicans are in the majority, and it’s also an area of expertise for Meadows, who was previously the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee.

“Mark’s in the middle of all that,” Jordan said.

He’s also raising a lot of money and has moved his voting address to South Carolina after being caught engaging in voter fraud (and getting away with it.)

I find it very hard to believe that he’s cooperated. If he has, I hope he’s saving his money because he will be drummed out of the GOP — out of politics — if he did. On the other hand, he was instrumental in everything that happened in the post election period and on January 6th. If he’s not in danger of being prosecuted it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t.

Meadows is not the brightest bulb so who knows what he might have done? We know from various testimony about January 6th that he tends to tell people what they want to hear so it’s possible he thinks he can play both sides. In the Trump White House that may have worked but I doubt it would be successful in the maw of the legal system.

Feel the magic

Waiting for DeSaster

JV Last with some important history of recent primaries:

1. Comebacks

I want to take a walk through history to illustrate the fact that presidential primary comebacks happen. And then to explain why I think a DeSantis comeback is not the most likely outcome.

Let’s start with a level-set. Here’s where the race stands today:

Yes, it’s early. There’s a lot of campaign left. There are known-unknowns lurking in the offices of various prosecutors. These are national polls. There are actuarial tables. But still: Not great for DeSantis.

-Trump is over 50 percent.

-DeSantis already got his first look.

-And his support is waning.

Here’s the thing: Usually when a candidate in a divided field is over the 50 percent mark, is growing, and has a 37-point lead, they win.

2004 Democrats

Around this time in 2003, Joe Lieberman(!) led the Democratic field. He faded and Howard Dean eventually emerged as the clear frontrunner, with support in the 30s in a large field.

We all know what happened: John Kerry surged in Iowa, parlayed that into a win in New Hampshire, and then ran the table.

The dynamics of the 2004 race were quite different from 2024. Dean was the

Democratic candidate most willing to criticize the Iraq war and there was an appetite for that in the progressive base, which none of the other candidates were serving. He was also a fresh face, totally unknown outside of Vermont.

But ultimately Dean had three insurmountable problems:

-He was out of step with the party’s moderate center of gravity.

-He had exceedingly soft support among African Americans, who are a necessary part of any winning Democratic coalition.

-He was a weaker matchup against George W. Bush than any of the other top-tier contenders.

All of which is to say that I don’t think 2004/Dean/Kerry offers a good parallel for 2024/Trump/DeSantis.

2008 Republicans

Rudy Giuliani—who would one day ask his “business development” officer to Google “obstruction of justice” for him—was also in the 30s in a multi-candidate field.

Like Dean, Rudy was weak with a core part of his party’s coalition: evangelicals. Unlike Dean, his candidacy was based on pre-existing celebrity as America’s Mayor after 9/11. So he had the opposite problem: He wasn’t a fresh face—his numbers were bloated by high name-ID.

John McCain was also doing well in early polls. Then he collapsed. And then he came back to capture the nomination.

The McCain example isn’t a bad one for DeSantis, in terms of the general arc of his numbers. He had a strong base of support; his support waned; then he rebuilt it and won the delegate race.

But it’s important to understand how McCain did it. First, he premised nearly his entire campaign around foreign policy and the surge in Iraq. That was his issue and he was simultaneously campaigning on it and advocating for it as a senator. He wanted to implement the Petraeus surge and was willing to stake his future on it. The surge worked and rescued the Iraq war.

Second, McCain’s principal challenger down the stretch was Mitt Romney, who never had a commanding lead and was at the time an awkward politician desperately trying to shove himself into a pre-existing mold that did not fit him. And if there’s one thing you can take to the bank, it’s this: Voters almost always choose authenticity over artifice.

Again: Not encouraging for DeSantis.

2008 Democrats

This might be the granddaddy of them all: At this point in 2008, Hillary Clinton led her nearest rival by between 14 and 20 points. Her lead over Obama peaked at +33 in late September 2007—and even then it was only that high in a couple of polls.

Everyone knows the story of what happened next: Barack Obama caught fire. He climbed steadily, eventually surpassing Clinton in the polls in January 2008. And once he took the lead, he never relinquished it. He dipped slightly to a statistical tie following his loss in New Hampshire, but quickly recovered and won a grueling marathon for delegates. (Even though Clinton got more primary votes.

This is a pretty good model for DeSantis: A fresh face beating a commanding favorite who was (a) a long-time part of the political scene and (b) deeply polarizing.

Yet four aspects of this race stand out:

-Obama defeated Clinton very narrowly. This was the closest nominating contest of my lifetime and it easily could have gone the other way.

-Clinton’s initial advantage was immense. But it was barely half the size of Trump’s current lead.

-Obama was a generational political talent.

-Once Democratic voters gave Obama a first look, they never turned their backs on him. Obama did not have a period where Democratic supporters defected from him en masse

The past is not prologue. These contests are infrequent enough that we should use them as lenses through which we examine the world, not as determinative models.

What I take from them, though, is one big, overarching idea:

Donald Trump’s position in this primary is the most dominant of any non-incumbent president since the advent of the modern system. His polling lead is enormous. His advantages in party structure and elite support are large. As a pure matter of political horseflesh, he is a better candidate than Ron DeSantis. Culturally he is more in step with the party’s base. Finally, there is no issue set with which DeSantis can distinguish himself from Trump.

Combine this with the facts that (1) Trump’s support with Republican voters seems incredibly durable, at this point extending back seven years and through more scandals than anyone can count; and (2) it does not seem as though the base will countenance attacks on Trump.

Put it all together and while it’s possible DeSantis could win, it’s also possible that this race will not be very competitive.

I hope it is.

It would be better for all of us if DeSantis wins the nomination. But it seems equally possible that the best analog for this contest is the 2000 Democratic nomination, when Bill Bradley prevented Al Gore from being crowned, but not much more than that.

There are a couple of important unique aspects of this primary. The first is that Donald Trump may be under criminal indictment in multiple cases. That didn’t stop Benjamin Netanyahu from winning recently and it may not stop Trump but nobody knows how it will land. it’s never happened here before.

The second is that it’s Donald Trump. There’s nobody like him and there’s never been a cult of personality like his in American politics. So while it’s a cliche to say that anything can happen — anything can happen.

And I’m not at all convinced that a DeSantis win would be better than Trump. He is not a conventional politician either and I don’t know why everyone assumes that unlike Trump he would accept it if he lost the election. They’ve all seen what Trump did. There’s little reason to believe that DeSantis wouldn’t see the same benefits if he were in the same position. Why wouldn’t he?

Kevin the neophyte

The future of he world economy is in the hands of fools

You’d think dealing with people this stupid would mean that the Democrats have the upper hand. But bargaining with neophytes and nihilists isn’t as easy as you might think. They don’t understand the ramifications of what they are doing:

Kevin McCarthy is finally a leading player in a huge Washington drama with his gavel on the line. But as his team sits down with President Joe Biden’s, McCarthy is confronting a handicap that even his allies acknowledge is real: Four years in the minority have left him, and the entire GOP conference, with little practice at monumental bipartisan negotiations like the current debt fight.

Before John Boehner became speaker, he worked across the aisle on a landmark education overhaul. Paul Ryan took over the House after helming a massive budget deal that even Democrats called a blueprint for future talks.

McCarthy brings a far different profile to the table. As minority leader, he was largely sidelined during the type of high-stakes talks with Democrats that he’s now helming. And while Speaker McCarthy is keeping his often-fractious members in his corner more consistently than his predecessors, his newness to the glare of White House negotiations leaves Washington without a decoder ring for his public vows that — even as the two sides stay far apart on big issues — a deal is still possible by next week.

“That’s been one of the things that is concerning at this point,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who has served in the House for more than two decades. McCarthy and Biden in particular “missed a couple of years where they could have gotten to know one another a lot better,” Cole added, “and I think that would have been for the good of the country right now.”

Republicans say former Speaker Nancy Pelosi — whose frosty relationship with McCarthy was no secret during their time atop House leadership — played a major role in boxing them out from past talks, such as those on last year’s government funding bill. Democrats counter that the GOP was more interested in stoking partisan fights from their perch in the minority than reaching compromise.

Whatever the reason, it means that McCarthy has a record mostly devoid of big dealmaking, having been on the periphery of bipartisan agreements struck under Biden on infrastructure, tech manufacturing and spending.

The speaker is not alone in the House GOP. With few exceptions, including Cole, the conference includes dozens of members who’ve never voted for a spending bill — let alone a debt limit hike — before okaying a conservative debt package last month.

Even McCarthy’s most trusted emissaries during the debt talks are themselves young by congressional standards: Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), 47, and Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), 51.

Asked about the relative lack of experience among McCarthy’s negotiators, seven-term Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) allowed that “on paper that might ring true.”

“But, look, I have confidence in Patrick. I have confidence in Garret. I have confidence in the speaker. I mean, it’s not like they were born last night,” Womack said.

Part of the reason for McCarthy’s past exclusion is a built-in feature of the House, where the majority party has stricter control compared with the Senate — the chamber that is almost always the bigger hurdle to sealing a deal, given the filibuster. During this debt fight, though, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has deferred to his Californian counterpart, creating a rare case of the House in the lead.

That means a starring role for McCarthy, who has experience with contentious debt limit votes from his time on prior speakers’ leadership teams. McCarthy’s senior aides also have played behind-the-scenes roles in many deals, particularly during the Trump administration.

“He was still part of the negotiations, just not in the room,” said senior Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.).

Yet McCarthy’s resume lacks the committee leadership spots that gave both Ryan and Boehner more frequent chances to work with Democrats. And many of the House GOP’s deal-seeking former chairs have since retired (think Kevin Brady and Fred Upton).

Graves took a modest tack when asked about experience levels among the debt negotiators, replying that “what’s most important is knowing where your expertise is and where your limitations are.”

The Louisianan, known in the conference for his policy chops, also quipped that White House budget chief Shalanda Young, “schools me every day on numbers” as they engage in talks this month. He also lauded senior policy aides on the speaker’s team, like Brittan Specht and Jason Yaworske, observing that their heft is “why you build a team and you don’t have a single negotiator.”

McHenry, in his first term as chair, similarly deferred with a quip about his own prowess: “Congressman Graves has done a lot of big deals … and I’m just like a little guy with a bow tie walking around doing my thing, but I’ve done a few legislative pieces here, too.”

Multiple Republicans interviewed for this story said one of McCarthy’s greatest assets in his talks with Biden is the surprising amount of cohesion among his members after a 15-ballot ordeal of a speaker race. Two of the holdouts in McCarthy’s election — Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — praised the GOP’s rhetoric on the debt ceiling talks during a closed-door meeting Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

As they largely give McCarthy space to engage on his own terms, however, some House Republicans are pushing him not to compromise at all — a portend of future angst on his right flank.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) argued in that same closed-door meeting Tuesday that Republicans were winning the messaging battle, but they’d lose if they got hung up on cutting a deal, according to two people in the room. Those two people described Roy as arguing that the talks shouldn’t be about a deal but about saving the country from excess spending.

Hours before that, during the Freedom Caucus’ weekly meeting on Monday night, some members spoke up to underscore that McCarthy shouldn’t accept anything less than what was passed out of the House, according to another Republican who was granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

“The Freedom Caucus stands behind the House-passed bill and behind our speaker,” said Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), a member of that ultraconservative group. “This is the first time most of us in the Freedom Caucus have ever voted for a debt limit increase. And it’s only because it was accompanied by such strong conservative reforms.”

That stance is sparking some heartburn in other corners of the conference, where battleground-seat colleagues worry that conservatives who cut their teeth on opposing major deals are setting themselves up to ultimately vote no.

Which would leave McCarthy reliant on Democrats, who say they have little trust in him to land a workable debt agreement.

“I don’t have much confidence in Kevin McCarthy on anything other than letting the Marjorie Taylor Greene wing of their party continue to pull his strings,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who sits on the House spending panel. “My hope is that outside forces can maybe make Kevin McCarthy bend to do the right thing.”

Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Mike Bost (R-Ill.) conceded that Democrats “are working with more experience, but look what it’s got us. Experience in what? Experience in continuing to raise our debt and experience in continuing to let the government grow out of control.”

And several Republicans pointed out that, though McCarthy was not involved as closely as McConnell in recent deals with Pelosi and Biden, he brings one big advantage over his Senate GOP counterpart: During the Trump years, McCarthy held daily phone calls with Trump that kept him more in the loop as a minority leader than most realized.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) offered his own endorsement of McCarthy’s chops, noting that he is “a voracious reader” of “all kinds of books on management” — citing “Good to Great” as an example.

“He’s been waiting for this moment to apply these things that he’s read,” Palmer added, “and I think he’s done an exceptional job.” Meanwhile, he argued, “Democrats think Biden is scared of his shadow from the left.”

That’s what Kevin is banking on with fatuous comments like this:

BTW: AOC and Bernie Sanders’ position is that the country should pay its bills and they’ll be happy to argue about future spending in the normal budget process.

This is why I’m convinced that if we are to avoid default or the 14th Amendment option, both of which could throw the economy into chaos, everything comes down to Kevin McCarthy’s willingness to risk his speakership to save the country. (Matt Gaetz reminded him about their power to vacate the chair just yesterday.) He will be under huge pressure from Trump and the batshit MAGA caucus to default because Trump thinks it would be good for him. If he brings a deal to the floor and it passes with Democratic votes he will likely have to go through another speaker vote spectacle. Maybe he’ll do it and maybe he’ll win in the end. But betting the future of the world economy on this circus sideshow is absolute lunacy.

A Ron and Elon Spectacular Event

Will Trump show up?

Poor Fox News. They just can’t catch a break. First they found themselves on the hook for over three quarters of a billion dollars because they lied about the 2020 election. Then they fired their popular bomb-throwing white nationalist celebrity anchor Tucker Carlson and their ratings went into the toilet. And now, after spending months boosting Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (years, actually) angering their audience’s Dear Leader Donald Trump in the process, DeSantis slapped them in the face by deciding to formally announce his candidacy on Twitter instead of the network.

This is a man who actually signed election suppression legislation in a live exclusive on Fox News so you can be sure they expected they would get the long awaited big event. Instead, like their cashiered bomb thrower Carlson, DeSantis raced into the arms of the right’s new “it boy” Twitter owner, Elon Musk. The best he could offer Fox was an appearance with D-List has-been Trey Gowdy later in the day. Rupert Murdoch must be fit to be tied. Don’t any of these people know the meaning of gratitude?

I hope everyone can contain their excitement until 6PM EST when DeSantis will be joined by Musk and Silicon Valley venture capitalist David Sacks (a member of what the Wall St. Journal calls Musk’s “shadow crew” of friends and consiglieri) to make the announcement nobody on earth didn’t know was coming. They will be on Twitter Spaces which, for those of you who are not as tuned in to the latest in online innovations as Ron DeSantis, is a platform “where users can have live audio conversations” in a “space.” Doesn’t that sound like fun?

Some of you may be a bit confused by all this and for good reason. After all, Elon Musk has sold himself as a “free speech absolutist” who ostensibly bought the platform for the purpose of opening it up to ideas across the spectrum and Ron DeSantis is the governor who is censoring educators, banning books, and retaliating against individuals, institutions and businesses that oppose those policies. You would think they would be enemies not comrades in arms.

As it turns out, Elon Musk may be a free speech absolutist in that he absolutely does allow every manner of freak, conman, porno hustler, liar, propagandist, goon, thug and saboteur free rein on the platform, but he will graciously allow foreign governments to censor their political opposition, something he tried and failed to prove the US Government had done against Donald Trump. And Musk has openly expressed his loathing for anyone and anything to the left of well… Ron DeSantis, so there is no doubt where he stands politically. Yes, he’s a tad incoherent, somehow believing that he’s non-ideological, but his prolific tweeting says otherwise.

Musk was always a troll on twitter and said many stupid things. But like so many politically naive people who seem to have never developed any kind of bullshit detector, after wallowing in his newly created right wing twitter fever swamp, he’s gone full blown, racist wingnut conspiracy monger and anti-semite. And as the owner of the company with the most followers on the platform — 140 million people — he has quite a reach.

You can see why Tucker Carlson and Ron Desantis are eager to get onboard. And they aren’t the only ones. It was just announced that the vastly successful right wing radio and podcast company The Daily Wire will be simulcasting some of its premium content on Twitter starting at the end of the month. (Apparently, the company has been penalized and suspended by other platforms such as Youtube and Facebook over misrepresentations and lies so they are going to the platform where nobody cares about such trifles.)

As for DeSantis, there is no politician on the planet more tuned into the online right than he is. In fact, his governorship and campaign are entirely based upon it. Every day he assails another aspect of the “woke” left by tuning into the latest obsessive outrage being passed around crazytown. At one point he even invited the noxious trans-hating “Libs of TikTok” tweeter to come stay in the Florida Governors mansion. I don’t know if he’s personally engaged online or has hired someone else to do it but his knowledge of arcane internet wingnuttia is impressive.

However, he’s so immersed in this stuff that online is really the only place he makes sense — in front of real people he sounds like he’s speaking in some sort of extra-terrestrial corporate patois. As Tim Miller of the Bulwark pointed out, this is a problem:

He’s tied himself to policies such as a six-week abortion ban and “constitutional carry” that even many Republicans don’t support. On top of that, his current stump speech requires a Ph.D. in based online discourse to have any idea what he’s talking about.

To wit: At a convention in Utah last week, DeSantis went off on wokeness, DEI, and ESG without even bothering to define these terms for his audience. Here are a few examples from DeSantis going over his policy objectives for this session.

“We are going to kneecap ESG in the state of Florida. . . . We are also going to be the first state to eliminate DEI. . . . We are going to prohibit the implementation in Florida of any central bank digital currency.”

Sure, your super online MAGA, Qanon, anti-vaxxer may know what those acronyms mean but does the average working, rural, white Republican voter have the vaguest clue what he’s talking about? It’s not as if he has the sort of charismatic personality that could turn that dull jargon into a rallying cry as Trump did in 2016 when he adopted much of the talk radio issue agenda that had been pumped into the right’s homes and workplaces for decades. DeSantis’ lack of personality just makes all of that “anti-woke” blather sound, dare I say, boring. And I suspect that is exactly what tonight’s meeting of the warriors against the “woke mind virus” is going to be.

Remember DeSantis is really second choice. Musk begged Trump to come back to Twitter with vulgar memes like this designed to entice the libertine ex-president:

Trump declined, preferring to stay with his sad Twitter clone, Truth Social. But who knows? Twitter Spaces is open to anyone. Maybe he’ll turn up tonight and throw a few insults DeSantis’ way at his big announcement. After all, Twitter is a free speech zone for lying, right wing blowhards. Who’s going to stop him?

Professional lawyering 101

You have to love the “cc: Representatives of Congress”. Lol.

I hope they got their money up front and it’s a lot because their reputations as lawyers are trashed forever. Letting your client dictate a letter like this to the Attorney General of the United States and then signing it is either desperate act or a very stupid one. Maybe both.

Banned in Miami-Dade

My, aren’t they delicate flowers?

Book banners gonna ban books (NBC News):

Amanda Gorman, the nation’s first National Youth Poet Laureate, spoke out Tuesday against what she described as a book ban after access to the poem she recited at President Joe Biden’s inauguration was limited at a Florida school.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools moved “The Hill We Climb” to the middle school section of the library after a parent filed a formal objection to the work, according to documents obtained by the Florida Freedom to Read Project and shared with media. The Miami Herald first reported the story.

“Unnecessary #bookbans like these are on the rise, and we must fight back,” Gorman said in a post on Facebook that accompanied a one-page statement in which she said her book had been banned from an elementary school.

“I’m gutted,” Gorman reacted in a tweet.

School officials pushed back, saying that “‘The Hill We Climb’ is better suited for middle school students and, it was shelved in the middle school section of the media center.”

A review of five titles available at the library at Bob Graham Education Center in Miami Lakes was triggered after a parent of two students filled out forms requesting the titles be removed “from the total environment,” according to the documents obtained by the Freedom to Read Project, a group founded by public school parents and dedicated to fighting what it calls book bans in the state.

A review by the Washington Post of complaints in 153 school districts for the 2021-2022 school year found that a “majority of the 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people.”

Each of these people brought 10 or more challenges against books in their school district; one man filed 92 challenges. Together, these serial filers constituted 6 percent of all book challengers — but were responsible for 60 percent of all filings.

“In some cases,” the Post reports, “these serial filers relied on a network of volunteers gathered together under the aegis of conservative parents’ groups such as Moms for Liberty.”

One of the serial filers, not surprisingly, is Daily Salinas. Salinas alleged that The Hills We Climb “included references of critical race theory, ‘indirect hate messages,’ gender ideology and indoctrination, according to records obtained by the Florida Freedom to Read Project and shared with the Miami Herald.”

We’ve braved the belly of the beast.
We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace,
And the norms and notions of what ‘just is’
Isn’t always justice.

And yet the dawn is ours before we knew it.
Somehow, we do it.
Somehow, we’ve weathered and witnessed
A nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished.”

Miami Against Fascism alleges in a tweet thread supported by video that Salinas is associated with Moms for Liberty Miami-Dade as well as the Proud Boys and County Citizens Defending Freedom USA (CCDF), a Christian nationalist group.

L.A. Times:

When asked if she was aware of professional reviews of the National Youth Poet Laureate’s poem, Salinas wrote, “I don’t need it.” And when asked to list the author, she wrote Oprah Winfrey. (Winfrey wrote the forward for the book version of the poem published in March 2021.)

[…]

“So they ban my book from young readers, confuse me with Oprah, fail to specify what parts of my poetry they object to, refuse to read any reviews, and offer no alternatives,” [Gorman] wrote. “We must fight back.”

Fight or be beaten.

Laboratories of autocracy: hot and bubbling

“If we saw this in another country …”

Former Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper.

Maybe you’ve noticed. The U-S-A chanters bedecked in red, white and blue? The “we’re a republic, not a democracy” crowd? Those Real Americans™ with pocket Constitutions who, like the hypocrites Jesus warned about, make a public show of their political piety? They’re not really into the whole “consent of the governed” thing in the Declaration of Independence. You’re hardly shocked.

Neither is David Pepper, the former Ohio Democratic Party chair.

Right now in Ohio, Republicans firmly in control of the mechanisms of state governance are racing to hold a special election in August to pass a constitutional amendment that heads off a citizen-led ballot initiative in November. With it they hope to use a low-turnout August election to raise the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment in Ohio from 50% to 60%. The 50% threshold has been in place for 100 years, say critics.

The citizen initiative would place an abortion rights guarantee in the state constitution. Revanchists cannot have that, so they want to raise the bar for passage ahead of November.

That’s not only bad form, says Pepper, an August special election is illegal. Legal experts agree. The General Assembly voted in December to ban August special elections. They are not only costly but interfere with preparation of ballots for the fall elections which go the printer in August.

Democracy Docket reports that on Tuesday “a group of Ohio voters and the group One Person One Vote filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court” challenging the legality of the August election.

Pepper spoke with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Tuesday evening about the Republican effort to thwart the will of Ohio voters. The GOP-led effort is yet another attempt to undermine self-governance in the U.S. Pepper’s new book, “Saving Democracy: A User’s Manual for Every American” was released Tuesday.

“If we saw this in another country, we would be saying, ‘My God, you have no rule of law.'” Pepper said of Ohio Republicans’ flouting of law and court rulings. Republicans in Wisconsin, North Carolina and other states are working to undermine democracy.

“If this passes in Ohio, they do operate as laboratories of autocracy,” Pepper warns. “Other states will do it.”

To fight back, Americans committed to rule by the consent of the governed must quit placing all their political activity in the Beltway basket, Pepper told Vanity Fair:

As much as you want to win in DC, the front line of the attack on democracy is not far from where you live. I don’t care if you’re in a blue state or a red state. It’s in your local area. That’s what the other side figured out a long time ago. And that’s a negative thing to discover, of course. But my hope is, it also shows people, Guess what: There’s something you can do about it right where you live.… The battle against democracy is succeeding because they don’t see that they can. And if we’re going to fight back, it’s going to start with people recognizing that they have a lot more agency. 

Are local elections more boring than the marquee federal races? Maybe. But that’s why Republicans have been able to erode democracy right under our noses, says Pepper.

I think the other side has been very clear-eyed on what institutions really impact power in American democracy. And they’re willing to support people in those institutions, even if they’re the most boring, unimpressive, uninspirational figures you can imagine. They don’t care about who these people are. They care about the institutions, because those institutions can exert power, push through an agenda, and suppress democracy.

While you are waiting to “fall in love,” as the critique of the left goes, the extremist right is backing authoritarians for office. It’s how the right builds its antidemocratic bench. The left has to be running everywhere if it expects to survive. Because, says Pepper, “if we don’t even run in half the seats, the damage is so much worse than if we’re running in all those seats every single cycle to, over time, make gains.”

Here in North Carolina, Anderson Clayton became the new state chair at 25 after Democrats’ recruiting efforts collapsed in 2022 leaving a quarter of legislative seats uncontested. She pledges to not let seats go uncontested on her watch. It’s not a democracy if people do not have a choice.

“So many people across the state are fed up. I don’t know about y’all, but I’m tired of losing,” Clayton told Union County Democrats shortly after she defeated the governor’s pick. “I’m tired of Republicans coming in and threatening my rights.”

Pepper agrees:

We create that problem. Once you don’t have an opponent and your November election is canceled, the democracy is canceled; you’re not a public servant anymore. You have no accountability to the public. And that’s why the behavior has gotten so extreme in the states. They’re not public servants when so many don’t face opposition. If you’re only worried about a few swing areas for a federal election, you actually don’t see that damage. You think it’s okay because it doesn’t change the outcome of that swing suburban House district or that Senate race. But once you see this lack of accountability in state Houses and all these districts that’s fueling this downward spiral of extremism, then you realize, My God, by not running in all these places, we are leading to those incentives being all screwed up. We have to run everywhere. 

MAGA Republicans and their billionaire backers are playing a longer game. Democrats need to get in it. And (as I’m agitating to get candidates here to see) they have to play it differently.

Pepper concurs, telling Vanity Fair, “A lot of the strategies that we are still basically undertaking are the strategies that were built when we assumed democracy was just fine.”

Now it is not.

Toxic media gloom and doom

Look what they’ve done

There is no doubt in mind what’s causing that bizarre disconnect:

Last year, the Atlantic’s Derek Thompson summarized the national mood succinctly: Everything is terrible, but I’m fine.

He was reacting to research published by the Federal Reserve evaluating how confident Americans were about their own finances and the nation’s more broadly. What the data suggested was that there was a gap, that while three-quarters of Americans said their own finances were doing all right, only a quarter said the national economy was doing well.

On Monday, the Federal Reserve released the 2022 iteration of those same numbers. When Thompson was writing, there was a 54-point gap between confidence in Americans’ own finances and those of the nation generally and a 30-point gap with perceptions of the local economy.

Now, the gap with the local economy is 35 points, with fewer than 4 in 10 Americans saying their local economies are doing well. Only 2 in 10 Americans say the same of the national economy.

I include social media in that indictment. There is no material reason that Americans should be so sour about the economy. It’s because the media can’t stop saying things like “Inflation is down and jobs are up, sure —- but look at the price of celery! Where will it all end!” They can’t stop doing this. And it’s not just the economy:

[T]his pattern emerges elsewhere, too. Consider crime. In October, I noted the gap in perceptions of crime locally and nationally. Gallup recorded concern about increased crime at its highest level on record, but it was nonetheless the case that concern about rising crime nationally still easily outpaced it.

Crime is not up from a year ago:

A report, by the nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice, examined trends in 35 cities and found that while homicides, gun assaults and reports of domestic violence declined slightly in 2022 compared with the year before, some property crimes have worsened. In some cities, car thefts in particular have spiked, the report found.

Nationwide, crime has been steadily declining for most of the last quarter century, starting in the early 1990s. And while the full picture on crime rates is nuanced, interpretation of the data has often become deeply politicized.

It’s also the case that there is more crime per capita in red states and rural areas but Republicans insist that this is a Blue State and urban problem. And that’s because their propaganda networks present it that way.

And then there’s this:

Bump’s analysis:

What’s interesting is that the timelines don’t always line up. Personal satisfaction has been diverging from satisfaction with the country since at least 2001. The gap between personal finances and the national economy widened in 2020. The gap in approval between Americans’ own members of Congress and Congress in general began to open dramatically after 2004.

One thread between these effects, though, is partisan polarization. Partisan satisfaction with the direction of the country is heavily dependent upon the party of the president. So is sentiment about the national economy. When I wrote about crime in October, I noted that much of the surge in concern about crime was driven by Republicans.

To this idea we can add the scale of the polarization. Consider that presidential approval ratings no longer measure approval in the way they once did because partisans tend to land at the extremes in their evaluations. Since the first term of Barack Obama, members of the president’s party have been strongly supportive of him, and members of the opposition strongly opposed. Approval ratings now move in narrow ranges, often driven mostly by the views of independents.

Perhaps, then, Thompson’s aphorism is better phrased as “I’m fine, but everyone else is terrible.” My bank accounts are holding up, but President Biden is ruining the economy. My member of Congress is effective, but the Republican majority in the House is destroying America. Crime here is fine, but Democratic mayors are letting criminals run amok. That sort of thing.

This depends not only on partisanship but on the nationalization of news. Local news outlets have shriveled in favor of large national ones. (Ahem.) Candidates for local office are as likely to be asked their opinions on national events and movements as they are about potholes. Attention has turned to the communal conversation, as have critiques. Given how unlikely Americans are to know people who disagree with their politics, the moderating effects of personal relationships play much less of a role.

There’s an unhappy implication if we assume these causes are to blame: Fixing the gap between personal and national perceptions means fixing America’s broader divides. In other words, it means probably not fixing the gap any time soon.

One step would be for the right to wake the fuck up and realize they are being lied to.