An underappreciated story from the DNC convention last week was how Democrats finally seemed to get their messaging act together.
Speeches at the DNC convention that ended Thursday night dwelled less on Donald Trump and his many crimes and miserable plans for this country. Democrats focused more on where they want to take America and everyone in it. As Vice President Kamala Harris said in her acceptance speech Thursday night, “we have so much more in common than what separates us.”
Freedom was the central theme of the convention. Freedom is a core American value. For conventioneers and viewers slow on the uptake, Beyoncé’s “Freedom” regularly blasted the United Center as a bumper between program segments.
Throughout the four-day convention, speakers invoked freedom not as an abstraction or as justification for stockpiling weapons. Democrats embraced freedom as the expression of personal and family autonomy, freedom as the catalyst for realizing people’s hopes and dreams for a better future.
It was a sharp pivot from President Joe Biden’s emphasis on saving the nation from “clear and present threats to our very democracy.” But people facing more immediate concerns of paying monthly bills and feeding their families have less bandwidth for saving democracy than members of the political class. Harris chose to energize her base with an uplifting message of where their dreams might take them rather than doomsaying about a second Trump term and the end of the United States as we know it. This was no accident.
Freedom has broader applications. The Washington Post on Tuesday noted the rhetorical shift:
Freedom, as Democrats have increasingly used it, can mean saving democracy from would-be autocrats. But it can also refer to protecting reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, access to affordable health care, a choice of what to read at school and safety from gun violence.
[…]
For decades, Republicans have adopted freedom as their rallying cry, amplified in recent years by the 2010 tea party movement’s “Don’t Tread on Me” slogan and the 2015 creation of the “Freedom Caucus” by a group of far-right GOP members of Congress.
Anat Shenker-Osorio, a liberal communications consultant, has been urging Democrats to reclaim the term “freedom” for several years. In focus groups she’s conducted with disaffected Democrats and swing voters, Shenker-Osorio said people respond more favorably on issues such as voter suppression or gerrymandering when they are “framed through the language of freedom than through the lens of democracy.”
“Where freedom sort of lives inside of the body, democracy is a more abstract idea,” she said.
A panel of progressive messaging experts participated in a panel, “Amplify: Getting Louder to Win in 2024,” at Netroots-Baltimore in mid-July. The messaging framework Way To Win, ASO Communications (ASO), Gutsy Media, We Make the Future Action (WMTF), and Amplify promoted was built around Our Freedoms | Our Families | Our Futures. When I asked Shenker-Osorio whether she had plans to be in Chicago for the DNC, she said no. A week later, Biden passed the torch to Harris and those plans changed. The messaging team held a reception nearby Chicago’s United Center on Thursday afternoon.
Within days of Biden’s endorsement of Harris, Beyoncé gave permission to her campaign to use “Freedom” as a campaign anthem. Harris released her first campaign ad featuring the tune days later.
Freedom’s appearance could not have been something the nascent Harris campaign just picked up on the wind.
Shenker-Osorio explained in an email Friday that Harris asked a close friend to send her ASO and WMTF messaging guides months ago. A member of the Harris communications team has been “plugged into” the progressive messaging briefings for some time.
It has taken years for progressive messaging experts to penetrate the Beltway Boys’ Club. Perhaps it took a woman presidential candidate to appreciate their value. If so, it came not a moment too soon.
In my 2011 review of George Clooney’s political drama The Ides of March, I wrote:
The art of seduction and the art of politicking are one and the same; not exactly a new revelation (a narrative that goes back at least as far as, I don’t know, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar). Politicians are seduced by power. However, a politician first must seduce the voter. A pleasing narrative is spun and polished, promises are made, sweet nothings whispered in the ear, and the voter caves.
But once your candidate is ensconced in their shiny new office, well…about that diamond ring? It turns out to be cubic zirconium. Then it’s all about the complacency, the lying, the psychodramas, and the traumas. While a lot of folks do end up getting ‘screwed’, it is not necessarily in the most desirable and fun way.
Once again, we are ensconced in a political season chockablock with pleasing narratives, promises, and sweet nothings. For those of us who have been around the block a few times (this November will mark my 13th presidential election), those are all best taken with a grain of salt (I’ve learned a thing or two since casting my ballot for Jimmy Carter back in 1976).
Full disclosure, I am no poly sci major; rather, I am (to paraphrase William Holden in Network) “television generation”, so I “learned life from Bugs Bunny”. Well, Bugs Bunny and I, Claudius:
For about a three-month period in the fall of 1977, every Sunday at 9pm, [my housemates and I] would abruptly drop whatever we were doing (sfx: guitars, bongs, Frisbees, empty Heineken bottles and dog-eared Hunter Thompson paperbacks hitting the floor) and gather round a 13-inch color TV (replete with Reynolds Wrap-reinforced rabbit ears) to rapturously watch I, Claudius on Masterpiece Theatre.
While an opening line of “I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus…” could portend more of a snooze-inducing history lecture, rather than 11 hours of must-see-TV, the 1976 BBC series, adapted from Robert Graves’ 1934 historical novel about ancient Rome’s Julio-Claudian dynasty, was indeed the latter, holding U.S. viewers in thrall for its 12-week run.
While it is quite possible that at the time, my friends and I were slightly more in thrall with the occasional teasing glimpses of semi-nudity than we were with, say, the beauty of Jac Pulman’s writing, the wonder of the performances and historical complexity of the narrative, over the years I have come to realize that I think I learned everything I needed to know about politics from watching (and re-watching) I, Claudius.
It’s all there…the systemic greed and corruption of the ruling plutocracy, the raging hypocrisy, the grandstanding, glad-handing and the backstabbing (in this case, both figurative and literal). Seriously, over the last 2000 years, not much has changed in the political arena.
So…is your media player of choice fired up, and ready to go? Excellent! Here are 10 politically themed films I officially endorse for the 2024 race.
Being There – Filmmaker Hal Ashby was an essential contributor to the new American cinema movement of the 1970s. He spanned the decade with an astonishing seven film streak: The Landlord(1970), Harold and Maude (1971), The Last Detail(1973), Shampoo (1975), Bound for Glory (1976), Coming Home(1978), and this 1979 masterpiece.
Like Sidney Lumet’s Network, Ashby’s Being There becomes more vital in the fullness of time. Adapted from Jerzy Kosinki’s novel by frequent Ashby collaborator Robert C. Jones, it is a wry political fable about a simpleton (Peter Sellers, in one of his greatest performances) who stumbles his way into becoming a Washington D.C. power player within an alarmingly short period of time (it suffices to say that stranger things have happened in recent memory).
Superbly acted; from the leading players (Sellers, Melvyn Douglas, Shirley MacLaine, Jack Warden, Richard Dysart) to the supporting roles (especially the wonderful Ruth Attaway).
The Candidate -This 1972 gem from Michael Ritchie (Downhill Racer, Prime Cut, Smile) centers on an activist lawyer named Bill McKay (Robert Redford) wooed by a slick Democratic political consultant (Peter Boyle) into challenging a three-term Republican California Senator for his congressional seat. The idealistic and progressive McKay is initially reticent, as he does not want to be perceived as trading in on his family name (his father is a former governor). Assured that he can set his own agenda, say whatever he wants, and is almost guaranteed a victory due to the lack of Democratic challengers, McKay accepts the offer to run. But you know what they say…if it sounds too good to be true, there’s usually a catch. In this case, it’s McKay’s realization that in the rough and tumble world of politics, the true path to victory is inevitably littered with a discarded ideal or two (compromise, compromise, compromise).
The perceptive, wryly satirical screenplay earned an Oscar for Jeremy Larner (his experience as a speechwriter for Eugene J. McCarthy on the Senator’s 1968 campaign undoubtedly contributed to the film’s air of authenticity). Redford and Boyle are outstanding, and ably supported by a wonderful ensemble that includes Melvyn Douglas, Don Porter, Allen Garfield, and Karen Carlson.
Don’s Party – Director Bruce Beresford (Breaker Morant) sets his story on Australia’s election night, 1969. Outgoing host Don and his uptight wife are hosting an “election party” for old college chums at their middle-class suburban home.
Most of the guests range from the recently divorced to the unhappily married. Ostensibly a gathering to watch election results, talk politics and socialize, Don’s party deteriorates into a primer on bad human behavior as the booze kicks in. By the end of the night, marriages are on the rocks, friendships nearly broken and guests are skinny dipping in the vacationing neighbor’s pool.
Yet, this is not just another wacky party film. David Williamson’s script (which he adapted from his own play) offers many keen observations about elitism, politics, and adult relationships. Savagely funny, brilliantly written and splendidly acted.
Election – Writer-director Alexander Payne and creative partner Jim Taylor (Sideways, About Schmidt) followed up their 1995 feature film debut, Citizen Ruth, with this biting 1999 sociopolitical allegory, thinly cloaked as a teen comedy (which it decidedly is not).
Reese Witherspoon delivers a pitch perfect performance as the psychotically perky, overachieving Tracy Flick, who makes life a special hell for her brooding civics teacher, Mr. McAllister (Matthew Broderick). Much to Mr. McAllister’s chagrin, Tracy is running a meticulously organized and targeted campaign for school president. Her opponent is a more popular, but politically and strategically clueless jock (why does that sound so familiar?).
Payne’s film is very funny at times, yet it never pulls its punches; there are some painful truths about the dark underbelly of suburbia bubbling beneath the veneer (quite similar to American Beauty, which interestingly came out the same year).
The Edge of Democracy– Latin American countries have a long history as ever-simmering cauldrons of violent coups, brutal dictatorships, revolving door regimes and social unrest. In The Edge of Democracy, Brazilian actress and filmmaker Petra Costa suggests there is something even more insidious at play in her country these days than a cyclical left-to-right shift. Costa’s film delves into the circumstances that led to the impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff, and the imprisonment of her predecessor, the wildly popular progressive reformer Luis Inacio Lula da Silva.
The real coup for Costa (no pun intended) is the amazing accessibility she was given to President Rousseff and ex-President Lula during these events. This is the most powerful documentary about South American politics since Patricio Guzman’s The Battle of Chile. It is also a cautionary tale; “we” have more in common with Brazil than you might think. (Full review)
Grassroots – There aren’t many political biopics that open with the candidate-to-be dressed in a bear suit and screaming at traffic. But then again, there aren’t many cities I have lived in that have a political climate quite like Seattle. A case in point would be the brief but colorful political career of Grant Cogswell, which provided fodder for this film from director Stephen Gyellenhaal.
Cogswell (Joel David Moore) was an unemployed music critic (a polite term for “slacker”) with no prior political experience, who made a run for a city council seat back in 2001. His unconventional grassroots campaign was managed by his friend and fellow political neophyte Phil Campbell (Jason Biggs).
While political junkies may take umbrage that Gyllenhaal’s screenplay (co-written with Justin Rhodes and based on Campbell’s campaign memoir Zioncheck for President) takes a broad approach by favoring the kookier elements of the story, I think most viewers will find his film engaging.
I think it was wise for Gyllenhaal to eschew the political minutiae; otherwise he may have ended up with something of little interest to anyone besides Seattleites. In fact, the best thing about this film is that it (dare I say it?) renews your faith in the democratic process. In these cynical times, that is a good thing. (Full review)
Medium Cool – What Haskell Wexler’s unique 1969 drama may lack in narrative cohesion is more than made up for by its importance as a sociopolitical document. Robert Forster stars as a TV news cameraman who is fired after he complains to station brass about their willingness to help the FBI build files on political agitators via access to raw news film footage and reporter’s notes.
He drifts into a relationship with a Vietnam War widow (Verna Bloom) and her 12 year-old son. They eventually find themselves embroiled in the mayhem surrounding the 1968 Democratic Convention (in the film’s most memorable scene, the actors were actually sent in to improvise amidst one of the infamous “police riots” as it was happening). Many of the issues Wexler touches on (especially regarding media integrity and journalistic responsibility) would be extrapolated further in films like Network and Broadcast News.
Milk – On November 27th, 1978, San Francisco mayor George Moscone and District Supervisor Harvey Milk were murdered in their respective offices at City Hall; both men shot repeatedly at point blank range. Even more shocking (and bordering on the downright bizarre) was the fact that their killer was a fellow San Francisco politician-former District Supervisor Dan White. Gus Van Sant’s 2008 biopic focuses on the life and work of Milk.
Sean Penn plays Milk; the film enters his life journey at age 40, which was when he experienced the epiphany that led to him to dedicate the rest of his life to public service. Using his tiny camera shop in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood as HQ, Milk quickly garnered a reputation as the city’s leading gay activist, thanks to his relentless drive and a natural gift for community organizing.
The excellent script (by Dustin Lance Black, one of the writers on HBO’s Big Love) is engaging, yet never strays too far from Milk’s own words and deeds. Most crucial to the success of this film is the powerhouse performance by Penn, who never falls into caricature; opting instead to essentially channel the wit, passion and genuine humanity of this remarkable individual. (Full review)
Shampoo – Sex, politics, and the shallow SoCal lifestyle are mercilessly skewered in Hal Ashby’s classic 1975 satire. Warren Beatty (who co-scripted with Robert Towne) plays a restless, over-sexed hairdresser with commitment issues regarding the three major women in his life (excellent performances from Lee Grant, Goldie Hawn and Julie Christie).
Beatty allegedly based his character of “George” on his close friend, celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring (one of the victims of the infamous 1969 Tate-LaBianca slayings).
This was one of the first films to satirize the 1960s zeitgeist with some degree of historical detachment. The late great cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs infuses the L.A. backdrop with a gauziness that appropriately mirrors the protagonist’s fuzzy way of dealing with adult responsibilities.
Z -This 1969 film was a breakthrough for director Costa-Gavras, and a high-watermark for the “radical chic” cinema that flourished at the time. Yves Montand plays a leftist politician who is assassinated after giving a speech at a pro-Peace rally. What at first appears to be an open and shut case of a violent action by an isolated group of right wing extremists unfolds as a suspenseful conspiracy thriller.
The story (set in an unspecified Balkan nation, but based on the real-life assassination of a Greek political figure back in 1963) is told from the perspective of two characters-a photojournalist (a young Jacques Perrin, future director of Winged Migration) and an investigating magistrate (Jean-Louis Trintignant). The great Irene Papas is also on board as Montand’s wife.
The film is a bit of a stagey talk-fest for a political “thriller” but it is still essential viewing. It’s part Kafka, part Rashomon, but ultimately a cautionary tale about what happens when corrupt officialdom, unchecked police oppression and partisan-sanctioned extremism get into bed together.
Kamala Harris may help Sherrod Brown keep his seat. It’s been harder for him each time he’s run as the state of Ohio gets redder and redder. But he might just be able to hang on again if everything breaks just right:
Democrats simply can’t hold their Senate majority without Brown. The brutal map means that Republicans only need to flip West Virginia — a near-certainty, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) bowing out — and not fumble their incumbencies in Florida and Texas to reach 50 seats. If they flip either Ohio or Montana, both states Trump won twice, they win the majority. Democrats are also defending in the perpetual battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, as well as fighting for open seats in Arizona and Michigan.
[…]
“Take nothing for granted but if the urban electorates in Ohio and the young voters in Ohio are energized because of Harris-Walz, that’s life Sherrod needs,” former Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper told TPM.
“The one thing that could kill him in November is a lack of enthusiasm on the Democratic side where the base doesn’t come out,” Dr. Dave Cohen, a professor of political science at the University of Akron, told TPM. “Kamala Harris replacing Biden was the best possible news that Sherrod Brown could have gotten.”
Brown can’t win without the votes of at least some Trump supporters. But the stronger the showing from Democratic voters, the fewer of those crossovers he needs.
That’s true even in a state Harris has very little chance of winning. To keep Brown and a couple Ohio House Democrats in competitive races alive, she needs to keep the margin of her likely loss down.
“Biden was on track to lose Ohio by 10 or more, and it’s hard to ask [Brown] to outrun that kind of delta,” Lakshya Jain, who does modeling and data analysis at Split Ticket, told TPM. “That kind of overperformance hasn’t been done in quite a while — that’s Tester level, and Brown hasn’t done that level of overperformance since 2006.”
Fingers crossed that he can get over the finish line one more time. The children of Ohio need him. After all, the only other Senator they have is JD Vance.
Ever since Donald J. Trump issued a series of pardons and commutations as he left office, he and his allies have defended his administration’s vetting of clemency candidates, claiming they went through a vigorous screening process.
But the case of one of those convicts — a New York drug dealer and predatory lender named Jonathan Braun, who had a history of violence and faced an array of other legal problems — has stood out and raised doubts about how rigorous the vetting was.
On Tuesday, the police on Long Island arrested Mr. Braun after he allegedly punched his 75-year-old father-in-law in the head. Mr. Braun struck his father-in-law twice as he tried to protect his daughter from Mr. Braun, who was chasing after her while the couple had an argument in their home, according to the Nassau County District Attorney’s office.
Mr. Braun’s wife, according to court documents, told police that Mr. Braun had assaulted her twice in the past five weeks. On July 17, the court documents said, Mr. Braun threw his wife off a bed onto the floor, “causing her substantial pain and bruising her legs.”
Last week, on Aug. 12, Mr. Braun threw her to the floor and punched her in the head multiple times “causing her substantial pain, bruising” to her arms, legs and head and causing her to feel dizzy, the documents said.
[…]
Asked about the arrest, Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said the former president “wants criminals to spend time behind bars.” She did not respond to a follow-up question about whether Mr. Trump regretted giving Mr. Braun clemency.
[…]
Mr. Braun was among a parade of convicts who used connections, money and influence to seek pardons from Mr. Trump, who ran an often ad hoc process for considering clemency requests, largely bypassing an established Justice Department system.
In the final months of the Trump administration, while Mr. Braun was in a federal prison in New York State, Mr. Braun’s family made contact with the father of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser, to try to get a commutation request before Mr. Trump. Mr. Kushner’s White House office ultimately drafted the language used in the news release to announce the commutation of Mr. Braun and others.
Kushner’s father is also a convicted felon so I guess this makes sense. Just a bunch of cons sticking together.
Apparently, Braun had a long history of violence and had been sued as a predatory lender. When Trump commuted his sentence he was supposed to be cooperating in a big predatory lending case that fell apart once he was set free.
It was just another day in the Law and Order president’s administration.
In 2011 Obama humiliated Trump. In 2023 Trump posted Obama’s address & a Jan6er, Taylor Taranto, went there to kill him. What will Trump do now that Obama mocked his manhood?
On Friday Marcy Wheeler, @emptywheel, & Nicole Sandler talked how the Obama’s humiliated Trump & how he is responding following their speeches at the DNC.
Based on his calls into Fox & Newsmax after the end of Harris’ speech, it’s really getting under his skin. I’m loving it, but then again I’m a huge fan of the late night comedy hosts doing bits on Trump.
I also know that thatTrump really, really hates to be laughed at. When it happens to him his response is to say, “People are laughing at America!” (Hmm, I wonder what he said before he was President & associated himself with the country?)
Trump got back at people who laughed at him in 2011 with the classic, “I’ll show them!” and became President. But that wasn’t enough for him. He also did the rich person bully thing and sued people who challenged him.
What do bullies do to stop people from laughing at them?.They threaten to kill them. OR they have their henchmen threaten to kill them. There’s a reason he brings up Al Capone.
Robert De Niro as Al Capone holding a bat in the scene from the movie Untouchables right after this scene he hits and kills one of the people that he considers disloyal. Loyalty is one of Trump’s big issues and when people aren’t loyal he calls them out on social media for his followers to attack them. Trump holding a bat like Al Capone in a photo next to Manhattan DAAlvin Bragg
Trump will want to get retribution against the people who laughed at him. It’s what he does.
Marcy reminds people of Taylor Taranto, a Jan 6er who went to Obama’s DC neighborhood in July 2023 after Trump posted Obama’s address on Truth Social. (NBC reporter Ryan Reilly said that he still can’t believe the whole Taylor Taranto story (link to his Twitter thread. )
Taylor Taranto entering the Capitol on Jan 6th Taylor Taranto with the gun in his car when he went to Obama’s Neighborhood.
He really wants people to fear and respect him. Like they do Kim Jung Un.
To make it personal, he tells his followers, they are laughing at you, not me!
As Marcy says later in the show, Trump will be pushing for political violence, but the media doesn’t feel it is their job to tell people how to respond to the threats. They just report it. The problem with that is that coverage only happens when the people getting threats tell the media. The media need to hear of the scale and scope of the threats so it registers. Like when the New York Court system Judicial Public Safety team briefed the media about all the threats Judge Engoron’s clerk got. Here is Lisa Rubin talking about the threats to Chris Hayes who FINALLY GOT IT.
Right now the owner of one of the big social media sites encourages threats of violence. That’s a problem. If Musk isn’t going to enforce his own TOS, we need to start reporting the people violating them to the entities that can take action. Like the FBI.
Now this is the part of the post where I get mentally tired. I hear, “What’s the point? They won’t do anything about Trump. True. BUT, they ARE investigating threats from MAGA people to our elected representatives, election officials & workers. But they need to know about them.
Taylor Taranto’s threats came on Truth Social. The management at Truth Social cooperated with Law Enforcement to provide his information. This is a part of ALL social media Terms of Service. They SHOULD be removing the threats, but if they don’t, they STILL have to respond to a warrant from Law Enforcement. When we report violations to the social media sites, we also need to alert law enforcement.
I’ll do a post later about the men serving YEARS in prison for threatening election officials in Arizona. The DOJ sucks at PR so we need to tell people how to report & show them that not everyone gets away with the crimes, like Trump. NOTE: Taranto is currently in prison for threatening Obama and is awaiting trial.
Taylor Taranto with cardboard cut out of Trump. Taranto is currently in prison for threatening Obama.
Late last year, former President Donald Trump announced his endorsement of car dealership owner Bernie Moreno for Ohio’s Senate seat – elevating an untested candidate who’d never held public office over several other more prominent Republicans.
Two days later, Moreno’s campaign spent about $17,000 at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and then followed up by spending an additional $79,000 the next month – making him one of the Florida club’s top political spenders.
He wasn’t alone. With glitzy Mar-a-Lago fundraisers, stays at Trump’s hotels, and flights on the former president’s private jet, Republican candidates and political groups are on track to spend more on Trump’s businesses this year than any year since 2016, according to a CNN analysis of federal campaign finance data.
Trump himself has been the biggest spender, both this year and over the last decade. Between his three presidential campaigns, Trump and associated political groups have funneled more than $28 million in campaign donations to his businesses – helping convert the enthusiasm of his political supporters into personal profit.
Other Republicans have followed suit, spending millions at Trump’s properties in an apparent attempt to curry favor with the former president and signal their allegiance to him to GOP voters.
Some of the candidates who’ve spent the most money on Trump businesses in recent years have been new politicians who won the former president’s endorsement despite a lack of past electoral experience or success, including Moreno, former Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker and Arizona Senate hopeful Kari Lake.
If he loses I guess he’ll have to go back to shilling cheap consumer goods. Will anyone buy them?
If the Democrats thought that having Republicans speak at the convention might help persuade some Trump skeptical GOP voters to come over to the other side, it’s doubtful it worked, unfortunately. At least if those voters were watching on Fox:
Fox News did not air a second of the speeches from alienated GOP leaders and former Trump officials who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris at this week’s Democratic National Convention.
The DNC speakers included former Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who spoke in prime-time before Harris’ Thursday keynote; former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan; former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham; Olivia Troye, who served as a homeland security aide to former Vice President Mike Pence; and Mesa, Arizona, Mayor John Giles.
MSNBC and CNN treated those speeches as newsworthy, airing each of them in full, according to a Media Matters review of the networks’ convention coverage. But Fox hid the content of all of those speeches from their viewers, often displaying the video on screen without audio as the network’s on-air hosts and guests offered commentary.
It’s not hard to figure out why: Fox is a Trumpist propaganda organ that helped the former president purge the GOP of his critics and is working tirelessly to return him to the White House.
Say what you will about MSNBC being a liberal version of Fox, they would not do something like this. If Democrats were speaking at the RNC, they would show them. In fact, it would be a big story. Fox is just shamelessly shilling for Trump and protecting the GOP.
The figure is 14% higher than for Trump’s speech, which scored 25.4 million viewers July 19. Harris also drew substantially more than the 24.6 million viewers who watched Joe Biden’s acceptance speech at the convention in 2020 and about the same as the 29.8 million viewers who tuned in to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Harris helped herself by keeping her speech to 37 minutes. Trump’s 90-minute-plus stem-winder went on well past midnight on the East Coast.
The speech caps a successful week for the Democratic National Convention, which topped the audience for the GOP’s gathering every night this week.
A prominent Republican group is citing one of the most reviled Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions in American history to justify its case that Vice President Kamala Harris should be deemed ineligible to run under the U.S. Constitution.
In an official resolution, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) – a 90 year-old GOP-aligned organization that counted former President Ronald Reagan among its membership — took the position that Harris should not be allowed to hold the office of president, citing several “precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases.” Among the six cases the NFRA cited was the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which is regarded as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time, if not the worst ever.
“Several states, candidates, and major political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidates Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Kamala Harris whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth,” the NFRA’s resolution read.
The resolution — which attorney Andrew Fleischman posted to the social media platform Bluesky — cited Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which pertains to only natural-born U.S. citizens being eligible to serve as president. The NFRA argued that the phrase “natural born citizen” is defined as “a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth.”
However, as numerous Bluesky users observed, applying the NFRA’s interpretation of that clause would have made multiple U.S. presidents ineligible to hold office, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others. Dallas-based attorney Santiago Reich pointed out that because those presidents’ parents were born on land classified as British colonies at the time, they would not meet the standard the NFRA set to define natural-born citizenship.
One of the other SCOTUS decisions the NFRA cited in its resolution was the 1939 Perkins v. Elg case, which states: “A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States.” Reich called the NFRA “pretty f—ing bold” to cite a decision that undermines their core argument.
Other Bluesky users responding to Fleischman’s post further argued that the mere existence of the 13th Amendment (the abolition of slavery), the 14th Amendment (equal protection for formerly enslaved Americans) and the 19th Amendment (universal women’s suffrage) make the cases the NFRA cited in its resolution invalid.
“All of these cases except Perkins v. Elg have been abrogated or are completely unrelated,” one user wrote. “Dredd[sic] Scott was overturned entirely by the 14th and its text cannot be meaningfully cited for any reason whatsof—ingever.”
The Dred Scott case concerned a slave from Missouri who then lived in the free states of Illinois — which sided with the Union in the Civil War — and Wisconsin (which was initially a part of the Louisiana Territory that did not have slavery due to the 1820 Missouri Compromise). When Dred Scott sued for his freedom, the Supreme Court denied his petition stating that he lacked the standing to sue in federal court.
In the decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted that Article III of the U.S. Constitution made it impossible for the descendants of slaves to have the rights of citizenship. The Supreme Court’s own website has since referred to Dred Scott v. Sandford as “a legal and practical mistake.”
Donald J. Trump isa legal and practical mistake too. Not that it matters when defending white Christian nationalists from having to share this country with people not like themselves.
A quick perusal of the NFRA document reveals it advocates the constitutional sheriff movement-adjacent “Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates,” “Holy Scripture,” and “natural and revealed laws of God” as the basis for governance. Oh, and the upholding of “natural societal order of submission to legitimate authority, parents and children, employers and employees, coaches and athletes, teachers and students, etc.” Guess who’s legitimate and natural and who’s not?
