Thursday, June 16, 2022

THE JANUARY 6 HEARINGS ARE THE FIRST 2024 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

I've been assuming that many Republicans have decided to cooperate with the January 6 committee because they hope the committee will make a 2024 Donald Trump presidential run impossible, clearing a path for other GOP candidates. This CBS story by Robert Costa seems to confirm that:
Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative long admired by many Republicans, will testify before the House's Jan. 6 committee on Thursday with an urgent and stark message for the panel about former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election: "America's democracy was almost stolen from her." ...

He will also reveal how he advised then-Vice President Mike Pence to resist Trump's pleas for Pence to block the congressional certification of Joe Biden's election victory....

Pence's lawyers and aides reached out to Luttig ahead of the congressional certification, seeking his guidance and a conservative imprimatur on Pence's decision. Luttig ended up briefly serving as an informal, outside adviser to the vice president's team....

Pence's former counsel, Greg Jacob, will also testify before the committee on Thursday.
I don't think there's a particularly large bloc of GOP primary voters who regard what Pence did as conservative, but Pence is the only potential candidate apart from Trump and Ron DeSantis who ever cracks 5% in 2024 primary polling -- sometimes his numbers are in the low double digits -- so somebody in the GOP electorate is still taking him seriously. He can't beat Trump or DeSantis head to head, but I don't think he knows that, and his delusion appears to be shared by many in the mainstream media, as well as many old-line Republicans, probably including Liz Cheney.

Democrats, of course, still think they have to seek out a Republican imprimatur for everything they believe, so of course they're fine with this. If a principal message of the hearings is "Trump is bad but other Republicans are good," and if the hearings do somehow lead to the neutralization of Trump, that's good for Republicans. Which is not good for America.

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

CONSEQUENCES? WHAT CONSEQUENCES? (updated)

I don't understand how you can live in this society and write a piece like the one John Stoehr just published at The Editorial Board:
Don’t confuse Trump dodging indictment with him getting off scot-free. Consequences are coming. They always do
They do? Always? Really?

Stoehr writes:
If Trump is not indicted, I think we can expect the Justice Department to move heaven and earth to show the American people they can still have faith in the promise of American exceptionalism. In order to make sure the public still believes the rule of law applies equally, we can expect federal prosecutions to track down, arrest, indict and prosecute every person who came within farting distance of seditious conspiracy.
We can? Because the Justice Department is worried about our perceptions of the fairness of the system? You'd never know it.
More than 840 people have been indicted in connection with J6. Some pleaded guilty....

The Department of Justice was already in the process of rending asunder the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two of the most notorious white-power terrorist groups. They led the J6 attack. Justice will no doubt ramp up that process after last week’s spectacular first hearing by the J6 committee....

Over the weekend, police officers arrested more than 30 members of the Patriot Front, a white nationalist group. They were taken into custody on suspicion of planning to riot during a Pride event in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho. According to CBS News, the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, is assisting in the investigation by local law enforcement.

During the Trump years, funding of and recruitment by white-power terrorists groups grew sharply and then soared in the run-up to the J6 insurrection. (That’s according to information revealed last week by the first J6 committee.) Even if the former president dodges prosecution, do you think these goons are going to think it’s OK to be out in the open?
Well, I suppose it depends on who the president is in the next few years and what the president is doing to the FBI and the rest of the Department of Justice. We know there's a very good chance that the next president will be Donald Trump, who won't repeat what he regards as the mistake of hiring people with morals, scruples, and respect for the law. He'll hire nothing but loyalists and sleazebags.

I see where Stoehr is going with this: Many people have been arrested for their part in the January 6 insurrection. Right-wing extremists are, to some extent, being rolled up.

But what that means is that the people in the mob are in legal jeopardy, while the people in nice suits who planned the election theft are all walking around free. This doesn't prove that "we can expect federal prosecutions to track down, arrest, indict and prosecute every person who came within farting distance of seditious conspiracy." It proves that those plotters appear to be in deep trouble up to a certain pay grade.

That's how these things often go, right? Remember Abu Ghraib? Remember the way servicemembers tortured and humiliated prisoners in highly specific ways devised by U.S. government consultants and authorized at very high levels of the U.S. government? Notice that the prison sentences were limited to the soldiers involved -- none of the higher-ups who told them what to do and told them that they should do it spent even a day in prison.

Maybe things will change, but so far, January 6 looks a lot like that.

Stoehr disagrees:
As for those who stood by Trump’s side all the way to the end, I don’t see how they escape accountability. None of them are as political toxic as Trump. Like Richard Nixon’s henchman, they’re likely to go down.

The FBI has been investigating Giuliani. (It raided his residences.) Peter Navarro has been indicted. Steve Bannon, too (on an unrelated charge, allegedly). John Eastman, the mastermind of the idea that Vice President Mike Pence could send electors back to their respective state, is surely in hot water. Same for Sidney Powell. She’s embroiled in a defamation suit related to her allegations that Dominion voting machines were rigged. And there are dozens of other ghouls and grifters less well-known and more likely to face prosecution as a result of being less well-known.

The takeaway?

Trump might survive, but not his lackeys.

Future lackeys will think twice.
THe most any of these bastards will get is eighteen months in a country-club prison -- and even that's unlikely, because it takes only one regular Fox viewer on any jury to acquit. And if all this makes Republicans fear a repeat of January 6, their alternative is effectively making January 6 legal, by getting 2020 truthers in position to oversee elections, and by embracing the "independent legislature" theory, meaning they get to declare their party the winner of any election that's close (or, if they're brazen, any election at all).

Stoehr concludes his piece with pie in the sky:
Donald Trump is almost certainly going to get away with treason. Garland won’t touch him. That will hurt those of us who believe in American exceptionalism, the idea that everyone is treated equally under law. In fact, there are rules for the powerful. There are rules for everyone else.

That should not be surprising.

But let’s not confuse dodging indictment with getting off scot-free. As they come for the little people, so will consequences come for Trump, too. We just can’t see, in the present moment, what they will be in the future.
Maybe -- maybe -- the outraged response to January 6 will persuade Republican voters that Trump can't win in 2024. I'm starting to see that sentiment in right-wing comments sections. Some Trump admirers think the rest of us are likely to turn out in big numbers to vote against Trump, and are less likely to do so against, say, Ron DeSantis. (They're probably right.)

But is that Stoehr's idea of consequences coming for Trump? If so, it's not much. A lot of people have lost nomination contests. I'm sure Trump expected to lose his first one. If that's all that's coming for Trump, or maybe the kind of financial stress he's already weathered once, then I think he'll be fine. I'd regard that as proof that real consequences don't always come when they're deserved.

*****

ALSO: Yes, the Proud Boys seem really intimidated these days:

WILL THERE BE MINI-INSURRECTIONS THIS YEAR? (updated)

The New York Times is trying to warn its readers that election truthers are getting close to power in many potential 2024 battleground states:
As the halfway point nears of a midterm year that is vastly friendlier to Republicans, the party’s voters have nominated dozens of candidates for offices with power over the administration and certification of elections who have spread falsehoods about the 2020 presidential contest and sowed distrust in American democracy.

... it is possible that 2023 will bring newly installed far-right officials willing to wield their influence to affect election outcomes....
Names are named, among them Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, as well as a winner of a primary yesterday, Nevada secretary of state candidate Jim Marchant. Clearly we should be worried about election theft in 2024. But this also jumped out at me:
In Arizona, the leading Republican candidate for governor, Kari Lake, has said that Gov. Doug Ducey, a fellow Republican who is term-limited, should not have certified Mr. Biden’s 2020 victory in the state and has predicted the 2022 general election will also be rigged against Republicans. “I think we’re going to have to win by a mile to maybe eke out a win,” she told The Times earlier this year.
There hasn't been much polling of the general election in Arizona, but a February poll shows Lake leading Katie Hobbs, the favorite for the Democratic nomination, by 1 point. In Pennsylvania, a new poll shows Doug Mastriano trailing the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Josh Shapiro, by 4 points.

Lake and Mastriano are among the loudest and angriest denialists. What happens if candidates like this lose tight races, when they're already telling us that they believe they're "going to have to win by a mile to maybe eke out a win"?

We should be preparing for the possibility of mini-1/6 insurrections in the states between November and January. We should be ready to defend election results in the states the way they were defended in the 2020 presidential election. The denialists don't just pose a threat to democracy in the future -- they might also pose a threat to democracy this year.

*****

UPDATE: And this is how unrest in the states could begin:
Votes in a New Mexico community are at risk of not counting after a Republican-led commission refused to approve primary election results over distrust of Dominion vote-tallying machines.

Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to order the three-member Otero County commission to certify June 7 primary election results to ensure voters are not disenfranchised and that political candidates have access to the general election ballot in November.

On Monday, the commission in its role as a county canvassing board voted unanimously against certifying the results of the primary without raising specific concerns about discrepancies, over the objection of the county clerk.

“I have huge concerns with these voting machines,” said Otero County Commissioner Vickie Marquardt on Monday. “When I certify stuff that I don’t know is right, I feel like I’m being dishonest because in my heart I don’t know if it is right.”
These people have no specific complaints, but things just don't seem right! Facts need to care about their feelings!

The commission has a celebrity member:
The commission’s members include Cowboys for Trump co-founder Couy Griffin, who ascribes to unsubstantiated claims that former President Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Griffin was convicted of illegally entering restricted U.S. Capitol grounds — though not the building — amid the riots on Jan. 6, 2021, and is scheduled for sentencing later this month.
Griffin is a racist and a COVID truther who's repeatedly said that his enemies deserve the death penalty for treason, as I explain here. His sentencing in his January 6 case is scheduled for Friday. Meanwhile, he has a say in whether an election is certified. As I often say, democracy isn't just in danger two years from now -- it's under siege right now.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHETHER TRUMP THOUGHT HE WON

Jennifer Rubin writes:
Legal scholars have entertained the argument that defeated former president Donald Trump can avoid prosecution for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election on the grounds that he was so nuts that he believed his own election lies. But that argument can go only so far.

A defendant cannot hide behind “deliberate ignorance.” NBC News explains that a judge can "instruct a jury that it can find that a defendant acted knowingly if the defendant was aware of a high probability that something was true but deliberately avoided learning the truth.” Former attorney general William P. Barr’s testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee shows that Trump was not interested in the facts. His top aides repeatedly told him that none of the allegations of voter fraud were true; he promoted them anyway.

Plus, as constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe tells me, it certainly cannot be the case that someone who seeks to obstruct a congressional vote count (e.g., strong-arming his own vice president) is excused from criminal liability simply because he’s “genuinely convinced that Congress will get it wrong.” You do not get to arm-twist officials or send the mob to the Capitol because you really, really think you won.

Your motive may be “I am convinced I won,” but criminal intent is satisfied since “no matter what you believe, you cannot tell the secretary of state of Georgia to just ‘find 11,780 votes’ that do not actually exist to give you one more vote than your opponent secured,” Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel, tweeted.
The fact that Trump was telegraphing his plan to discredit mail-in ballots even before Election Day in 2020 strongly suggests that he knew he was going to lose -- or did he sincerely believe he'd win (and then, after the votes were cast, believe he had won) while also believing that the haters and losers were determined to deprive him of his rightful victory? And if it's the latter, is he nuts, or is he just a fanatical believer in the Power of Positive Thinking, an idea he's used all his life to guide his actions and persuade himself that he's a winner?

I think he approached the election cynically, formulating plans to finagle an outcome favorable to himself, but I also think he works himself up to the belief that his delusions are real, or, at minimum, that it doesn't matter what's real because surely everybody finagles the way he finagles. I'm not sure he knew that there really weren't 11,780 Trump votes to be "found" in Georgia -- maybe he'd talked himself into believing all the crackpot scenarios he was entertaining, or maybe he assumed that the authorities in Georgia (and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona) must be cheating somehow because he sure would if he were in their shoes, because everybody cheats, right? So therefore there must have been 11,780 votes that could be found for him.

But even if Trump believes that there is no election-results truth arrived at honestly and in good faith, he knows there are results -- if you want to look at it as cynically as he appears to -- that we declare to be truthful, whether or not they are. More important, he knows that there are legal procedures that ratify these results. They can be challenged in court, but Trump's efforts to do that failed repeatedly. Ultimately, those results are accepted as the truth, and Trump knows that, even if he doesn't believe they are the truth, or doesn't believe in truth.

So maybe he didn't believe he lost. But he knew the authorities said he lost, and that's reality, as ratified by the law. He knew an agreed-upon conclusion existed, even if he didn't believe it. So indict him already.

Monday, June 13, 2022

LET'S REVISIT THAT DISCUSSION OF DEMOCRATS' "EMOTIONAL GIVING"

Back in January, in an interview with Vox's Sean Illing, James Carville griped:
Just look at how Democrats organize and spend money. For Christ’s sake, [South Carolina Democrat] Jaime Harrison raised over $100 million only to lose his Senate race to Lindsey Graham by 10 points. Amy McGrath runs for Senate in Kentucky and raises over $90 million only to get crushed by Mitch McConnell.

They were always going to lose those races, but Democrats keep doing this stupid shit. They’re too damn emotional. Democrats obsess over high-profile races they can’t win because that’s where all the attention is. We’re addicted to hopeless causes.
A few months later, Jonathan Weismann of The New York Times delivered the same message, in a news article titled "Democratic Dollars Flow Once Again to Likely Lost Causes":
Every election year in recent cycles, celebrity Democratic candidates have emerged — either on the strength of their personalities, the notoriety of their Republican opponents or both — to rake in campaign cash, then lose impossible elections. Some Democrats say such races are draining money from more winnable campaigns....
Oh, those silly Democratics They squander so much donor cash on hopeless causes! And this is clearly a problem that's unique to only one of our two major parties!

Keep that conventional wisdom in mind as you consider this:
One email warned of a "left wing mob," seeking to undermine the results of the presidential contest. Another said then-President Donald Trump needed campaign contributions to "fight back." And in another instance, his supporters were urged to "step up to protect the integrity of the election."

Those examples of Trump's relentless post-election fundraising flashed on a screen Monday during the public hearing of the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The panel sought to demonstrate in its second public hearing that the former President had ample proof from many people in his inner circle that his claims of election fraud were baseless, but he still peddled them in the race to collect massive campaign sums in the waning days of his presidency.

The roughly $250 million that poured in after the election largely went to the former President's political action committee, rather than to the "election integrity" effort touted to his donors, the committee said.

"The big lie was also a big rip-off," said California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, one of the Democrats on the panel. After the hearing, Lofgren told CNN that the committee also has found evidence Trump and members of his family have personally benefited from donations that were advertised as going toward election fraud claims.

No, Democrats don't have a monopoly on "emotional giving."

And while you can argue that ordinary Republican donors gave to Trump after the election because they naivel believed he had a legitimate chance of overturning the election, these are also people who believe that Trump is staggeringly rich, so why did they imagine he needed the money at all?

This was emotional giving as much as any donation to any longshot Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on this.

CALLING IT NOW: THE GUN BILL WON'T PASS

This announcement seems like a breakthrough, but ultimately it won't be one:
A bipartisan group of senators announced Sunday that it had reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments....

Twenty senators — 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans — signed a statement announcing the framework deal. The move indicated that the agreement could have enough GOP support to defeat a filibuster....
If any legislation can pass, it should be something modest like this that's only partly about guns:
Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to implement red-flag laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers younger than 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice and mental health records for the first time.

Other provisions would prevent gun sales to a broader group of domestic violence offenders, closing what is often called the “boyfriend loophole”; clarify which gun sellers are required to register as federal firearms dealers and, thus, run background checks on customers; and establish new federal offenses related to gun trafficking....

Other provisions would funnel billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and school security programs, funding behavioral intervention programs, new campus infrastructure and armed officers. One cornerstone of the deal is legislation sponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to establish a nationwide network of “community behavioral health clinics,” though the framework does not yet include an agreed funding level for that program or others.
Even this isn't in it:
The agreement does not include a provision supported by President Biden, congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that would raise the minimum age for the purchase of at least some rifles from 18 to 21. Handguns are already subject to a federal 21-and-older rule.
We're told that ten Republicans are on board -- and that among the Democrats who joined the agreement are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. So it's a done deal, right? Well, no:
The framework announced Sunday amounts to a statement of principles, not a fully written bill....

“The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions,” said a GOP aide familiar with the talks. “One or more of these principles could be dropped if text is not agreed to.”

Money also stands to be a sticking point. The framework proposes funding commitments that could easily run into the billions of dollars, and Republicans want any new spending to be offset with cuts elsewhere in the federal budget, people involved in the negotiations said.
That's the first sign that this won't pass. The second sign is that Mitch McConnell, who has said he's open to a gun safety bill, is noncommittal on this one:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not formally endorse the deal in a statement Sunday but offered encouragement to the negotiators.

“I continue to hope their discussions yield a bipartisan product that makes significant headway on key issues like mental health and school safety, respects the Second Amendment, earns broad support in the Senate, and makes a difference for our country,” McConnell said.
Also, the NRA isn't on board:
An NRA spokeswoman said Sunday that the group “will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review.”

“The NRA will continue to oppose any effort to insert gun-control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections, and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation,” said the spokeswoman, Amy Hunter.
But if you still think maybe this time is different, look at a calendar. It's an election year. Republicans know it will demotivate their base nationwide if they allow this bill to pass. Even though four of the Republican senators who agreed to this framework are retiring (Blunt, Burr, Portman, and Toomey) and none of the others are up for reelection this year (Cassidy, Collins, Cornyn, Graham, Romney, and Tillis), the base would be inclined to punish the entire party if even ten Republicans allowed the libs to own them this way. (Republicans block gun bills even in off years, of course -- after Sandy Hook, the Manchin-Toomey bill failed in 2013.)

At least one of the ten Republicans who agreed to this framework will have to back away in order to prevent the legislation from passing. (Republicans, who protect their own, won't isolate one senator that way, so several will undoubtedly turn against the bill.) The excuse will be that the few gun provisions really do, as the right sees it, "deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones," or that the funding is too much, or that Democrats won't agree to offset the spending with the precise mix of budget cuts Republicans demand, or that the elimination of the boyfriend loophole protects lesbians or gay men or trans people or, who knows, maybe people in throuples? (I don't care where you are on the gender spectrum or what kind of non-traditional relationship you're in, you deserve to be shielded from gun violence if a partner is threatening you, but I'm sure Republicans would be happy to announce angrily that they don't agree.)

And then in the right-wing news silo the message will go out that Republicans were reasonable, but radical left socialist Democrats killed the bill. And so the libs will be owned, the football will be yanked away from Charlie Brown yet again, and victory will be achieved. Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum.

Sunday, June 12, 2022

THE POWERFUL CAN DEFY THE PEOPLE FOR A LONG TIME

Pundits often tell us that the right-wing backlash we're beginning to experience now will be unsustainable. They claim that a party of white far-right Christianists can't hold power for very long in a country that's becoming more diverse, less Christian, more accepting of LGBTQ rights, angrier about gun violence, persistently supportive of abortion rights, and so on. Sure, we're told, Republicans might seize all power in D.C. after the 2024 election -- but they can't keep it for very long. The people won't stand for it. The mismatch between the laws Republicans pass (or the Republican Supreme Court makes) and what the people actually want will force the country to change.

A New York Times story about abortion in Poland makes clear that that's now how it works, even in a democracy.
The long battle over Poland’s 29-year-old ban on abortion has intensified over the past 17 months after the elimination of the last significant exception permitting the procedure — fetal abnormalities....

Only one in 10 Poles support the stricter ban, which was enabled by a decision by the country’s highest court, dominated by judges loyal to a deeply conservative government. The rest of the population is roughly split between reverting to milder restrictions and legalizing terminations.

The consequences in Poland have been far-reaching: Abortion-rights activists have been threatened with prison for handing out abortion pills. The number of Polish women traveling abroad to get abortions, already in the thousands, has swelled further. A black market of abortion pills — some fake and many overpriced — is thriving.

Technically, the law still allows abortions if there is a serious risk to a woman’s health and life. But critics say it fails to provide necessary clarity, paralyzing doctors.

“This law creates problems for doctors and patients,” Jan Kochanowicz, a doctor who is also the director of the University Clinical Hospital in Bialystok, the largest city in northeastern Poland, said in an interview. “There is no clear and straightforward answer to what constitutes a threat to a woman’s health and life. Doctors are afraid to make decisions.”
And so a doctor who performs abortions in Berlin, and who often sees women who've traveled from Poland, tells us:
“We have a lot of Polish women with cancer who are told, ‘No, we can’t give you cancer treatment because you’re pregnant and it could hurt the baby,’” Dr. Müller said.

Recently, a 39-year-old woman with metastasizing bronchial cancer came for an abortion after her Polish doctor had delayed her chemotherapy for six weeks.

“Cancer spreads extremely fast during pregnancy,” Dr. Müller said. “A six-week delay is almost a death sentence.”
And:
In January, a 37-year-old woman carrying twins died after one of her fetuses had died and doctors did not remove it for seven days. The family accused the doctors of waiting for fear of harming the other fetus and being subject to possible prosecution.

Another woman, who was 19 weeks pregnant when her water broke, developed an infection and nearly died after doctors waited four days until her fetus’s heartbeat had stopped before removing it.
The story tells us that Poland was a destination for those seeking abortion in the days before the fall of communism.
But that changed after the Communist government collapsed in 1989. Bowing to pressure from a newly assertive Catholic Church, which had supported the fight against Communism, the new Parliament proposed an abortion ban....

Women’s groups organized protests and signed petitions. Three in four Poles told pollsters at the time that they preferred the issue to be settled by a referendum, not by Parliament. The country was almost evenly split, with 53 percent in favor of the liberal status quo.

Even so, Parliament outlawed abortion in 1993 with three exceptions: danger to the health or life of the mother; rape or incest; fetal abnormalities.
Poles adjusted to that laws, abortion went underground, abortion rights were restored in 1996 by a liberal government and then struck down by the conservative Supreme Court. "Over the next two decades, public schools were obliged to teach children about 'responsible parenthood' and 'life in the prenatal phase.' Abortion became a taboo." And then the exception that permitted abortion in the case of fetal abnormalities was removed. There have been waves of mass protest, but the law is in effect now. And polls showing that most Poles object to the current law say that two-thirds would prefer to revert to the previous, very restrictive law, which at least allowed abortion if there are fetal abnormalities. Only 19% tells pollsters they want real liberalization of abortion law. So public opinion has been pushed rightward by government force -- or maybe, after two decades, most Poles just can't imagine what it's like to have real reproductive rights.

This could happen in America, on many issues. We'll get used to the right-wing status quo. Maybe we'll protest, but the Overton window will move further and further rightward (as it has in recent decades onsuch issues as labor rights and the national minimum wage). We have to stop the right early. We shouldn't assume we'll easily be able to reverse what Republicans do to us in the future, or have done to us already.

Saturday, June 11, 2022

JOE BIDEN: BOTH A BUMBLING OLD COOT AND AN ALL-POWERFUL SUPERVILLAIN

Here's one common right-wing perspective on the president: a National Review piece by Rich Lowry titled "Biden Is an Old Man Overwhelmed by Events."

Here's another: a poll telling us that nearly 80% of Republicans believe Biden is a fiendish supervillain deliberately raising gas prices as part of a dastardly program of social engineering:
The survey asked, “Do you believe the Biden Administration is intentionally letting gas prices rise to make Americans use less fossil fuels?”

Most, 53 percent, said “yes,” they believe the Biden administration is allowing it to happen purposely to force Americans to use less fossil fuel. Another 39.6 percent, however, do not believe that is the case, and 7.4 percent are unsure.

Opinions are divided along party lines. Over three-quarters of Republicans, 77.3 percent, and 56.5 percent of independents believe the Biden administration is deliberately allowing gas prices to rise for those purposes. Most Democrats, 68.7 percent, disagree and do not believe the administration is doing so.
The survey was conducted by the Trafalgar Group, a right-leaning firm that accurately predicted many of the tight state races in the 2020 presidential election, which led FiveThirtyEight to give the firm an A-minus rating. Trafalgar, which says it uses techniques to elicit responses from right-wingers who are reluctant to share their true opinions with other pollsters, is often less successful in surveying races where there are few angry, suspicious right-wing voters -- for instance, the firm thought Gavin Newsom would survive his recall election last year by 8 points. (His victory margin was 24 points.) Nevertheless, I think Trafalgar is measuring right-wing sentiment accurately. The right thinks Biden is a dementia-addled bumbler who wanders aimlessly around the White House, but also believes Biden is singlehandedly capable of remaking the energy and transportation mix in America by force and without resorting to legislation.

Another person who seems to believe this is Donald Trump's ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands:


Sands has been mocked for this tweet in Denmark, as a reporter for a Danish English-language news outlet tells us:
“Hello this is Denmark speaking”, a ... user tweeted.

“Sounds like your embassy driver should have been paid more. Most of us can afford cars, but public transportation is cheap(ish), greener and often more convenient. Which Denmark did you go to?”, they said.

Former Minster of Transport Benny Engelbrecht wrote that “I can assure you that using the bike for urban mobility is a question of choice, not economy for most Danes. This is for instance me in my time as minister — and don’t worry, we could afford a car.”

... For what it’s worth as anecdotal evidence: the author of this article lives in Denmark and owns, and frequently drives (despite rocketing fuel prices), a car whilst living in a three-person household (two adults, one child), and has done so since 2020. Until recently, the household’s income consisted of a journalist’s salary and the basic state grant for students, SU.
Sands is a MAGA socialite who violated the Hatch Act during her time as ambassador by using an official Twitter account for partisan tweets:
Donald Trump’s ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, violated federal law when she urged Americans to donate to her boss’s campaign using her official Twitter account.

She did it again when she tweeted — once more from her official account — an article questioning whether Kamala Harris, the daughter of immigrants, was eligible to be vice president.

And yet again when she tweeted that Joe Biden was using the coronavirus pandemic for politics.
Sands recently finished fourth in the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, when Biden announced that we were tapping into the strategic petroleum reserves, Sands opposed the move:


I'm not sure how she squares that with Biden's evil plot to make people stop driving. And, of course, maybe it would be good if the government were, in a more benign way, helping people transition to a post-fossil-fuel world. But the right believes it's villainous behavior, a massive societal transformation by a guy who can't even find his way to the bathroom.

Friday, June 10, 2022

DAVID HOGG, BABY BIDENIST

We associate the futile hope that Republican ideologues might listen to reason with Democrats of an advanced age -- Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer. But you don't have to be old to fall for this delusion. Here's Parkland survivor David Hogg (b. 2000):


Sorry, David -- Fox didn't publish your op-ed because it's open to your arguments. Fox published it because Fox knows it will be highly effective ragebait.

Hogg is very respectful of the Fox audience:
I’m writing this because I don’t want you to live this nightmare, no matter your politics. No one should....

You can be both part of the solution and protect our rights. Attitudes are changing for what feels like the first time. Gun owners, even former gun industry executives, are demanding action because tragedies like Uvalde do not reflect their values. I know there are millions of you who want to do the right thing....

I don’t know what the exact answer is, but I know that you should be at the table. Your voice matters. Your rights matter. Your decency matters. We have disagreed in the past, but we are not enemies. Our enemy is not a party or organization, it is gun violence.

Let’s start by changing the conversation. So, whoever you are, march with us in one of the over 450 marches across the country this Saturday. Gun owners, NRA members, Republicans, Democrats, independents, and people from all backgrounds are fed up and it is time we make Congress do something.

I want to state unequivocally that I am not anti-gun. In fact, the movement I helped to start has been pro-Second Amendment from day one. There are so many things that we may disagree on, but there is also a lot we do agree on. The problem is that we don’t listen to each other long enough to find out. What we both can’t accept is the idea that we can’t do anything to stop the murder of children. We can. We all desperately want to protect our kids. Let’s start there and find common ground to take action, because the next shooter is already plotting his attack.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there's very little respect for Hogg in the comments.
what a fake, your "friends" reported you were not in school that day? The issue is not Gun Reform, the issue is MENTAL ILLNESS and how we as a nation allow then Mentally Ill to live openly and make decisions about their lives on their own when we see - they just cant.
(Here's a fact check debunking the story that Hogg was not in school on the day of the shooting.)
I think Hogg and Greta are dating

****

She is the wrong gender for him.

****

No pregnancy worries as hogg doesn't know where to put his 'gun'.
(I assume "Greta" is climate activist Greta Thunberg. No, they're not dating.)
How is marching going to stop any kind of violence? The only thing anyone will get out of it is exercise. A kid that has talked himself into kill other kids is in a very dark place. If they don't have the gun they will get something else to do the job with. They also don't understand the consequences of their actions. This is not going to be easy to solve. When they make the decision to become a criminal nothing is going to stop them let alone a law.

****

I will never agree that restricting the availability and possession of baseball bats and hammers will prevent one single death caused by some deranged individuals using them to kill people. Working together is fine as long as it’s on the correct root cause. Someone in schools with the sole job of security and quick response is the correct solution. Not more laws. Someone who is armed with a gun. Several responsible gun owners preferably!

****

The Left has been infiltrated and manipulate by Communist to disarm the American people.

****

Unfortunately, we can't agree that killing children is unacceptable.....hence the abortion debacle currently in motion.

****

But it does involve them starting with Johnson's "Great Society" farce. That legislation did more to rip the black family unit apart than anything else. Those tenants can still be found today in Section 8 and other programs. Yea, free stuff - male figure = disaster.

****

I am not attempting to minimize the importance of dealing with these murders. Let's put it into truthful perspective to how the Democrats care about dead Americans. Years ago, it was agreed that addiction was a disease. The CDC is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. On 6/4/22 the CDC realized that there were over 1,000 cases of Monkey Pox world-wide and increased to alert level 2. Fentanyl deaths by OD were 107,000 last year which is 257/day. The Biden administration drug conspiracy with the cartels and China still have an open border.

****

I would add that the left doesn't want to talk about moral failure because fixing that involves building moral fiber, and the best place I know to do that isn't Congress -- it's church.

****

The answer is obvious. Why don't we simple make it a crime to be a criminal? I mean according to Democrats all one has to do is make a law, because everyone knows that criminals always follow the law, right?

****

Gun control is a red herring to root causes. Political, social and cultural upheaval.... we *could* minimize this sort of thing by working on the root cause, but gun control is not going to stop radicalized people from doing this stuff. If not guns, then IED's. If not IED's then fire, poison in the water supply and a dozen other ways. All Gun control advocacy is doing is ramping up the root cause. Like throwing gas on a fire.
The same tired deflections, racism, and whataboutism -- although the notion that mass shooters would poison water supplies if they couldn't get AR-15s is new to me.
To compromise is to have both sides relent to some degree; problem is that one side has been doing all of the relenting and the other side; not so much.
Finally someone who recognizes how much we've loosened gun laws in the past couple of decades! ... Sorry, I'm wrong about that. This commenter continues (emphasis in original):
Second Amendment specifically says "shall not be infringed". Yet, we have allowed quite a number of infringements. Much of it for good reason. Now, we who own the guns are saying NO! and the reason is because your proposals will only harm those who choose to follow the laws you propose and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to achieve the goals you claim for your proposals. N-O-T-H-I-N-G to stop what you call "gun violence"!
I'm pretty sure the gunners have been saying NO! since before David Hogg was born, but maybe I'm misremembering. (And I didn't realize that these folks don't even want you to call it "gun violence," but of course they'd object to that, wouldn't they?)

It might be worthwhile for people fed up with gun carnage to reach out to Republicans one on one, but it's not worthwhile to reach out via Fox News. Fox is where Republicans go for a sense of tribal solidarity. The last thing they want when they're watching Fox or reading the website is to rethink their priors.

In any case, there will be demonstrations against gun violence in D.C. and hundreds other locations tomorrow. By all means go -- but don't expect to see a lot of Fox viewers.

BUT THEY'VE CHOSEN DARKNESS

Liz Cheney had one of the most quoted lines from last night's January 6 committee hearing:
“I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone but your dishonor will remain,” she said.
I wish I could believe that that's how collective memory works. I wish I believed that we ultimately agree on one set of truths.

But I heard Cheney promise that Trump supporters' "dishonor" will be self-evident shortly after this story appeared:
The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security warned on Tuesday that people in online forums known for hosting violent extremist content are lauding the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas—and are pushing others to commit further attacks.

“Individuals in online forums that routinely promulgate domestic violent extremist and conspiracy theory-related content have praised the May 2022 mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and encouraged copycat attacks,” DHS officials wrote in a bulletin released Tuesday morning.
and shortly after this was revealed:
Carl Paladino, a congressional candidate in New York endorsed by a member of House Republican leadership, said in a newly surfaced 2021 interview that Adolf Hitler was "the kind of leader we need today."

“I was thinking the other day about somebody had mentioned on the radio Adolf Hitler and how he aroused the crowds. And he would get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just — they were hypnotized by him,” Paladino said in a radio clip unearthed by the left-leaning group Media Matters for America. “I guess, I guess that’s the kind of leader we need today. We need somebody inspirational. We need somebody that is a doer, has been there and done it.”
There's no pure infamy in this culture. Even when there's a widely shared sense of who's honorable and who's dishonorable, it's far from absolute. There aren't many right-wingers willing to go on the record saying that Hitler had admirable qualities -- allthough there are a few -- but even prominent figures on the right want you to believe that Nazism was understandable.


The backers of Trump aren't worried about "dishonor." They assume that he'll remain merely "controversial" forever, or that he'll be widely praised as one of the great American leaders. In a country where Nazis and mass shooters have plenty of admirers, they're not concerned about how they'll look in the years to come.

Thursday, June 09, 2022

WE PROBABLY NEED A LOT OF COMMITTEES

I don't have to tell you that I expect the January 6 hearings to change very few minds. Nevertheless, I think it's a public service for the House committee to try to report what it knows in a lively and compelling way. I think David Brooks is right about the hearings' likely impact, but he seems not to believe that the information should even be publicly aired:
Using the events of Jan. 6 as campaign fodder is small-minded and likely to be ineffective. If you think you can find the magic moment that will finally discredit Donald Trump in the eyes of the electorate, you haven’t been paying attention over the last six years. Sorry, boomers, but this is not the Watergate scandal in which we need an investigation to find out who said what to whom in the Oval Office. The horrors of Jan. 6 were out in public. The shocking truth of it was what we all saw that day and what we’ve learned about the raw violence since.
The shocking truth could also be how much planning went into the riot and who planned it. We didn't see that on January 6. I dobn't expect it to matter to many people who aren't already outraged, but why does Brooks seem to believe that putting this information on display is bad for the country?

But Brooks has a point when he writes this:
We don’t need a committee to simply regurgitate what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. We need a committee that will preserve democracy on Jan. 6, 2025, and Jan. 6, 2029. We need a committee to locate the weaknesses in our democratic system and society and find ways to address them.

The core problem here is not the minutiae of who texted what to chief of staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6 last year. The core problem is that there are millions of Americans who have three convictions: that the election was stolen, that violence is justified in order to rectify it and that the rules and norms that hold our society together don’t matter.

Those millions of Americans are out there right now. I care more about their present and future activities than about their past. Many of them are running for local office to be in a position to disrupt future elections. I’d like the committee to describe who they are, what motivates them and how much power they already have.
On Tuesday I wrote that Democrats should "link [January 6] to issues that are in the news now." This would have been an excellent way to do it. Brooks sets up an either-or choice, but maybe the hearings should have been about 2021 and the ongoing anti-democracy movement.

Or maybe that's too much for one committee. In addition, I don't agree with Brooks that this a problem only once every four years -- as I often say, democracy at the state legislative level is already dead in many purple states, because Supreme Court-sanctioned gerrymandering prevents Democrats from ever winning legislative majorities no matter how many overall votes they get. Republicans increasingly claim that state legislatures have the constitutional right to overrule voters and choose presidential election winners in large part because gerrymandering ensures that giving that power to the legislature means giving it to the GOP in perpetuity.

Maybe we need hearings about that as well. And maybe the public would benefit from learning the deep roots of the Big Lie. Yesterday, Reveal published a very good story about Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of True the Vote, who claims to have solid evidence that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. She gets regular shout-outs from Donald Trump and her work was the basis of the Dinesh D'Souza film 2000 Mules, but she's never shown anyone her evidence, and the Reveal story makes clear that she's used election scaremongering to line her own pockets and the pockets of her partner and boyfriend, Gregg Phillips.

But while the story tells us that Engelbrecht has been a pro-GOP activist since the Tea Party era, it doesn't mention that she's been making unsubstantiated and scurrilous allegations about Democrats and elections all along. I've written about her many times, most recently last month. She's been whining about nonexistent illegal Democratic voters for more than a decade. The Reveal story quotes National Review editor John Fund suggesting that she went off the rails recently:
During a private meeting of the Council for National Policy in August 2020, a group of panelists was asked what they thought about True the Vote. Conservative journalist John Fund said he was the one who’d given Engelbrecht her first national publicity.

“I like Catherine, but she has gone astray. She has hooked up with the wrong associates. And I have to say this with the greatest of sadness, because I have to be honest with you, because you’re the people who actually have to make decisions on your own about who to support. As much as I like Catherine personally, I would not give her a penny,” he said, according to a recently leaked video obtained by Documented. “She’s a good person who’s been led astray. Don’t do it.”
So when she was claiming in 2010 that a bus full of probably illegal voters was spotted (but not photographed) in Wisconsin -- or was it San Diego? -- she hadn't gone astray? What anout when she allowed her nakedly partisan group to be the poster child for alleged IRS bias against supposedly apolitical nonprofits during the Obama years? (That IRS "scandal" was fake, but it was taken very seriously.)

And why should we regard John Fund as respectable in any case? He's written obsessively about alleged Democratic election fraud -- a 2008 book called Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, a 2009 book called How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections, a 2012 book called Who's Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk, a 2021 book called Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote. Republicans have been baselessly crying fraud for years -- long before Trump. If you want to understand why the Big Lie is so widely believed, this is the reason. We probably should have had hearings on this many years ago, but it's probably far too late to do anything about this now.

Wednesday, June 08, 2022

SO I GUESS IT'S NEVER "TOO SOON" TO "POLITICIZE" A GUN CRIME IF THE TARGET IS A REPUBLICAN

This happened today:
A man with a gun and a knife was detained by police early Wednesday morning near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home after making threats against the Supreme Court justice, according to local and federal officials.

Authorities identified the man as Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, Calif., charging him with the attempted murder of a federal judge....

In his suitcase and backpack were a Glock 17 with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, a tactical knife, a hammer, a screwdriver, a crow bar, zip ties and duct tape, along with other gear.

After his arrest, according to the affidavit, Roske told police he was upset over the leaked draft of an opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion and also over the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Tex. He thought this justice would support looser gun laws. He decided to kill the justice and then himself, according to the affidavit, thinking it would give his life purpose.
Naturaly, Republicans said what they always say when there's a high-profile gun crime: that's it's "too soon" to "politicize" it. No, I'm kidding: The intended victim was a fellow Republican, so the race is on to be the first to politicize it.



The latter is a reference to a speech the usually mild-mannered Chuck Schumer made in 2020 as the Supreme Court was considering a restrictive Louisiana abortion law.
"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Schumer said. "You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
I don't know why Schumer said that. I don't think he meant it as a threat of violence. I think he imagined that some cosmic retribution would come if the Court restricted abortion rights, though I can't imagine what he had in mind. It was an empty threat, but it sounded violent. It's hard to imagine that it had an influence on Roske two years after the fact.

The Republican anger about the release of the justices' home addresses is more germane, although the promoters of home protests wanted them to be peaceful. Meanwhile, on the right, here's an ad from a leading candidate in the race for the Republican Senate nomination in Arizona make in which he shoots at actors playing President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Mark Kelly:



And here's another candidate in that race physically assaulting a left-leaning critic who showed up at one of his campaign events:


This is all getting out of hand -- but notice that Republicans aren't waiting around or doing polling or conducting focus groups before blaming Democrats and liberals for the actions of this would-be assassin. They're not afraid to make this an issue. They're not hoping it will go away so they can go back to talking about kitchen-table issues. As soon as this happened, they pounced. They sure as hell won't let a crisis like this go to waste.

ARE THE JANUARY 6 HEARINGS REALLY GOOD NEWS FOR RON DeSANTIS?

Jennifer Rubin wrote yesterday that the January 6 hearings are probably excellent news for Ron DeSantis:
To the extent they pump up Democrats, make it harder for Trump sycophants to keep defending the “big lie,” induce the media to treat Trump as a criminal suspect and push prosecutors in the direction of indicting him, DeSantis would clearly be the beneficiary — and he wouldn’t even need to comment on the proceedings....

Over time, DeSantis can make his case that Democrats won’t be able to hang Jan. 6 around his neck and that by passing on Trump as the next presidential nominee, the party can finally put the 2020 election behind it. And watching Trump dive back into his obsessive denial of the 2020 results might just remind enough Republicans they are sick of defending the indefensible.
Rubin might have a point. DeSantis just beat Trump in the Western Conservative Summit's straw poll for the second year in a row, so Republicans really might be looking for a fresh face. On the other hand, Morning Consult just polled the 2024 race and Trump clobbered DeSantis, 51% to 18%. (Mike Pence was at 12%. No one else had more than 4%.)

Trump might be undergoing a slow fade, though it's not clear. If so, the hearings might accelerate that trend -- or they might have the opposite effect. Think of this as a third impeachment of Trump. On October 31, 2019, the day the House of Representatives voted for public hearings on the Ukraine scandal, Trump's job approval was 41.1% in the FiveThirtyEight average, while his disapproval was 54.1% -- a 13-point gap. By February 6, 2020, the day after his acquittal in the Senate, that 13-point gap had shrunk to 7.9 points. In the aftermath of January 6, Trump left office with a job approval gap of nearly 20 points (38.6% approval, 57.9% disapproval). But his personal approval began to improve a couple of months after his second acquittal -- he's still in negative territory, but he's half as unpopular as he was just after 1/6. (And we know that he won the Electoral College in 2016, and nearly won it in 2020, with similar numbers.)

Republicans might rally around Trump during these hearings, the way, according to public opinion polls, Democrats (and others) rallied around Bill Clinton when he was impeached. Or, yes, maybe they'll finally conclude that he's not worth the trouble. But I have my doubts. First, it's hard to imagine that the hearings, or anything short of an actual indictment, will "induce the media to treat Trump as a criminal suspect." We know the press will treat this as a sporting event -- who's winning, who's losing? -- and that the answer is likely to be "Trump is winning." Everything changes, of course, if Trump is indicted -- but how likely is that? As for whether it's tiresome for the party to keep defending the Big Lie, the polls right now suggest it's not much of a burden.

In recent months, DeSantis has been able to claim the coveted title of Republican Most Hated by Democrats. These hearings might place Trump in the #1 spot once again. That would be very bad news for DeSantis.

Tuesday, June 07, 2022

DESPITE FIERCE COMPETITION, CARL PALADINO, IF ELECTED, MIGHT BECOME THE WORST PERSON IN CONGRESS

Media Matters reports that former GOP gubernatorial nominee and current congressional candidate Carl Paladino is a mass shooting truther, because of course he is.
Carl Paladino, who announced that he’s running for Congress, previously shared a post on Facebook which pushed conspiracy theories about the recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas. The Facebook post portrayed the tragedies as false flag attacks meant to help Democrats “revoke the 2nd amendment and take away guns” and claimed “the Texas shooter was receiving hypnosis training” apparently under the direction of the CIA.

... The post, which was written by someone named Jeff Briggs, ... stated: “In almost every mass shooting including the most recent horrific Buffalo Tops Market & the Texas school shootings, there are strange occurrences that are never fully explained. How did an 18 yr old obtain $5000 in weapons and a $70k truck? Why were the officers told to stand down when their training just two months ago instructed them to rush in. The man who rushed in was a Border Patrol agent who defied the onsight officers’ instructions. The absence of crisis leaders reminds me of the broken cameras and napping guards when Epstein committed suicide.”

... The post rambled on, stating: “Multiple conspiracy theories that raise eyebrows, The CIA’s MK Ultra mind control program, the shooter of RFK claiming he didn’t remember doing it, The JFK assignation one shooter story, The murder of John Lennon who was writing songs about ending wars, The fact that the Texas shooter was receiving hypnosis training, Stories of multiple shooters in mass shootings that are never explained.”
Paladino has entered the race to replace Republican congressman Chris Jacobs, who expressed interest in measures tightening access to guns after the massacre in Buffalo, which abuts his district, and immediately lost so much support within his own party that he decided not to run for reelection. Paladino is running despite a checkered past:
He has a history of bigoted remarks, including stating [in 2016] that he wanted to see Michelle Obama “return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla” and hoped that former President Obama catches “mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford.”
Prior to that, in 2010, around the time he won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in New York State, the local media identified a large number of vile emails he'd sent or passed along. Some examples:
In December 2008, Paladino forwarded a message entitled “Obama Inauguration Rehearsal” including a video clip showing African tribesmen dancing in a village. This video is very popular in the white supremacist community and has been posted at the Neo-Nazi Stormfront website....

Here’s a cute email from October 4, 2009, which portrays President Obama and the First Lady dressed in 70s pimp/prostitute/blaxploitation garb....


One email entitled “demotivated” included several phony “motivational” posters.... It featured this:

Paladino went on to lose the 2010 election in a landslide, but he still received a million and a half votes. He later became a state co-chair for the 2016 Donald Trump campaign; while he was working for the Trump campaign, he declared that Barack Obama is a Muslim and appeared to call for the lynching of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Naturally, he's been endorsed in his congressional bid by former moderate and Trump running mate-wannabe Elise Stefanik -- and, naturally, that endorsement was barely a news story, and hasn't been mentioned by any Democratic officeholder or candidate as a sign of the GOP's depravity.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, and Matt Gaetz are terrible people, but Paladino really might be a worse person than any of them.

Yet he'll probably win the seat, and America will just shrug and move on.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON JANUARY 6 WON'T SAVE THE DEMOCRATS IN 2022


Remember the video?




It was played during Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, and it was supposed to Change Everything. Politico called it "shocking," and quoted Mitt Romney saying, "It tears at your heart and brings tears to your eyes." Mashable described it as "The 13-minute video that won't let you forget what happened on January 6." Time said that watching the video "should be mandatory."

It didn't matter. Trump was acquitted, and he emerged as the likely 2024 Repubican presidential nominee, and quite possibly the next president of the United States.

The video and the impeachment trial changed nothing. Why do we think the upcoming January 6 hearings will have a different impact?

But Democrats believe that. The hearings are where they're putting all their chips.
... House Democrats plan to use a landmark set of investigative hearings beginning this week to try to refocus voters’ attention on Jan. 6, aiming to tie Republicans directly to an unprecedented plot to undermine democracy itself.

With their control of Congress hanging in the balance, Democrats plan to use made-for-television moments and a carefully choreographed rollout of revelations over the course of six hearings to remind the public of the magnitude of Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the election, and to persuade voters that the coming midterm elections are a chance to hold Republicans accountable for it.

It is an uphill battle at a time when polls show that voters’ attention is focused elsewhere, including on inflation, rising coronavirus cases and record-high gas prices. But Democrats argue the hearings will give them a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power.
It was an uphill battle even in early 2021, when January 6 was fresh in people's minds. If you weren't a participant or an enthusiast, January 6 was a bad thing that happened on one day. It was over in a few hours. People died, but the election results were ratified. Participants have been arrested and jailed. We've had elections since then and they've seemed to go smoothly. The majority of Americans aren't intensely focused on politics, so of course it's hard to sell them on the notion that democracy is in peril.
[Democrats'] task is to persuade voters that the Jan. 6 attack revealed bigger and more important issues at stake, including the Republican Party’s alignment with violent extremists and its decision to make adherence to the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen a test of membership.
If they're going to try to link January 6 to "bigger and more important issues," why not link it to issues that are in the news now? January 6 was a violent assault backed by a party that largely believes mass shootings and other forms of day-to-day violence are just something we have to learn to live with so cosplaying suburbanites can continue to buy multiple AR-15s with minimal fuss. The people who tried to impose their losing presidential candidate on us are also trying to impose abortion bans, book bans, and mandatory genital inspections of school-age athletes on us.

But Democrats refuse to say that Republicans are bad. They don't have a grand unified theory of Republican authoritarianism -- to the contrary, they like Republicans, or at least they would like Republicans if they'd just drop that Trump guy and his silly Big Lie. Democrats won't make the case that what you saw in the aftermath of the 2020 election is linked to how Republicans want to treat Americans in their day-to-day lives -- how they are treating Americans right now, using the power they have in red states, as well as nationally as a result of their control of the Supreme Court. All they'll say is: Republicans tried to steal the last presidential election and they'll try to steal the next one. That's true. But you can't blame people for not understanding how that matters to them when the last presidential election ultimately worked out and the next presidential election is two years away. And you certainly can't blame them for believing that Republicans can still be trusted with power when Democrats regularly agree that they can.

I'd love to be wrong about all this. I'd love to believe that these hearings will matter. We'll see.

Monday, June 06, 2022

DEMOCRATS NEED TO WORK ON THEIR MESSAGING, AND DAN PFEIFFER ISN'T HELPING

Vanity Fair has published a long excerpt from Battling the Big Lie, the forthcoming book by former Obama communications director Dan Pfeiffer, in which Pfeiffer addresses the question "Why do Democrats suck at messaging?" Mostly, he denigrates those who ask the question and denies that Democrats are worse at messaging than Republicans.

First, the denigration. Pfeiffer has attended a lot of fund-raisers attended by very rich people, some of whom ask him why Democrats suck at messaging. He implies that if you've ever asked that question, you're just like those arrogant rich folks.
The Question was usually, but not always, asked politely. Sometimes it came with a series of ideas. Politics is one of those endeavors where everyone thinks they are qualified to have an opinion. And the people successful enough to write checks big enough to attend these events are generally not the sort of people who experience self-doubt.

... their “thoughts” usually amounted to their pretending that their experience making a fortune selling mail-order underwear, betting against the housing market, or producing a hit sitcom made them qualified to do my job.

... There was a running joke in the Obama White House that you needed a master’s in economics to discuss economic policy and a doctorate in public health to offer health care ideas, but everyone believed that reading the newspaper made them qualified to opine on messaging strategy.
Imagine: People have the unmitigated gall to complain about how a political party does business in a democracy. And by the way, you don't need a master's in economics to say that a $7.25 minimum wage is too low (or that gas prices are high right now). Many people with undiagnosed or chronic illnesses come to understand their medical condition better than their doctors. We're voters who know that Democratic policies are popular and that Democrats aren't. Democrats lost an election to Donald Trump, for crissakes, and they might lose another one to him. If we think something is wrong here, maybe Pfeiffer and his fellow know-it-alls should pay attention rather than blowing us off.

Pfeiffer insists that Republicans aren't particularly good at messaging.
There is an old saying in Washington: “The only people who believe Republican talking points are Democrats.”
Right -- pay no attention to the 40% of Americans who think the 2020 presidential election was stolen, or the massive number of Republicans who told pollsters during Barack Obama's presidency that they didn't believe he was born in the U.S. (and who probably still think he's lying about his citizenship).

Pfeiffer continues:
Democrats love to complain about the messaging chops of their congressional leadership team, but have you watched the Republicans? During every appearance, Kevin McCarthy looks like he just woke up from a nap and can’t figure out where he is or what he is doing. Mitch McConnell, one of the worst communicators in modern political history, sounds like he is reading The Almanac of American Politics with a mouthful of marbles. And no one exemplifies the adage of “less is more” more than Ted Cruz, an amalgamation of the five most annoying people you went to high school with. Arkansas senator Tom Cotton makes Jared Kushner look like a magnetic personality.
He has a point about those guys, but they aren't the people who are the master messengers. He writes:
Turn on Fox News, and you’ll find a parade of awkward, angry white men doing bad impressions of Donald Trump.
Actually, Trump is imitating them. And if they're so terrible at their jobs, why do our favorites on MSNBC so rarely beat them in the ratings? Why has Fox been the most influential media organization in America for since the end of the twentieth century?
Even Trump, the supposed master media manipulator, has the discipline and strategic thinking of a coked-up Tasmanian devil. Just look at his Twitter feed from the end of the 2020 campaign. Instead of using his biggest platform to drive home a positive argument for his reelection and a negative message against Joe Biden, Trump engaged in a scattershot Festivus-style airing of grievances against members of his own party, the media, and random celebrities.
I'll grant that this didn't get him reelected -- but it did generate the second-highest vote total any presidential candidate has ever received, and it helped sustain a movement that's still going strong. Biden beat Trump at the ballot box, but Democratic voters are fickle, and Republican voters aren't. Which gets us back to the original question: Is it the messaging?

Many, many paragraphs later, Pfeiffer concedes that Fox News -- you know, that channel full of awkward white men -- is the GOP's not-so-secret weapon:
The Republicans have a cable television network whose sole raison d’être is to attack Democrats and promote pro-GOP talking points. The conservative media dwarfs the progressive media in size and scope. And even then, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. The bulk of the media on the right is an adjunct of the party apparatus; during the Trump presidency it was state-adjacent propaganda—Pravda, but with plausible deniability.

Much of the media on the left is focused on holding Democrats accountable and/or moving the party’s agenda in a more progressive direction. This is, of course, an admirable and necessary task, but it doesn’t do much to help Democratic candidates and causes win the messaging battle against Republicans come election time.
I agree that this is a big problem. But when Democratic insiders lament that we don't have a Fox of our own, there's an implication that therefore Democrats can't possibly be held accountable for their messaging failures. The game is rigged! Why even try to message if we don't have a powerful megaphone?

But Republicans were "working the refs" even before there was Fox -- in fact, the phrase "working the refs" came from an interview with a Republican operative in 1992, four years before Fox went on the air. Republicans didn't win the 1992 presidential election, but they won the three that preceded it, all without Fox. Ronald Reagan's administration was seen as such a skillful manipulator of the mainstream media in the 1980s that one book about the media's extremely deferential relationship to the Reagan administration was titled On Bended Knee. And then in 1994 the Gingrich Republicans won both houses of Congress, also without Fox (though they did have talk radio).

You go to war with the media you have, not the media you wish you had. Republicans won elections in the '80s and in 1994 by learning how to use (and manipulate) the media they had. Much of the messaging was negative -- Reagan and Gingrich loved attacking the media and Democrats, and George H.W. Bush's campaign portrayed Mike Dukakis as a grotesque weirdo who couldn't be trusted with power. Democrats' biggest messaging failure is the party's inability to agree on a simple message about their own party and the Republicans: we're right, they're wrong. That was the title of a 1996 James Carville book, but now the party's message tends to be they're right a great deal of the time, and we're frequently wrong. Democrats should start by jettisoning that message, and try taking their own side in every argument. I know that's crazy talk to most Democrats, but hey, it just might be crazy enough to work.

DISINFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE

I'm back. Thank you, Yas, for enlightening posts while I was away.

Yesterday, Margaret Sullivan of The Washington Post was lamenting the rise of right-wing fake-news sites disguised as local media outlets.
While fact-based, accountable local newspapers are struggling to survive — many of them facing budget cuts or closure — what’s known as “pink slime” sites are sneakily trying to fill the void. They traffic in falsehood and exaggeration, paid for by political groups, especially on the right....

Named after a meat-processing byproduct used as filler — in other words, it looks like meat but isn’t — pink slime news sites are often funded through secret and politically motivated “dark money” contributions. And they are growing fast. In 2020, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia Journalism School identified at least 1,200 such sites.

With names such as the Des Moines Sun and Illinois Valley Times, they leverage the trust that people have for local newspapers, built up over many decades, to boost their own dubious credibility. Their content is “rooted in deception, eschewing hallmarks of news reporting like fairness and transparency,” according to a New York Times investigation that referred to them as “Pay-for-Play” outlets. Most of them, for example, don’t disclose the funding they get from advocacy groups. Davey Alba, one of the reporters who co-wrote the Times investigation, noted that the “West Cook News” is part of a network of local sites run by Republican operatives.
The West Cook News, purportedly based in the Chicago area, recently ran a stiory claiming that some suburban Chicago schools would begin adjusting grades by race. Many media outlets and commentators picked up on the story (Andrew Sullivan jumped on it, naturally), but it wasn't true. Nevertheless, it had the impact it was intended to have.

Disinformation sites thrive even as local providers of real news struggle; as Margaret Sullivan notes, "Between 2005 and the start of the pandemic, about 2,100 newspapers were closed."

Sullivan published her column a couple of days after New York magazine's Choire Sicha wrote about media coverage of the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial. As Sicha sees it, the mainstream press, which in the past few years has tried to provide serious coverage of the mistreatment of women by powerful men, lost the battle to frame the Herd-Depp story. The winners were "influencer detectives (Click Tracys?)" whose
reach and vitriol was, for many of us, shocking. Any given Depp-stanning TikToker camped outside the courthouse may reach many times more readers than the newspaper staffer dutifully covering the trial. We were busy believing women, while women online were calling for Heard’s head — and they, more than us, were shaping the general public’s understanding of the trial.
Sicha sees this as a battle between two business models. He describes the mainstream press as "the heavily paywalled, rule-bound, college-educated-reader-focused American news media." He writes,
Publications from the New York Times to the Atlantic to this magazine have doubled down on serving paying subscribers. Our paywalls have become tighter; our quest for elite readers more thirsty.
Meanwhile, the pro-Depp upstarts on TikTok, Instagram, and elsewhere were hungrily reaching for a mass audience.
... @houseinhabit’s Jessica Reed Kraus ... is a San Clemente, California, mother who got her start in the content mines as a lifestyle blogger.... Over the past year or so, she morphed into a trial-obsessed Instagrammer. Her gossipy roller-coaster ride through evidence and pop culture has earned her almost 1 million Instagram followers and apparently thousands of paid Substack subscribers. “In an era of growing censorship and distrust in paid media designed to divide and distract us, I hoped this space offers anyone looking for anything else, refreshing respite,” she told her audience. “Expect the return of unhinged humor, biting sarcasm, and people talking like real people again. Unguarded and uncut.” ...

Kraus is just one of hundreds who racked up huge numbers and built followers during the trial. Devotedly.yours has posted hundreds of times, attracting millions of views. A self-described Egyptian American single mom of two in Virginia, “forever a Swiftie & Potterhead,” she has spoken out about domestic violence in the past. But don’t assume that means she would side with Heard. On June 1, she joined the other Depp supporters outside the Fairfax courthouse for the verdict. “Johnny, Johnny!” everyone chanted.

“I’ve been following this from day one, and I believe him and the media has been so against him,” she said, in a fascinating expression, since as far as I can see, she is the media.

Cami Twomey, 19, has made a name for herself as a Gen-Z Peter Jennings. She pivoted from Met Gala looks and an item titled “Megan Fox and MGK Drink Eachothers Blood” into 118 nearly consecutive videos about Depp. Her news-anchor-style updates on the case — in which she speaks directly to the camera over still photos of Depp and Heard — have attracted 47 million likes on TikTok. She, too, cheered on the verdict as #justiceforjohnnydepp.
And so on. The mainstream media lost. These Depp stans won.

I don't know why the elite media has given up on non-subscribers. In the days of print, newspapers and magazines pursued subscriptions, but they also cared about single-copy sales at newsstands. I'm not aware of any major media outlet that makes it easy to read an individual story for a small micropayment, and you can't sign up for any site that provides even limited access to multiple news sites for a monthly fee. So people with money sign up for a few sites and Substacks, and everyone else makes do with what their Facebook friends repost, or what CNN and local free news sites offer, or what they see on TikTok and Instragram and YouTube.

And the result is that professional disinformationists and people suffering from toxic fandom have opportunities to dominate the news, because most of their content is free. That's bad for society, but it's what the market dictates, I guess.