Blows My Mind

At this point, I think the bi-partisanship that everybody's been squawking for is all about Democrats and the normie - albeit gutless - Republicans teaming up against the MAGA freaks.

And it may be just too fuckin' weird to contemplate, but the "normie Republicans" may now include at least some of the Freedom Caucus Republicans.

Go Red Dogs Go

Jennifer Rubin at WaPo: (pay wall)

The bad news: A megalomaniacal, corrupt leader of a democracy becomes convinced that the fate of the country depends on him retaining his power. His allies are religious extremists who piggyback off his authoritarian agenda. The domestic police apparatus abuses minorities, thereby satisfying an increasingly nationalistic base. He refuses to leave office quietly once defeated, screaming “fraud” and labeling his opponents as traitors.

The good news: A broad coalition of politicians sublimates its substantial differences on ideology. They understand no leader in a democracy should be able to convert the instruments of state power for his own benefit. Corruption and intimidation, they know, will devour democracy, so they join hands to banish the increasingly autocratic leader.

Israel or the United States? The “bad news” applies to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the 45th U.S. president. Netanyahu is already on trial; Donald Trump is at this stage only facing multiple inquiries and lawsuits. In the main, however, the narrative applies to both countries. It is noteworthy that religious factions often ally themselves with a secularized authoritarian whose nationalistic message serves those who want to use the authority of the state to enforce religious doctrine.

Also in both countries, the right has sought to diminish judicial independence, making judges allies in their ideological designs. (As Jonathan Cook reported for Middle East Eye in 2019, Ayelet Shaked, a secular Israeli politician and leader of the New Right, “intimidated the courts and promoted a large number of conservative religious judges, including to the supreme court” and reversed the Justice Ministry’s position to legalize outpost settlements.)

When it comes to the “good news,” however, the two countries diverge. In Israel, a coalition that includes Arab Israeli, ultranationalist and center-left parties — despite having little in common — came together this week to end Netanyahu’s power. In essence, they seek to normalize politics and observe a central tenet of democracy: Elected leaders are entrusted with power for the benefit of the country, not for personal gain, political vendettas and ego gratification. Their policy positions on many issues might be irreconcilable (a two-state solution vs. a one-state solution), but even fundamental policy positions must be deferred for the sake of democratic stability.

Unlike Netanyahu’s right-leaning opponents (such as Naftali Bennett), however, even Trump-wary Republicans still prioritize retention of power over the health of the democracy. Republicans refuse to allow an independent commission to investigate the Trump-inspired insurrection. They continue to propagate the “big lie" that the election was stolen, and worse, they use it as a justification for rigging elections.

Vice News, in surveying scholars alarmed by the descent of the GOP, finds:

The overwhelming concern among scholars isn’t so much the continued personal influence of Trump but the impact of his continued false claims about election fraud and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They worry what the 2024 election could look like as the Republican Party has further radicalized and the embrace of “big lie” has become a foundational belief of many on the right.

Even the most enlightened, pro-democratic Republicans do not grasp the stakes. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) confesses she voted for Trump because she could not fathom voting for President Biden. She now “regrets” her vote, but apparently not enough to cease supporting a party that remains in Trump’s thrall or to stop defending voter suppression tactics.

Cheney and other Republican dissidents might look to Bennett for inspiration. Bennett owes his entire political career to ultranationalists and retains his foundational belief that Israel should retain Judea and Samaria. On that issue, there is a far greater difference between Bennett and his allies (including Arab Israeli parties!) than between Republicans and Democrats on any issue on which they disagree (e.g., how much to spend on infrastructure, which gun regulations are acceptable).

Bennett nevertheless put that aside for the sake of national preservation. "The political crisis in Israel is unprecedented on a global level,” he said on Sunday. “We could end up with fifth, sixth, even 10th elections, dismantling the walls of the country, brick by brick, until our house falls in on us. Or we can stop the madness and take responsibility.”

Stop the madness and take responsibility. Not a bad rallying cry for an anti-authoritarian coalition to drive the MAGA crowd out of power.

Never Trumpers Tim Miller and William Kristol, playing off of “Blue Dog” Democrats (conservative Democrats who might have been former Republicans), have urged the formation of “Red Dog” Democrats — disaffected former or almost-former Republicans who understand the need to make common cause with the only pro-democracy party around. Miller wrote for the Bulwark in December:

I don’t want to minimize the differences over scope of government between the Red Dogs and the mainline Democrats. They are real and genuine and deeply held.

But are the passions around limited government so widespread to make a new party centered around it viable? Are the disagreements between the Red Dogs and the Democrats over the size of government so vast that they merit blowing up this new coalition and potentially helping a populist, nationalist, anti-democratic Republican party? (Which, by the way, has no interest in “limited government” either.)

It seems to me the answer to these questions is a big fat No.

The differences are also surely less significant than what Israeli coalition partners must navigate.

In essence, the choice in both Israel and the United States is whether normal democracy or some semi-authoritarian, illiberal regime should prevail. This is the only issue that truly matters. It is time for pro-democracy patriots to copy the Israeli example: Get on the right side of democracy, and fight about the rest later.

This Just In

...Cult45 is lying.

A coupla versions of Immigration Reform were passed (by the Democrats, if that's how your little ego wants it) - once in 2006, and again in 2013.

Somehow, both times, those rotten old Dems put something together in the Senate that wasn't killed by the filibuster.

Of course, it died in the House both times because the Republican majorities refused to take it up - they wouldn't allow a vote on the Senate versions, and they wouldn't conference with the Senate to try to work things out.

PolitiFact:

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 passed in the Senate on May 25, 2006, along a 62-36 vote. The bill included provisions to strengthen border security with fencing, vehicle barriers, surveillance technology and more personnel; a new temporary worker visa category; and a path to legal status for immigrants in the country illegally if they met specific criteria.

Then-President George W. Bush commended the Senate "for passing bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform" and said he looked forward to working with both chambers.

But the bill was never taken up by the House. The House in December 2005 passed a separate bill with greater focus on border security and enforcement, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. That proposal narrowed in on employment eligibility verification; immigration fraud; and immigration enforcement authority at state and local levels. It did not include a guest worker program or the legalization of immigrants.


The House passed its own version in 2006, but:

Lawmakers from both chambers never formed a conference committee to iron out the details in both bills and the proposals expired at the end of the 109th Congress.


So then, in 2013:

Backed by Democrats and 14 Republicans, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act passed the Senate on a 68-32 voteon June 27, 2013.

The bill directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit two reports on border security strategy, including one on where fencing, infrastructure and technology should be used; authorized the use of the National Guard to help secure the border; called for an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents at the southern border, and other border security measures.

It also included provisions to allow immigrants in the country illegally to adjust their immigration status, if they met certain criteria.


- but -

...House Republicans again opposed the Senate immigration proposal, arguing that border security needed to be addressed first before legalizing the status of millions of immigrants.

"I’ve made it clear and I’ll make it clear again, the House does not intend to take up the Senate bill," then-House Speaker John Boehner said July 2013. "The House is going to do its own job in developing an immigration bill."

He reiterated his position in November 2013: "The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House," Boehner said. "And frankly, I’ll make clear we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill."


So look, guys, if you're going to "reach across the aisle" only intending to grab the Dems by the collar so you can yank them over to your side - and then bitch about how unreasonable they're being when they won't give you exactly what you want - well, you should go fuck yourselves with that one instead.

What We Learned

The majority of Political Punditry since last Tuesday has been about how Romney &/or Winger Media &/or GOP Voters blew the election.  But I think what needs to be addressed here - and hammered home until it's accepted as Gospel - is that the Republican party leaders decided the core of their strategy was to make Obama a one-term POTUS.  Nothing else - just that.

It failed miserably - and why anybody has to take any time to point that out to anybody is beyond the understanding of the Swamis.  C'mon, when you lose a general election by almost 3 points and 126 Electoral Votes, you can't make any credible claims to having worked out anything that even remotely resembles good policy alternatives.

Your "policy" failed.

Your party failed.

You failed.

And when you lose the election among the various demographic subsets by 30 or 40 or 90 points, you have to acknowledge that your "policy" has been repudiated by the voters in terms of certainty greater than what we use to describe the local effects of Gravity, or to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning somewhere to the east of wherever the fuck we're standing right now.

So here's the thing, Mr Senate Minority Leader:  Get up off your dead brown-eyed ass and start helping.  Step up or step aside.

(hat tip = Democratic Underground)