Thursday, January 13, 2022

WHAT DEMOCRATS SHOULD DO ABOUT THE 2024 DEBATES, AND WHAT THEY'LL PROBABLY DO

The Republican Party's years-long effort to persuade Americans that general-election presidential debates are a liberal plot to make GOP candidates look bad has been kicked into high gear.
The Republican National Committee is preparing to change its rules to require presidential candidates seeking the party’s nomination to sign a pledge to not participate in any debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates....

The nonprofit commission, founded by the two parties in 1987 to codify the debates as a permanent part of presidential elections, describes itself as nonpartisan. But Republicans have complained for nearly a decade that its processes favor the Democrats, mirroring increasing rancor from conservatives toward Washington-based institutions....

The change requiring candidates to refuse participation in the commission’s debates is to be voted on at the R.N.C. winter meeting in Salt Lake City in February. If the R.N.C. moves forward with it, it is unclear what that would mean for future debates.
I'm fairly certain I know what this will mean for future debates: It will mean that Republicans plan to work on developing a GOP-friendly alternate debate process, which they will then push as fair and balanced, as opposed to the CPD's process, which they'll say favors "the radical-left Democrats." If there's any Democratic resistance to this process, they'll get the message machine cranked up and push a narrative saying that the Democratic nominee is dodging the debates.

And I expect the Democrat to capitulate, possibly after winning one or two concessions -- maybe one moderator who's never worked at Fox. The Republicans will play hardball, and they'll probably get their way.

If I were the Democrats, I'd start pushing back now. I'd declare that Republicans want to destroy an impartial institution because they're afraid of any dialogue with anyone who might disagree with them. I'd say that Republicans want the debates to be like Donald Trump interviews on Fox News -- "Mr. President, why are you so amazing? Is it hard to be an amazing as you are?"

And if Republicans hold firm, the Democratic nominee should simply go through with the CPD debate s-- with the demand that minor candidates be included. I know that conventional wisdom says that it's a terrible idea for a major-party presidential candidate to share a stage with minor-party candidates -- omigod, you're going to elevate a Green or a Libertarian to your level! That will diminish you! But at the state and local levels, mayoral and gubernatorial candidates do it all the time. In 2010, Andrew Cuomo survived a gubernatorial debate with, among other candidates, the "Rent Is Too Damn High" guy. Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg or whoever) can survive a debate with a Libertarian and a Green.

The point is to make the Republicans look like the outliers. It will be announced that the Republican nominee was invited to appear, and refused. That more than makes up for the possibility that a minor-party candidate might score a small gotcha or two on the Democrat.

This is a chance to make Republicans look like the angry extremists they are. But I'm afraid Democrats will pass up the opportunity.

IS MIKE PENCE SO DESPERATE TO BE PRESIDENT THAT HE PLANTED A QUESTION IN A POST-SPEECH Q&A?

In 2020, Tom LoBianco published a book about Mike Pence called Piety & Power ("Crisp and engaging" --The New York Times Book Review). LoBianco is still on the Pence beat. Yesterday, Vanity Fair posted a LoBianco story that reads like a Pence '24 press release. It starts with this jaw-dropper:
“You hear it here first, [he’s the] shadow front-runner,” texted one of Mike Pence’s longtime friends after the former vice president’s November appearance at the University of Iowa.
LoBianco takes this assertion very, very seriously. After all:
Pence had just delivered a speech that may come to be seen as a pivotal moment should he cement what already seems obvious: He’s running for president, and doing so regardless of who his opponents might be.

... After delivering the equivalent of a stump speech touting his work in the White House, he moved on to a question-and-answer session with students.... One student accused Pence of certifying Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump merely to further his own presidential ambitions: “My question is, what is the name of the person who told you to buck President Trump’s plan and certify the votes?”

“James Madison,” Pence replied, pausing for effect.
I call bullshit.

I'm not saying that this never happened -- the exchange was also reported at the time by the Des Moines Register and other news outlets. I'm saying that it was a planted question. It had to be. If you were a pro-Trump, stop-the-steal Republican and you wanted to ask Pence why he did what he did on January 6, is this the way you'd word the question? Is this how you'd word it if you approved of what he did, or were on the fence? No. Maybe you'd ask, "What influenced your decision to certify the votes?" or "How did you arrive at the decision to certify the votes?" You wouldn't tee up Pence's answer as precisely as this. You wouldn't ask about a "person," or assume that there must have been only one. So I'm not buying it.

LoBianco calls this "a pivotal moment," even though it happened two and a half months ago and got very little attention. He insists that Trump's clout is in decline while Pence's is rising.
Meanwhile, Pence and others continue to draw attention that otherwise would have gone Trump’s direction. “I’m confident that our party and our movement will choose the right leaders and the right voices to make our country strong and great once again,” Pence said in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. Not quite a declaration of candidacy, but also not a bow to the king of the GOP.

In response, Trump issued an attack on Pence in early December, saying in a statement that Pence was a “good man,” but that he made a “big mistake” in refusing to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump making news for reacting to a Pence interview that wasn't really a newsmaker is a sign that Pence is on the rise? Really?

This all reaches its nadir when LoBianco tells us that January 6 was a good thing for Pence, actually.
Pence has tap-danced around the events of January 6 ever since, even while fallout from the insurrection has kept his name consistently in the news—a level of exposure invaluable to any politician looking to win the highest office in the land.
Almost being hanged by supporters of the most popular figure in your own party? Excellent career move! There's no such thing as bad publicity!

In a mid-December YouGov/University of Massachusetts poll, 55% of Republican respondents said that Donald Trump was their preferred 2024 presidential candidate. Mike Pence finished at 6%, tied with Ted Cruz, and trailing Ron DeSantis (20%) and Nikki Haley (7%). Pence is in third place as a second choice, at 13%, behind DeSantis (37%) and Cruz (15%), and tied with Trump. Mike Pence is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee -- ever. But keep dreaming, Tom.

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

REPUBLICAN PRACTICE UNPOPULARISM IN VIRGINIA

Virginia Republicans won the governorship and control of the lower house of the legislature in the November elections, and their plan is to do what Republicans always do: pursue policies that matter exclusively to Republican voters, many of which are wildly unpopular with everyone else.

The Washingon Post reports:
After two years in the political wilderness in Richmond, the state’s long-dominant GOP will reclaim control of a House of Delegates it lost two years ago. Come Saturday, Republicans will also retake the executive branch they’ve been locked out of since early 2014, as Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov.-elect Winsome E. Sears and Attorney General-elect Jason S. Miyares are sworn in....

Now only the state Senate, which was not on the ballot in November, will remain under Democratic control — and narrowly at that, with a 21-to-19 majority....

With hundreds of bills already filed, Republicans were clearly hoping to roll back much of what Democrats muscled through in the past two years, looking well beyond the “kitchen-table” issues that Youngkin and incoming House Speaker Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) have called priorities.

Among the GOP bills are those to: prohibit local governments from banning guns from parks and government buildings; cancel a minimum wage hike — from $11 an hour to $12 — that’s scheduled to take effect next year; require women seeking an abortion to sign a written consent; require voters to show photo ID at the polls; cut the early-voting period from 45 days to 14 days; and repeal a state law requiring local school boards to follow the state’s lead on transgender-rights policies.
We all know that David Shor, the politcal consultant, recommends that Democrats practice "popularism."
... this comes down to a simple prescription: Democrats should do a lot of polling to figure out which of their views are popular and which are not popular, and then they should talk about the popular stuff and shut up about the unpopular stuff.... This theory is often short-handed as “popularism.”
At times, the "popularism" advice sounds like advice on how to stay alive in the world of the movie A Quiet Place. In that movie, murderous beasts kill people as soon as they're aware of their presence, which they discover through all but the slighest sounds. Step on a twig or speak above a whisper and you could be instantly killed. That's the way Shor and his admirers talk about Democrats who say anything that isn't wildly popular. Use the word "Latinx" (which hardly any Democrat does)? You could be killing the party!

But Republicans just do whatever the hell they want, and they never worry. Youngkin won the governor's race by less than 2 points, and the Republican majority in the House of Delegates is only 52 to 48. Under those circumstances, Democrats would be regularly admonished not to assume that the general public supports their agenda. But Republicans don't care if the general public supports their agenda. They just pursue it, no matter what. And they never worry that the monsters will get them.

SET A GEEK TO CATCH A GEEK

THe Daily Beast tells me the NPR's Steve Inskeep really got the better of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump abruptly ended an interview with NPR on Tuesday after he was repeatedly called out on his baseless claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. A video of the interview, published Wednesday morning, shows Trump becoming increasingly irritated as NPR’s Steve Inskeep asks him why he’s still pushing debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 defeat.

... Trump faced a brutal line of questioning on his election conspiracy theories and the transcript shows that he was unable to cope with being asked about the glaring holes in his arguments.
Is that really what the transcript shows? "A brutal line of questioning" and Trump struggling to respond?

No, not quite. The transcript shows that this was the same conversation we've been having about the election for more than a year. Trump throws out allegations. Inskeep rebuts some. Trump throws out more. Inskeep can't keep up.
... If you look at the numbers, if you look at the findings in Arizona, if you look at what's going on in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, by the way — and take a look at Wisconsin — they're finding things that nobody thought possible. This was a corrupt election.

I just have to point out Doug Logan — to name one of the states that you just named — Doug Logan, who ran the audit in Arizona that was set up by your allies, didn't find serious problems. This is a quote. "The ballots that were provided to us to count in the Coliseum very accurately correlate with the official canvass numbers." He raised a bunch of administrative issues, but didn't find a problem that would have changed the result at all.

The ballots may correspond, but look at the ballots themselves. The number of ballots doesn't mean anything. It's who signed the ballots, where did the ballots come from. What you really have to do in that report is look at the findings. And the findings are devastating for Arizona. They're devastating like nobody's seen before --

Why did — why did your —

-- And other states are just as bad.

Why did Republican officials in Arizona accept the results then?

Because they're RINOs, and frankly, a lot of people are questioning that. Why would they? They fought very hard, the Maricopa County people. And people don't understand it, because all you have to do is look at the findings.

And, just so you know, some of those people went before Congress a short while ago, and they were grilled by Congressman Biggs. You ought to take a look at their testimony. They weren't able to answer anything. He made them look like fools. They couldn't answer a thing. They got up and gave a beautiful statement. And then when it came time to ask, why this? Why that? What about these votes? What about those votes? They look like total fools.

Let me read you some short quotes. The first is by one of the judges, one of the 10 judges you appointed, who ruled on this. And there were many judges, but 10 who you appointed. Brett Ludwig, U.S. District Court in Wisconsin, who was nominated by you in 2020. He's on the bench and he says, quote, "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits."

Another quote, Kory Langhofer, your own campaign attorney in Arizona, Nov. 12, 2020, quote, "We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election." And also Rudy Giuliani, your lawyer, Nov. 18, 2020, in Pennsylvania, quote, "This is not a fraud case." Your own lawyers had no evidence of fraud, they said in court they had no evidence of fraud, and the judges ruled against you every time on the merits.


It was too early to ask for fraud and to talk about fraud. Rudy said that, because of the fact it was very early with the — because that was obviously at a very, very — that was a long time ago. The things that have found out have more than bore out what people thought and what people felt and what people found.

When you look at Langhofer, I disagree with him as an attorney. I did not think he was a good attorney to hire. I don't know what his game is, but I will just say this: You look at the findings. You look at the number of votes. Go into Detroit and just ask yourself, is it true that there are more votes than there are voters? Look at Pennsylvania. Look at Philadelphia. Is it true that there were far more votes than there were voters?

It is not true that there were far --

Gee, that's a pretty tough thing to --

It is not true.

That's a pretty tough problem.

It is not true that there were far more votes than voters. There was an early count. I've noticed you've talked about this in rallies and you've said, reportedly, this is true. I think even you know that that was an early report that was corrected later.

Well, you take a look at it. You take a look at Detroit. In fact, they even had a hard time getting people to sign off on it because it was so out of balance. They called it out of balance. So you take a look at it. You know the real truth, Steve, and this election was a rigged election.

...Now, we had a lot of cases where the judges wouldn't hear him. We had a case in Nevada that was so good. You read the papers. It's impossible. The judge refused to even listen to it. We had many cases. In fact, they say, and I can't testify because it's been through a lot of systems, a lot of different systems. But they say, and they say very strongly, the judges just — nobody's really gotten a chance to look. Look at the United States Supreme Court. They refused to hear the case. And you had, I guess, 19 states suing --

They said, there was no standing to give the case. That's correct. Can I just ask --

Well, yeah, no standing, I know, no standing. And the president of the United States supposedly didn't have standing, either. So I wanted to file it myself. They said, "Sir, you don't have standing." I said, wait a minute. I'm the president of the United States. They just rigged an election. Hundreds of thousands of votes in different states. They just rigged an election. We got — we got a number of votes that, I think you'll agree — no sitting president has ever gotten the number of votes that I got. No sitting president has ever gotten --

Lot of votes. That's true. In — lot of — lot of — you --

No sitting president. Do you — I — nobody believes. You think Biden got 80 million votes? Because I don't believe it.
I'm sorry Inskeep didn't say, "Yes, I believe it." Instead he said:
It's true — it's true that you got more than any sitting president in the election you've disputed.

You mean he got them sitting in his basement. He got 80 — how come he couldn't — then how come Biden --

If I can, Mr. President, Mr. President.

Let me ask you this question. How come Biden couldn't attract 20 people for a crowd? How come when he went to speak in different locations, nobody came to watch, but all of a sudden he got 80 million votes? Nobody believes that, Steve. Nobody believes that.
The correct answer there is "Millions of people believe it because it's the truth. It happened."

Inskeep does say this:
If you'll forgive me, maybe because the election was about you.
But then he switches the subject to how Trump's grievances will affect the horserace:
If I can just move on to ask, are you telling Republicans in 2022 that they must press your case on the past election in order to get your endorsement? Is that an absolute?
Trump boasts that his candidate for governor of Arizona, a hardcore election truther named Kari Lake, is "leading by a lot." (In the primary race, yes, she is, but not in the general election.) Shortly afterward, he ends the interview.

What did all this accomplish? Inskeep pushed back on a few points, but Trump threw out a Gish gallop's worth of allegations, all baseless but more than Inskeep was able to rebut. Wisconsin was corrupt! Arizona was corrupt! Detroit was corrupt! Philadelphia was corrupt! No Republican would regard Inskeep as the one who came away with a win, even if Trump did storm off. (Republicans like Trump's petulance.)

I wish Trump had been interviewed by someone ready to get in the weeds with him, someone with a deep knowledge of every conspiracy theory and of the facts that show they're all nonsense. No, there weren't more votes than people in Detroit -- here's the AP fact check. No, nothing fishy happened in Philadelphia -- even the Republican co-chair of the city's elections board acknowledged that. And so on. In the interview, Trump is essentially saying, "I won. Don't believe me? Do your own research." Imagine if Inskeep had geeked out and done his own research, in much greater depth, and brought the receipts.

Trump is used to rattling off the names of these allegedly suspicious locales and getting no pushback. Imagine if an anti-conspiracy election nerd had engaged him on his own terms. Then you really would have seen a walk-off -- and some serious public education.

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

IT'S PROBABLY NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT GOP PROPAGANDISTS HAVE DREDGED UP THE HILLARY RUMORS NOW

Democrats are gearing up to take another stab at protecting voting rights. The president wants a filibuster carve-out to allow it to happen.
President Biden endorsed changing Senate rules to pass new voting rights protections during a speech in Atlanta on Tuesday....

“As an institutionalist, I believe that the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills,” Mr. Biden said as he delivered remarks at the Atlanta University Center Consortium, which comprises four historically Black colleges and universities. “Let the majority prevail, and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.”
And at the same time, right-wing propagandists are talking about ... another possible run for the presidency by Hillary Clinton. First it was Lloyd Billingsley at David Horowitz's FrontPage, under the headline "Hillary Hints at 2024 Run." (No "hints" are quoted in the article.) Then it was ersatz Democrats Douglas Schoen and Andrew Stein on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, writing under the headline "Hillary Clinton’s 2024 Election Comeback," followed by National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke writing a gloss on the Journal piece. There isn't an ounce of real evidence that Clinton wants to run in 2024, but there sure is a lot of speculation.

So why now? I think it's because Democrats are pushing for election reform. It's not as if Republican need something extra to make Democratic election reform efforts look bad to their voters -- the angry base believes Democrats are alway looking for new ways to cheat, while Republican officeholders and pundits regularly assert that the Democrats' plan is a way to "nationalize" or "federalize" elections. (This is probably the only country in the First World where that would be seen as a bad thing.) So the GOP has plenty of anti-election reform talking points already. But why not throw another one out there? So-called election reform is part of the Democrats' nefarious plan to ... ELECT HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENT! I could be wrong, but I think that's the intended message.

MY UNPOPULAR OPINION: MAYBE TRYING TO DISQUALIFY MADISON CAWTHORN ISN'T WORTH THE EFFORT

Charlie Pierce thinks this is a great idea:
A group of North Carolina voters urged state officials Monday to disqualify U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn as a congressional candidate, citing his participation in a rally last January in Washington that questioned the presidential election outcome and preceded the Capitol riot.

... The voters contend that Cawthorn ... can’t run because he fails to comply with an amendment in the U.S. Constitution ratified shortly after the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
Pierce writes:
As the months go on, we may find reasons to drop Section 3 on the heads of a number of Cawthorn’s colleagues, so this action in North Carolina is more than welcome....

It has the potential to clarify sedition for what it actually is, and for what it was on January 6. Cawthorn needs to answer for his actions that day in as many venues as possible. This is just one of them.
I'm sure you all agree wholeheartedly. I'm not so sure.

Here's what happens if Cawthorn is disqualified: He's replaced by a Republican. And not just any Republican -- the district Cawthorn ran and won in back in 2020 was rated as R+9 -- solidly but not overwhelmingly GOP. Under the redistricting plan that's been drawn up in North Carolina (where, of course, Republicans control the process), Cawthorn will be in an R+25 district. So while a constitutional challenge might remove a member of Congress who spoke at the January 6 rally that preceded the insurrection, that member would undoubtedly be replaced by someone who praises the insurrection and agrees with its central premise.

And the rest of the Republican Party -- which always delights in taking Democratic weapons and turning them on Democrats -- will undoubtedly respond by launching their own constitutional challenges. Notice how Kevin McCarthy is promising to strip several Democrats of committee assignments if Republicans retake the House, in retaliation for the removal of Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committees?
"He will not be serving there," McCarthy said of [Eric] Swalwell's placement on the House Intelligence Committee in an interview with Breitbart.

"Ilhan Omar should not be serving on" the House Foreign Affairs Committee, McCarthy added. "Adam Schiff, he should not be serving on Intel."

McCarthy pointed to Swalwell's association with a Chinese spy.... Swalwell, who cut ties with the spy after being alerted to her activities by federal investigators, has not been accused of wrongdoing.

In the case of Omar, McCarthy quoted her 2019 remark that a pro-Israel lobbying group's influence in Congress is "all about the Benjamins"...

McCarthy also said Schiff "lied to the American public" with his support of the unverified Steele dossier....
If Democrats start trying to disqualify Republicans, Republicans will respond by trying to disqualify more Democrats, because that's how you establish dominance. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies anyone "who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Republicans would enjoy proclaiming that Swalwell and Omar, in particular, have "given aid or comfort to the enemies" of America and the Constitution.

I know what you're thinking: There have to be consequences for this outrageous conduct. Well, that's what we said before Trump's first impeachment, and before the second one. He deserved to be impeached each time. He deserved to be impeached for other reasons as well. And he and his fellow coup plotters deserve all the scrutiny they're getting now. In a just world, there'd be serious consequences for what they did.

But impeachment had no impact, twice. Investigations of Trump's attempt to steal the election might have results, but we don't know. What we do know is that none of the scrutiny has changed public opinion. Trump is still the odds-on favorite to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. And the attention paid to Marjorie Taylor Greene hasn't made her reelection any less likely or hurt the party as a whole.

A recent Ezra Klein column quoted Eitan Hersh, a political scientist:
A third of Americans say they spend two hours or more each day on politics,” he writes. “Of these people, four out of five say that not one minute of that time is spent on any kind of real political work. It’s all TV news and podcasts and radio shows and social media and cheering and booing and complaining to friends and family.”

Real political work, for Hersh, is the intentional, strategic accumulation of power in service of a defined end. It is action in service of change, not information in service of outrage.
Hersh means running for office, trying to help like-minded people win office, and doing active work to change policy.

I spend a lot of time every day on this blog, so I'm a fine one to talk, but Hersh has a point. Challenging Cawthorn's right to be in Congress is an expenditure of time that could be far better spent challenging extreme-right school board candidates -- or, for that matter, trying to elect Democrats to genuinely flippable seats in Congress. I suppose it would be nice to see a coup participant or two banned from Congress (until the Supreme Court inevitably overrules the ban), but I don't think we'll gain anything from the effort. If anything, we'll look as if we fear Cawthorn and the democratic process that (alas) legitimately elected him -- and would elect an ideological clone if he were banned.

Monday, January 10, 2022

TREATING COVID WITH URINE ISN'T CHRISTOPHER KEY'S FIRST SCAM

I'm sure you've seen this story:
Anti-COVID-19 “Vaccine Police” leader Christopher Key has a new quarter-baked conspiracy theory for his anti-vax followers to use to cure themselves of COVID-19: Drink their own urine. “The antidote that we have seen now, and we have tons and tons of research, is urine therapy. OK, and I know to a lot of you this sounds crazy, but guys, God’s given us everything we need,” Key said in a video posted over the weekend on his Telegram account after being released from jail over a trespassing charge. “This has been around for centuries,” he added. “When I tell you this, please take it with a grain of salt,” the anti-vaccine advocate warned while saying people might now think he is “cray cray.” “Now drink urine!” he continued. “This vaccine is the worst bioweapon I have ever seen,” he concluded. “I drink my own urine!”
Key is from Alabama. The Birmingham-based Bhamwiki has information on Key's long history of scamming.
Key graduated from Fultondale High School and studied kinesiology and exercise physiology at the University of Alabama. He was impressed as a young man by the career of Lynn Kenny who claimed to be able to cure cancer and AIDS with ray beams.

Key ... partnered with Mitch Ross in S.W.A.T.S. Fitness and Performance (an acronym for 'Sports with Alternatives to Steroids").... The company marketed unproven products for performance enhancement and rapid healing to college and professional athletes. Its flagship was a "deer antler spray" which Key claimed contained a natural form of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), the synthetic form of which was banned by the NCAA.

A January 2013 feature story in Sports Illustrated detailed S.W.A.T.S' history of misleading claims and its extensive relationships with athletes desperate for performance enhancers that wouldn't get them in trouble with their leagues. Notably, the story detailed a gathering with several members of 2011 Alabama Crimson Tide football team at the New Orleans Marriott just before the 2012 BCS National Championship game.
That Sports Illustrated story is here. Key told University of Alabama players that they needed his company's products because otherwise they were going to be physically depleted during the game by -- wait for it -- the energy generated by all the spectators' cellphones. (And this was before 5G!)
On the two nights before the Jan. 9, 2012, BCS national championship game, a handful of Alabama players in crimson and gray sweats made their way to room 612 in the New Orleans Marriott....

The room belonged to Christopher Key, who was in town to demonstrate the wares of S.W.A.T.S. -- Sports with Alternatives to Steroids.... Key began by telling the players that there would be thousands of cellphones in the Superdome the following night and that frequencies from those phones would be swirling through their bodies. "They're going to affect you guys very negatively," Key said rapidly and with a twang. "We figured out a way to manipulate that so that you aren't affected ... [to] give you strength, give you balance, give you flexibility and help with pain."

... Key passed out his remedy for the frequencies: stickers, which he calls chips, bearing holograms of a pyramid. Key told the players that on game day they should place the chips on three acupuncture points -- one on the inside of each wrist before they tape their arms ... and one over the heart.

... Key also showed the players gallon jugs of "negatively charged" water, which he claimed would afford them better hydration because it adheres like a magnet to the body's cells. Then he held up a canister containing a powder additive, to be mixed in water or juice, that he said had put muscle mass on a woman who was in a coma, and an oscillating "beam ray" lightbulb that could "knock out" the swine flu virus in 90 minutes. Finally, he pulled out a bottle of deer-antler spray (which also comes in pill form).
As Bhamwiki explains, this was not a viable long-term business model:
In September 2013 Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange filed a civil complaint against S.W.A.T.S., alleging at least 264 violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After a preliminary hearing on September 5, Judge Caryll Privett issued a restraining order against the business, which was raided by the Jefferson County Attorney General and Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and its assets turned over to a court-appointed receiver.
If you're running a business so shady that a Republican AG in a deep-red state sics the law on you, you must be something really bad.

But this is America, so, of course, Key is able to get on with his life's work, which now includes intimidation. Bhamwiki picks up the story:
Since losing his business, Key has worked as a mover while continuing to promote unproven medical treatments and devices under the names "Health Management Systems" and "Keys 2 Life". He has also shared numerous anti-government claims and references to alleged conspiracies, including false claims about vaccines, on social media. In 2019 he began appearing with a badge around his neck and an embroidered polo shirt reading "Vaccine Police". During the COVID-19 pandemic he has appeared at public meetings to protest against mask orders and vaccine mandates. While unemployed he has raised tens of thousands of dollars through crowdfunding platforms, part of which he has used to pay for billboards with false claims about vaccines and other political messages alongside links [to] his website.

Key was removed from a meeting of the Jefferson County Board of Education, afterward claiming his appearance as a "victory". He later berated Whole Foods employees regarding mask requirements at the store's Cahaba Village Plaza location, resulting in a trespassing charge. When he appeared at Mountain Brook Municipal Court to enter a plea, he instead mocked the judge and was forcibly removed.

Key was invited to appear at an organized anti-vaccination rally on August 14 outside of Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Missouri. He used the platform to make false accusations against vaccine developers and public health officials. He addressed a board meeting of Springfield Public Schools and picketed pharmacies. On August 16 he and a group entered a Wal-Mart store in Springfield and shouted threats at pharmacy staff who had been administering vaccinations, including a false statement that they could be put to death under the "Nuremburg Code".... After leaving, he proceeded to other pharmacies in the area to berate workers. The next morning he confronted CoxHealth CEO Steven D. Edwards in a parking lot, accusing him of "crimes against humanity".

On December 22, Key told Tulsa, Oklahoma-based business coach Clay Clark that he would confront Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards and place him under citizens' arrest on February 7 if he continued to promote COVID vaccinations.
Key's plan was to harass multiple pro-vaccine government officials around the country, a plan he announced in a video in which he showed off multiple weapons, including a flamethrower.

Bhamwiki says:
Key was scheduled to appear in Jefferson County Circuit Court on January 4, 2022 to enter a plea on charges of 3rd degree criminal trespass from the April confrontation at Whole Foods. He was not allowed to enter the courtroom or address the judge because he refused to wear a face covering. Instead he was ordered held for contempt and booked into the Jefferson County Jail.
And when he was released, he made the urine video. He's nothing if not persistent. And he'll never lack for suckers in this country, at least as long as he stays out of jail.

ANYONE WHO THINKS THE PANDEMIC POLITICALLY HELPS LIBERALS IS AN IDIOT

In a recent New York Times focus group of Republican voters, one partcipant said this:
Gayle: I’ll be quite frank: I think that the reason that [Democrats] push Covid so much is because they’re going to try to keep the mail-in ballots. I think that they are putting the fear in people so that they can push Covid as long as possible for 2024. It’s all about control, and they’re keeping Covid as one of their biggest weapons.
Gayle believes that the pandemic is good for Democrats electorally. Your right-wing relatives probably believe this, too.

Here's the reality:
EATONVILLE, Wash. — On the morning she met her opponent for coffee, Sarah Cole walked in with a front-runner’s confidence.

To Cole, the school board seat in this rural red district about an hour outside Seattle was all but hers. Educators and community leaders had endorsed her. She had name recognition from years in the Parent Teacher Association. And, besides, she was running against Ashley Sova, a home-schooling, anti-masking member of the far-right Three Percent movement.

“I kind of thought I had it in the bag,” Cole recalled.

... In December, however, it was Sova who was sworn in, the second Three Percenter on the five-person Eatonville School Board.

... Once-fringe views about government “tyranny” now match the mainstream conservative discourse on vaccine and mask mandates, softening the public image of movements linked to political violence.

... one liberal Eatonville couple — supporters of school board candidate Cole — requested anonymity to freely describe changes in their community that make them uneasy.

... the wife ... learned how extremists organized by latching onto Stop the Steal and anti-mask events.

... Drawing from her research, the wife put together a 24-page dossier, compiled from public information, that documents Sova’s ties to the Washington Three Percent and how she was supported by influential right-wing figures and a sympathetic political action committee. It’s a forensic, time-stamped look at how one local race was influenced by a simultaneous right-wing showdown with state leaders over vaccine mandates.

Before sharing it with The Washington Post, the couple hadn’t released the information....

“We think it would’ve helped her,” the wife said with a sigh. “That’s what the concern was.”

... Sova saw running mainly as a way to register conservative discontent on the issues of the moment: mask mandates, diversity and inclusion efforts, sex education lessons.
There's more going on here than just resistance to mask or vaccine mandates, but it's obvious that the right is benefiting politcally from the persistence of COVID, not the left. The pandemic is now perceived as a Democratic/liberal failure and efforts to reduce the spread of the virus are perceived as Democratic/liberal tyranny, the perfect outrage generator for off-year elections.

I'm sick of the pandemic. I want a combination of vaccines and treatments that reduces the risk of death, hospitalization, and long COVID to trivial levels. I'd be thrilled if the drugs were so good and so accessible that it didn't matter anymore whether you were vaccinated.

The pandemic is not an evil scheme to impose social controls on an unwilling populace. The pandemic is not a scheme to monkey with elections. The pandemic is not in any way politically advantageous for those who take it seriously. It is advantageous for those who don't. That's reason enough to wish it were over.

Sunday, January 09, 2022

POLITICO'S JOHN HARRIS THINKS THIS IS A CIVIL WAR ABOUT NOTHING BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT NOTHING THAT MATTERS TO HIM

At Politico on January 6, John Harris asked: Why are the peasants all worked up?
We Are In a New Civil War … About What Exactly?

... On the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, we mark the evolution of journalistic cliche: Serious people now invoke “Civil War” not as metaphor but as literal precedent.

... If this is a 21st century version of 19th century disunion, shouldn’t it be more obvious what the war, at bottom, is all about?

The country many times over has witnessed dissent and disruption far more violent than anything seen in recent years. But earlier episodes featured profound ideological and moral questions ... that lay at the heart of the matter.

The real Civil War was about slavery.... Capitalists opposed to the New Deal knew why they loathed FDR — he was fundamentally shifting the balance of power between public and private sectors — and FDR knew, too.... The unrest of the 1960s was about ending segregation and stopping the Vietnam War.

Only in recent years have we seen foundation-shaking political conflict — both sides believing the other would turn the United States into something unrecognizable — with no obvious and easily summarized root cause. What is the fundamental question that hangs in the balance between the people who hate Trump and what he stands for and the people who love Trump and hate those who hate him?
Harris's inability to understand what's going on stems, in part, from his mistaken belief that all this started with the rise of Trump:
... the violent conflict spurred by the 2020 election flowed from years of conflict over every aspect of Trump’s rise to the presidency and his performance in it....

Efforts to explain Trump often rely on complex sociological or economic theories. He was a backlash to globalization and selfish elites. He exploited resentment of trade and the decline in real wages. He was the representative of people who disliked the cultural ascension of women and African-Americans and the diminution of working class white males. And so on.

All semi-plausible. All inadequate in the face of Trump’s zigs on one day and zags the next, and the obvious truth that most of his partisans are attracted to him less for any programmatic reason than for the sheer bombast of his performance — and especially that he offends his opposition.
But angry right-wingers do have fixed opinions on issues, and not just ones based in "economic anxiety." They worship guns and the Second Amendment. They unswervingly oppose abortion. They believe this is a Christian (or possibly "Judeo-Christian") nation and have no tolerance for other belief systems. They think undocumented immigrants are history's greatest monsters. They fear "Black Crime" (which used to be a tag at Breitbart). They don't loathe gay people as much as they used to, but they've shifted their loathing to trans people. Their hatred of liberals is different from the animosity that led to the Rwandan genocide only in degree. I stand by what I wrote on Twitter just after Harris's piece was published, but it's insufficient to describe how much they hate us.


And we despise them because they proudly vote for politicians who will never allow an increase in the federal minimum wage, never curtail the power of billionaires and big business, and never acknowledge that climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed. We despise them because the rights of non-whites and non-Chritians and immigrants and LGBT people are important to us, as are abortion rights, as is the right not to live in fear of gun violence. We despise them because they've embraced the corporatist who-cares-if-they-die approach to the pandemic.

The fact that John Harris can't boil all this down to something that fits on a cocktail napkin doesn't mean the issues aren't real or profound. More likely, he just doesn't see any of it as meaningful to him. No one he knows is trying to subsist on $7.25 an hour. He's not a person of color. If anyone he cares about needs an abortion, it's probably readily available. Climate change won't get really bad until after he's dead. His immediate neighbors don't parade around with AR-15s.

Harris concludes:
The more the vitriol has risen the less consensus there is about the origins of anger. To the contrary, there is something closer to an establishment consensus that the search for root cause is folly — the Trump phenomenon defies explanation, and the threat posed by his demagoguery makes speculation about its origins an irrelevant distraction.
Oh, well, if the establishment consensus says that it's not even worth troubling one's beautiful mind over the possible reasons for what could be a nation-destroying schism, then I guess I'm wasting my time.

Saturday, January 08, 2022

THE NEW YORK TIMES CITES A PUSH POLL TO BASH COVID-AVERSE TEACHERS' UNIONS

Your right-wing relatives think of The New York Times an extremely liberal -- socialist! communist! -- news outlet, but in one way the Times is on exactly the same page as Fox News: Both despise teachers' unions in urban public schools. Here's a "straight news" Times story, written by Dana Goldstein and Noam Scheiber, that exudes contempt for unions, presenting their concerns about the current COVID surge as objectively unjustified and contrary to the public good:
Few American cities have labor politics as fraught as Chicago’s, where the nation’s third-largest school system shut down this week after the teachers’ union members refused to work in person, arguing that classrooms were unsafe amid the Omicron surge.

But in a number of other places, the tenuous labor peace that has allowed most schools to operate normally this year is in danger of collapsing.

While not yet threatening to walk off the job, unions are back at negotiating tables, pushing in some cases for a return to remote learning. They frequently cite understaffing because of illness, and shortages of rapid tests and medical-grade masks. Some teachers, in a rear-guard action, have staged sick outs.
Unions are "arguing" that Omicron makes classrooms unsafe. They "cite" understaffing and lack of tests and good masks. There's no acknowledgment, that, well, they might have a point.


Just the opposite, in fact. Here's an astonishing paragraph from the Goldstein/Scheiber story:
The unions’ demands echo the ones they have made for nearly two years, despite all that has changed. There are now vaccines and the reassuring knowledge that in-school transmission of the virus has been limited. The Omicron variant, while highly contagious, appears to cause less severe illness than previous iterations of Covid-19.
Two months ago, a paragraph like this could have been justified, even though America was in the midst of a Delta wave. Now it's abhorrent. "All that has changed" since late November is that we have a massively contagious variant that, while it causes somewhat milder disease, is still filling up hospitals because the vaccines don't stop it altogether and "milder" is a relative term.

The point of the story is: Unreasonable union demands are coming to your community soon -- and not only are the union nutjobs dangerous to the cause of in-person learning at all costs, they might cost Democrats several elections in November.
... for Democrats, the revival of tensions over remote schooling is a distinctly unwelcome development.

Because they have close ties to the unions, Democrats are concerned that additional closures like those in Chicago could lead to a possible replay of the party’s recent loss in Virginia’s governor race. Polling showed that school disruptions were an important issue for swing voters who broke Republican — particularly suburban white women.
Let's take a closer look at the link on the word "Polling."

The link goes to a press release from a group called Democrats for Education Reform. It reads in part:
A new poll, jointly released today by Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and Murmuration found that education was one of the primary issues voters considered when casting their ballots in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election. Republicans–with Democrats’ help—turned a natural Democratic advantage into a Republican strength by playing into parents’ frustrations.

Of voters who ranked education as a top issue (21% overall), a whopping 70% voted for Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin....

Voters across demographics found Youngkin’s stated support to “invest more in schools, raise teacher pay, and demand better performance from our schools” (66%) convincing, including 28% of Biden voters.

Among Republicans, in particular, protecting parental involvement was an especially resonant message (96%), while Biden voters noted concerns over prolonged school closures based on unions, not science, as the most resonant argument against Terry McAuliffe (28%).
"Among Republicans, in particular, protecting parental involvement was an especially resonant message" -- that would seem more of a reference to the curriculum wars that took place during the Virginia gubernatorial campaign, and to Terry McAuliffe's poorly worded assertion “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

And what should we take away from this?
Biden voters noted concerns over prolonged school closures based on unions, not science, as the most resonant argument against Terry McAuliffe (28%).
"Based on unions, not science" doesn't seem like the bland, objective wording you expect in a responsibly worded poll. And, in fact, if you look at one series of questions posed in this survey, you see that this is effectively a push poll.
Q14. Here are some statements that you may have heard during the election. Regardless of who you voted for in the election for Governor, for each one please indicate whether you find that statement very convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing as a reason to have voted for Glenn Youngkin or oppose Terry McAuliffe.

Q14A. [SCHOOL CHOICE] Glenn Youngkin says he will launch 20 new innovative charter schools to give parents more choices in their kids’ education. He says McAuliffe would block any school option other than any public school because he believes government officials know better than parents how to educate their children.

Q14B. [STANDARDS/REWARD TEACHERS] Youngkin says we have to go to work for our kids. He'll invest more in schools, raise teacher pay, and demand better performance from our schools.

Q14C. [PARENTS - MCAULIFFE] As Governor, McAuliffe pushed left liberal activists into Virginia schools while shutting parents out of the conversation on school curricula, saying "I don't think parents should be telling schools what to teach."

Q14D. [CRT] Glenn Youngkin says our school curricula have gone haywire. He’ll ban dangerous education programs that teach kids the only thing that matters is their skin color and that all white people are racists, while Terry McAuliffe would support the activists and bureaucrats pushing them.

Q14E. [CLOSURES W/ UNIONS] Despite CDC guidelines about safe school re-openings, Terry McAuliffe and other Democrats sided with teacher’s unions instead of scientists and kept schools closed for in-person learning for too long. Glenn Youngkin will follow the science and oppose unnecessary shutdowns.

Q14F. [CLOSURES W/ LIBERALS] Despite CDC guidelines about safe school re-openings, Terry McAuliffe and other Democrats sided with liberal activists instead of scientists and kept schools closed for in-person learning for too long. Glenn Youngkin will follow the science and oppose unnecessary shutdowns.

Q14G. [PARENTS - CHOICE] Youngkin says parents have a right to make decisions about their children's education, and he will always stand up for Virginia parents.
Every one of these statements is pure propaganda. As a rule, push polls are conducted before an election, in order to push a candidate's talking points on the public in the guise of polling, but this one appears to have been conducted after the fact, presumably in order to generate public support for right-leaning education "reform."

But why would a group called Democrats for Education Reform order up a poll like this? Well, you should take the word "Democrats" with a grain of salt. Ballotpedia explains:
DFER was founded in 2007 by a number of New York hedge fund managers, including Whitney Tilson, R. Boykin Curry IV, and John Petry. The group was founded as an alternative to the more mainstream Democratic Party positions on changes in the education system. According to Philanthropy Roundtable, the group started as a "lobbying, funding and advocacy group that plans to challenge the entrenched party power of teachers’ unions and other education sector interests, who largely define the official Democratic position on education issues."

... The financial backing for DFER has been a source of opposition from other education advocates. DFER's funding largely comes from private interests. Diane Ravitch, a progressive education expert, has called DFER a "Wall Street hedge fund managers’ group." In 2013, the Democratic Party of California denounced the group, saying DFER "is funded by corporations, Republican operatives and wealthy individuals dedicated to privatization and anti-educator initiatives, and not grassroots democrats or classroom educators."
There's other polling cited in the piece that's a smidge more plausible, though in one case it's GOP polling and in another case it's a focus group conducted for another group of right-centrist Democrats, Third Way. But the DFER polling should never have been cited.

Meanwhile, what's actually happening in schools seems a lot closer to the unions' characterization than to the Goldstein and Scheiber's:


But don't you dare close the schools, even briefly, because hedge fund managers whose ultimate goal is to abolish unionized public education in big cities wouldn't like that.

Friday, January 07, 2022

THE NEW YORK TIMES BURIES THE LEDE, WHICH IS THAT REPUBLICAN VOTERS ARE CRACKPOTS

The New York Times has just published the transcript of a focus group with eight GOP voters conducted by Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster. The focus group was primarily about the events of last January 6. Here's how Patrick Healy and Adrian Rivera of the Times describe what it reveals:
Why Republican Voters Think Americans Have to Get Over Jan. 6

Former President Donald Trump may be popular in the Republican Party, but his conduct during the attack on the Capitol last Jan. 6 earned poor marks and stood out as a troubling memory during a discussion among eight G.O.P. voters in a Times Opinion focus group this week.

This transcript of the discussion ... offers a more nuanced portrait of Republican voters and their concerns about American democracy than the typical image of the pro-Trump party base in lock step with the former president....

Some of the Republicans said Mr. Trump could have stopped the attack on Jan. 6 sooner and others blamed him for egging on his supporters.
To Healy and Rivera, these are the most important revelations from the focus group. Oh, and also:
At the same time, several of the Republicans repeated Mr. Trump’s falsehoods about election fraud and traded in other unfounded claims, including about the Jan. 6 riot, news coverage and a Democratic push for Covid-related restrictions to supposedly ensure more mail-in balloting in future elections.
In other words, they believe crazy shit -- which really ought to be Healy and Rivera's lede. But even after acknowledging this, they suggest that what we really need to do is try to grasp where these people are coming from:
Listening to some of the Republicans rationalize their support for the president, and in some cases justify the mob violence at the Capitol, may offer insights into what makes them vote the way they do, and believe what they believe. It’s only by understanding that can we move toward a better, clearer understanding of our fellow citizens.
Here's some of what we need to understand:
Kristen Soltis Anderson: What are some of the biggest things that you remember happening in 2021?

... Sandy (from California): The vaccinations — you have to show your card. It’s almost like we’re having our civil rights taken away.
As Healy and Rivera write, some in the focus group say that "Mr. Trump could have stopped the attack on Jan. 6 sooner and others blamed him for egging on his supporters." But they don't seem particularly upset, with maybe one exception:
Kristen Soltis Anderson: Were there any things that anybody was saying or doing that made what happened on Jan. 6 more likely to occur the way it did?

Judi: People were saying that the states wanted to recount the votes because they saw fraud.

Jill: I would say Trump. Trump saying he lost the election, it was stolen from him, over and over and over again. And I think a lot of people were just getting very angry about it, feeling like the election was stolen.

Joshua: Trump’s speeches and his Twitter.

Kristen Soltis Anderson: I want to know if you think there’s anything that President Trump could have done or should have done to prevent the escalation and what happened on Jan. 6?

Judi: I don’t think you should have had that rally with all the people, with all the protesters. I think he just got everybody more ticked off.

Gayle: I think he could have stopped it earlier somehow. I remember watching it on TV and going, ‘What the hell is going on right now?’ And I was like, ‘Where is Trump during this?’ And that was the only thing that kind of came to mind in that moment, was Trump’s got to come in and do something about this. But he wasn’t, and that was a concern of mine.
But they're sure he didn't want a riot, and they're equally certain that the riot was disasteful to, um, the rioters:
Kristen Soltis Anderson: Based on what you’ve heard and your impressions of President Trump, what do you think was going through his mind when he was seeing all of this on television?

Barney: He wasn’t very happy. For sure. Because Trump’s people don’t act like that. A lot of these people were professional antagonists. I’ve lived in D.C. my whole life. They like to do it.

Sandy: People coming in there and storming and causing a ruckus didn’t achieve his goal.

Judi: His followers were not like that.
(His followers were, in fact, like that.)

Later on, we get a clarification of that reference to "professional antagonists."
Kristen Soltis Anderson: I think, Barney, you may have mentioned people coming in from other places. Who is antifa? Where are they coming in from, in your view?

Barney: I think there’s groups around the country that just — they’re professional hell-raisers, and they like to poke the bear. And they’re funded by, maybe, other countries. I’m not sure. I don’t know. Or maybe by Soros. But they’re always there, and they’re always in front.
Soros! Drink!

No true conservative would have so much as scuffed the floor of the Capitol, even though, y'know, they all had good reason to be ticked off...
Patrick Healy: A show-of-hands question: How many of you believe Joe Biden won the election fair and square?

[Jill raises her hand.]

Patrick Healy: And how many of you believe Trump really won the election?

[All but Jill and Matt raise their hands.]

Patrick Healy: Judi, you made a point at the beginning about your concern about the great political divide in the country. Do you think that Jan. 6 contributed to that political divide, or do you think other factors contribute to that divide?

Judi: I think it has a lot to do with the divide. Because there’s people like us. We feel that Trump should have won. Trump won the election. And there are others that will say no, Biden won fair and square. And that’s what’s dividing this country between the Republicans and the Democrats. I mean, even more so. I mean, really, really dividing us.
We know Trump won, but Democrats and state election authorities and the courts and the media and the majority of Congress insist that he didn't. And that's divisive!

These people also know that the evil libs have pre-stolen the next election:
Lorna: They’re already talking about the mail-in ballots with Covid. You know where that’s going to go.

Sandy: Yeah. It’s like they’re coming up with these — the right to vote thing. I’ve never been turned down to vote. Just show up and go vote. But this whole mail-in ballot thing? I think that should end right away.

Gayle: I’ll be quite frank: I think that the reason that they push Covid so much is because they’re going to try to keep the mail-in ballots. I think that they are putting the fear in people so that they can push Covid as long as possible for 2024. It’s all about control, and they’re keeping Covid as one of their biggest weapons.
Either that or the libs have a plan that's even more nefarious:
Gayle: ... I don’t think [Trump] should run again. It’s a mistake for him to run. If he runs, every Democrat is going to just vote Democrat just to not keep Trump in.
Sneaky Democrats with their sneaky plan to win the next election by casting more votes!

Okay, that's not quite fair. Gayle isn't saying it should be illegal to vote against someone just because you hate him. But those libs are just so mean!
Barney: ... I used to think it was really bad when George Bush II was president. I mean, no matter what he did, he got criticized. If you got a flat tire, it was Bush’s fault. Trump, no matter what, he couldn’t do anything. The Washington Post food critic, because [Trump] likes his steak well done, criticized him for that. What he likes.
Whereas Republicans were so nice to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and didn't call them murderers or rapists or drug dealers or drug addicts or communists or secret Muslims bent on the destruction of American civilization or anything!

And so we come to the final question:
Kristen Soltis Anderson: ... What would you want ... historians, 100 years from now, to know about how you think about Jan. 6?

... Joshua: About how the news was just trying to get out the story as fast as they could have and not worrying about the facts, just changing everything as they went on.

Barney: I hope they include both sides of the story and all the players involved.

Lorna: How the Democrats invaded the White House.
I speak fluent wingnut and I'm not even sure what Lorna means by "How the Democrats invaded the White House." You mean, by getting elected? Which I guess, to Republicans, is an invasion. Oh, dear -- I'm not being very understanding, am I?

THE TORCH HAS BEEN PASSED

After the Democrats' overwhelming victory in the 2008 election, there was a moment when a few Republicans said less-than-flattering things about Rush Limbaugh, who was then the king of right-wing talk radio.

They were immediately forced to recant.

There was Michael Steele:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
And Congressman Phil Gingrey:
Following statements made to Politico yesterday telling Rush Limbaugh to "back off," Republican congressman Phil Gingrey now has his tail between his legs. In a groveling call to Limbaugh's conservative radio program this afternoon, Gingrey offered a humble apology and described Limbaugh as a "conservative giant" ...
And Congressman Todd Tiahrt:
... in an interview with the Kansas City Star editorial board, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) risked alienating thousands of ditto-heads by giving his honest opinion of whether Rush Limbaugh was the “de facto leader of the GOP.” “No, no, he’s just an entertainer,” Tiahrt said.

According to the Wichita Eagle ... Tiahrt’s office is now also rushing to apologize:
... “The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America — not a party leader responsible for election losses,” Sackett told The Eagle editorial board. “Nothing the congressman said diminished the role Rush has played and continues to play in the conservative movement.”
A few years later, Republicans were groveling again, but this time it was before Donald Trump. Lindsey Graham went from calling Trump "a kook ... crazy ... unfit for office" to gushing that Trump had “allowed me in his world.” Mitt Romney attacked Trump, then was humiliated when the then-president-elect invited him to dinner to discuss the job of secretary of state, after which he gave it to Rex Tillerson. Ted Cruz and Trump traded insults during the 2016 primaries, then Cruz began kissing Trump's ring on a regular basis.

But now it appears that there's a new Grand Inquisitor on the right, or perhaps Grand Humiliator, a feared enforcer of conservatively correct doctrine:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) found his name trending Thursday on social media for all the wrong reasons after what critics called a “groveling” and “humiliating” appearance on Fox News.

And it all started after he finally said something honest about the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol....

Cruz this week called it a “violent terrorist attack,” in line with a Jan. 7, 2021, statement he made calling it “a despicable act of terrorism.”

Those comments enraged far-right conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson ... who called him out over it on Fox News this week.

On Thursday, Cruz went on Carlson’s show to bend the knee, calling his own comments “sloppy” and “dumb.”

But in one of the most uncomfortable moments on Fox News, Carlson wasn’t buying it:

It's almost as if Trump has ceded sole ownership of January 6, and with it the Republican Party. Carlson is at least a co-owner now, and he enforces doctrinal purity rather than Trump.

I wonder what would happen if a Republican dared to say that Carlson isn't an important figure in the conservative movement, and is "just an entertainer." Would he be threatened with banishment until he prostrated himself and conceded that Carlson is a giant among men? Maybe Ted Cruz should test the waters. He seems to like groveling.