It's A Participation Kinda Thing

de·moc·ra·cy

/dəˈmäkrəsē/

Learn to pronounce

(noun) a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Run For Something:

Throw everything you know about politics out the window.
You’re qualified to run for local office – we’re here to help.

What kind of candidate are we looking for? Run for Something works exclusively with progressive Millennials and Gen-Zers running for local office for the first or second time.

Progressive

We help people who are pro-choice, pro-universal health care, pro-LGBTQ equality, pro-criminal justice reform; pro-working families and organized labor, pro-voting rights, pro-campaign finance reform, who focus on inequality, fair wages, and job creation; who acknowledge that climate change is real, man-made, and our responsibility to fight; and who will fight to reduce gun violence in their community. That being said: We are NOT the purity police. A progressive in Louisiana is different than a progressive in California. We help candidates run for the places they’re in.

Diverse

From 2017 to 2021, we endorsed over 1,800 candidates and helped elect 637 all-stars. Of our elected candidates: 56% identify as women, 21% identify as members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and 58% are people of color.

We work with candidates from all backgrounds — teachers, nurses, scientists, activists, artists, musicians, chiefs, and rodeo stars. If you are passionate about making a difference, we will support you.

Connected

We’re looking for candidates with deep ties to their community. Folks who are already in their district — volunteering, organizing, mentoring, and doing the work. We don’t want to convince someone to move home to run — we want someone who calls a place home to step up and run.

That “X” factor

The past few election cycles have taught us that who the candidate is matters. How well they communicate online and in person, how comfortable they are in their skin, and how “authentic” they can be are all important factors.

We’re willing to invest in good talent wherever it is.

On Trump Shit And GOP Fuckery

1) The sanctity of the filibuster in the US Senate is a fucking joke.

2) During his recent deposition, Eric Trump was questioned on (among other things) his involvement in the overstatement of the values of certain Trump real estate holdings, in order to get favorable treatment.

He claimed 5th amendment privilege more than 500 times.

Ol' Doc Maddow:

Can I Just Say

I'm not tired of "just voting against Republicans".

I'm not tired of "just choosing the lesser of two evils".

I'm not tired of having to push the people I think have the right ideas so they can do the things I want to see done.

I'm not tired of fighting for something better.

If I don't choose the lesser of two evils, then I'm abdicating my responsibility to do everything I can do to make sure someone else doesn't get to choose the greater of those evils for me.

Democracy is a verb, not a noun.

It's what we do - not what we have.

The Cloture Problem

An Op/Ed from Norm Ornstein at WaPo: (pay wall)

Five myths about the filibuster

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown down the gauntlet, saying he will move to change Senate rules by Jan. 17 if Republicans continue to block the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Because of the filibuster, neither can be enacted without 60 votes in the Senate — and no Republican backs both bills, though all 50 Democrats do. Supporters of the status quo have their reasons, many of them caught up in myths about the history of the Constitution and the Senate’s role.

Myth No. 1 - Senate bills have always needed a supermajority.

People often overestimate the depth of the filibuster’s roots. When the Senate voted in 2013 to invoke the “nuclear option” to approve presidential nominees, then-Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wrote in The Washington Post that sidestepping the filibuster was “the most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them.” More recently, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) defended the filibuster in the Charleston Gazette-Mail by saying, “Our founders were wise to see the temptation of absolute power and built in specific checks and balances to force compromise that serves to preserve our fragile democracy.”

True - but the filibuster was not one of these checks and balances. The Senate did not have any provision for a supermajority on legislation for its first 17 years. Like the House, its rules allowed a “motion for the previous question,” where a majority could move directly to vote. That provision was taken out in 1806, when Vice President Aaron Burr cleaned up what he regarded as extraneous provisions in the Senate’s cluttered rule book. For decades after the change, the status quo largely prevailed - until the 1840s, when John C. Calhoun exploited the motion’s absence to stall anti-slavery action by talking at length on the floor, joined by allies. His adversaries had no ability to stop the talk. From the 20th century on, the rules changed multiple times, always to make it easier for the majority to overcome a filibuster and move to action.

Myth No. 2 - The framers feared 'the tyranny of the majority.'

Filibuster proponents often argue that the Constitution’s framers intended to obstruct decisions by simple majorities. In defense of the filibuster, Lewis & Clark Law School professor James Huffman wrote in the Hill that James Madison “would likely think it a brilliant innovation for preventing majority tyranny.” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) wrote in the New York Times in 2019 that the filibuster is “central to the order the Constitution sets forth,” citing Madison’s view that the Senate ought to function as an “additional impediment” and a “complicated check” on the House.

But other than the explicit constitutional requirements for supermajorities, such as to approve treaties, the framers were foursquare for majority votes. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 that allowing minorities to overrule the majority would cause “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” Congressional Research Service scholar Walter J. Oleszek has noted: “Overall, the Framers generally favored decision-making by simple majority vote. This view is buttressed by the grant of a vote to the Vice President (Article I, section 3) in those cases where the Senators are ‘equally divided.’” This provision makes clear that the Constitution’s drafters expected that most decisions would be made by majority vote.

Ed Note: More than a couple of writers have interpreted Madison's "tyranny of the majority" as basic paranoia. The founders were "landed gentry" (ie: the minority) - the only ones who were originally enfranchised with the right to vote. They worried about delivering power to the unwashed masses, and went about engineering ways of clawing that power back. And the more power shifted to "regular people', the more shitty schemes were hatched to thwart the will of the majority.

Myth No. 3 - The filibuster fosters moderation and cooperation.

In The Post, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) wrote last year, “The filibuster compels moderation.” She is not alone in arguing that the rule has a salutary effect on lawmakers’ bipartisan dealings: The Heritage Foundation’s Thomas Jipping, for example, claims that it “encourages consensus.”

That may have been true in the distant past, but it has not been the case for a long time. The Senate changed the filibuster rule in 1975, from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the entire Senate. The “present and voting” standard, by requiring senators to show up, put the burden on the minority; the absolute standard shifted the burden entirely to the majority. On most issues, when it is clear that a cloture vote (that is, a vote to end debate) would fail, there is no debate, which would only take up precious floor time. The minority can kill bills with few or no visible traces, and has no incentive for moderation or compromise. A good example: The House passed two bills last year requiring universal background checks on guns. Neither was even brought up in the Senate because Republicans made it clear the measures would die on filibusters.

Myth No. 4 - Keeping the filibuster now will preserve it in the future.

Some Democrats are reluctant to change the filibuster because they worry what Republicans would do under the new rules if they regained the majority. “We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster,” Sinema argued in her Post piece. Manchin, also writing in The Post, said: “If the filibuster is eliminated or budget reconciliation becomes the norm, a new and dangerous precedent will be set to pass sweeping, partisan legislation that changes the direction of our nation every time there is a change in political control. The consequences will be profound - our nation may never see stable governing again.”

The implication is that if Democrats grit their teeth and keep the filibuster as is, Republicans will exercise the same restraint when they recapture the majority. But recent history offers no evidence that the GOP would be constrained by tradition. During the Obama presidency, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, insisted on keeping in place the “blue slip” tradition, which lets senators decide the fate of lower-court judges nominated from their states. But early in the Trump presidency, when a Democrat used the tradition to block a nominee from his state, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee’s new chairman, abandoned it.

Then there is the Supreme Court. McConnell quickly changed the filibuster rule to enable majority action on Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. Then, after refusing to hold a hearing on Barack Obama’s nominee 11 months before the 2016 presidential election, saying tradition demanded that the victor of the election choose a new justice, he abandoned that norm and held a vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett eight days before the 2020 election.

Myth No. 5 - A rule change would make the Senate just like the House.

Some believe that without the filibuster, the Senate would lose its essential character. This is what Brown University professor Rich Arenberg argued in The Post in 2019, that “leaving most questions to a simple majority vote would render the Senate much like the House of Representatives.” Responding to Democrats’ proposed rule change at a news conference Monday, McConnell said: “Make no mistake about it, this is genuine radicalism. They want to turn the Senate into the House. They want to make it easy to fundamentally change the country.”

It is true that the Senate was designed to be very different from the House: It represents states, gives those states equal footing and allots senators six-year terms. The Senate does not, however, derive its character from supermajority requirements. After all, the filibuster did not even exist when the body was founded. Democrats have proposed, for example, requiring that senators actually speak on the floor, or flipping the standard such that the Senate would require 41 votes to continue debate rather than 60 to end it. These reforms to the filibuster would not weaken the Senate, but would restore it to its rightful place in our political system.

Jan6 Stuff

Coupla things just got a little clearer for me:

1. The apparent involvement of several Poodles at DumFux News, and the heat they may be about to feel, could remove a lot of the wonder as to why Chris Wallace suddenly bolted.
2. Devin Nunes has also made an abrupt career change - saying he'll leave Congress before the end of this year, in order to take the top job at Trump's new "media company". I'm thinking that's because Nunes is about to be implicated (again - this time officially, and this time without cover), and his only shot is to try to propagandize his way out of this mess.

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Ed Note: You don't really think Herschel Walker or David Perdue are in any way a match for Raphael Warnock, do ya?

Joe Manchin

...is just another coin-operated corporate-owned phony.

In addition to his ridiculous opposition to the two voting rights bills that he's helping Mitch McConnell kill, there's the little matter of getting this country back on the right track for making some real progress towards economic justice, which BTW, goes hand-in-hand with environmental justice and a bunch of other common sense measures that help the very people Joe Manchin pretends to be concerned about.

WaPo Opinion: (pay wall)

When a moderate goes against his party, the political media are drawn like moths to a flame. Such was the case with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) on Sunday, as he appeared on NBC’s, CNN’s and ABC’s Sunday talk shows to explain his opposition to the budget reconciliation bill at the center of President Biden’s legislative agenda.

The West Virginia senator came with plenty of rationalizations. He expressed concern about inflation and the national debt. (“Do we have the urgency to spend another $3.5 trillion right now?” he asked on CNN.) He rejected the idea that the bill needed to be moved in tandem with the bipartisan infrastructure deal he helped broker. “We don’t have the need to rush into this and get it done within one week because there’s some deadline we’re meeting,” he said on NBC of the reconciliation bill. By contrast, he told CNN, “the president went out and campaigned on [the infrastructure deal]. That’s his bill.”

But these arguments apply equally to the infrastructure deal and the budget reconciliation bill. Any concerns about the debt or inflation should surely also apply to the $1 trillion for infrastructure, and there’s no deadline that necessitates rushing it, either. President Biden has campaigned for both bills.

When a moderate goes against his party, the political media are drawn like moths to a flame. Such was the case with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) on Sunday, as he appeared on NBC’s, CNN’s and ABC’s Sunday talk shows to explain his opposition to the budget reconciliation bill at the center of President Biden’s legislative agenda.

The West Virginia senator came with plenty of rationalizations. He expressed concern about inflation and the national debt. (“Do we have the urgency to spend another $3.5 trillion right now?” he asked on CNN.) He rejected the idea that the bill needed to be moved in tandem with the bipartisan infrastructure deal he helped broker. “We don’t have the need to rush into this and get it done within one week because there’s some deadline we’re meeting,” he said on NBC of the reconciliation bill. By contrast, he told CNN, “the president went out and campaigned on [the infrastructure deal]. That’s his bill.”

But these arguments apply equally to the infrastructure deal and the budget reconciliation bill. Any concerns about the debt or inflation should surely also apply to the $1 trillion for infrastructure, and there’s no deadline that necessitates rushing it, either. President Biden has campaigned for both bills.

So what, then, really distinguishes the two bills for Manchin? The answer seems to lie in an answer he gave on ABC, when asked whether neither bill may end up passing. “If you don’t need bridges fixed or roads fixed in your state, I do in West Virginia,” he replied. “I need Internet in West Virginia. I got water and sewage problems. I have got all the problems that we have addressed in the bipartisan infrastructure bill.”

I, I, I. This isn’t unusual phrasing for Manchin. In a recent New Yorker profile, he described his concerns about West Virginia’s economy as “I can’t lose one job. I don’t have one to spare,” as though his Senate office is the state’s employment center. The decisive factor for Manchin isn’t the debt, the pandemic or the inflation rate. It’s that one bill has what he wants, and the other doesn’t.

This “me first” selfishness has served Manchin well for many years, and not just as a blue politician surviving in a red state. A new report from Type Investigations and the Intercept on the coal companies that made his fortune found that “for decades,” Manchin’s coal firms “have relied on mines and refuse piles cited for dozens of Mine Safety and Health Agency violations, multiple deaths, and wastewater discharging that has poisoned tributaries feeding into the Monongahela River, as hundreds of thousands of tons of carcinogenic coal ash are dumped across Marion County.”

While Manchin doesn’t own the mines and power plants polluting the state, his businesses have benefited handsomely from them. Since he joined the Senate 10 years ago, the investigation found, he has “grossed more than $4.5 million” from his firms, according to financial disclosures. As the article notes, Manchin has said his ownership interest is held in a blind trust.

No doubt Manchin would bristle at the suggestion that his opposition to the reconciliation bill and its climate provisions would have anything to do with their impact on his personal wealth. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, though, the theme remains the same: Manchin gets his, while everyone else can fend for themselves.

Luckily, Manchin hasn’t gotten what he wants yet — and that gives the White House and the left leverage. Manchin is famously prickly about pressure campaigns, but his desire for the bipartisan infrastructure bill is palpable. Democrats shouldn’t be shy about threatening to tank both bills if one won’t pass.

Similar dynamics have already played out in the House. As the Intercept’s Ryan Grim has reported, for example, progressives on the House Education Committee shut down moderates’ attempts to water down a robust child-care benefit by refusing to vote for a more modest benefit. Sticking to the two-track path is the best chance to ensure that not only does Manchin gets his, but also all Americans get theirs.

How Close Was That Shave?

Amanpour and Company on PBS - with Michel Martin doing an interview with Susan Glasser.

I'll start this at about 7:55, where Glasser talks about how Trump can't let go of anything that strokes his ego - that it doesn't matter how reprehensible the supporters are, he has to love them for supporting him.

And then, Martin kicks it up a notch at about 8:55, and I get to hear high-status national reporters affirm my contention that in the end, it all comes down to the fact that this whole experiment in democratic self-government is being run on the honor system.

So the survival of the republic depends entirely on the actions of honorable people.

Unfortunately, honor is at dangerously low levels in the GOP.

We ain't done dodging bullets, btw. Don't get comfortable.

Understand Something

It wasn't a buncha workin' slobs who got together to lobby congress in order to insert 60,000 pages of shelters, loopholes, write-downs and exceptions into the IRS Tax Code.

Rich people hold an out-sized share of power over government, and they use their wealth very effectively to feed us a steady stream of propaganda, convincing us that they're no different from the rest of us, that they're just being smart, and that everything they do comes from a place in their hearts that's the very essence of purity, love, and charity.

It's bullshit and we know it, but we walk around acting like it's god's own truth - we eat it up like it's one of Grandma's fresh-baked mulberry pies with homemade ice cream.

If any of it were true, then guys like Branson and Bezos and Musk wouldn't be in a race to space - they'd be trying to end the cycle of poverty ignorance and crime.

"Never be deceived that the rich will let you

vote away their wealth."

-- Lucy Parsons

A Faint Glimmer

Joe Manchin has been under a lot of pressure to stop acting like he's the only guy with ideas - the only one who knows what we should do - the one guy who's ass everybody has to kiss if the Dems want to get anything done.

He dresses it up in pretty camouflage, saying he's all about tradition and noble ideas, but that starts to sound too much like some hick from the hollers flappin' his jaw about the confederate flag.

So anyway, it seems there may be some movement.

In a "democracy", how is it that one guy gets to make the decisions on whether or not we should do the stuff that a majority of us (60% to 80+%) voted to get done? 

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.

Flim Meets Flam

"Oath Keepers" is the perfect example of how the manipulators turn it all upside down and inside out.

WaPo: (pay wall)

Four more indicted in alleged Jan. 6 Oath Keepers conspiracy to obstruct election vote in Congress

Four more Oath Keepers associates have been indicted and three were arrested in Florida in recent days in the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol, bringing the number of co-defendants charged in the largest conspiracy case from that day to 16, court records show.

Joseph Hackett, 51, of Sarasota, Fla., Jason Dolan, 44, of Wellington, Fla., and William Isaacs, 21, of Kissimmee, Fla., each face multiple counts in an indictment handed up Wednesday and unsealed Sunday in Washington. The three appeared Thursday before U.S. magistrates in Tampa, West Palm Beach and Orlando.

The name of a fourth defendant not known to be in custody was redacted.

Attorneys for Dolan and Isaacs did not respond Sunday to requests for comment. No attorney for Hackett was listed. Hackett, a chiropractor who attended previous Oath Keepers events and a Florida firearms training school, was in federal custody as of Friday evening, online records show. Isaacs was released. The detention status of Dolan, whose LinkedIn profile says he is a resort security officer and former Marine who served more than 17 years including as a platoon sergeant in Iraq and recruiter in Massachusetts, was unclear.

U.S. prosecutors have criminally charged at least 19 alleged Oath Keepers or associates in the Capitol riots, including Jon Ryan Schaffer, an Indiana rock musician who is the only defendant known to have pleaded guilty.

Prosecutors say the Oath Keepers, a loose network of groups founded in 2009 that includes some self-styled citizen militias, target law enforcement and military members for recruitment with an apocalyptic vision of the U.S. government careening toward totalitarianism. Its members have provided security to some conservative politicians and causes in recent years.

The four new defendants are charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress’s confirmation of the 2020 presidential election in joint session on Jan. 6. They are accused of forcing entry through the Capitol’s East Rotunda doors after marching single-file up the steps wearing camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection and Oath Keepers insignia.

Prosecutors alleged members of the group were in contact with Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes — usually identified as “Person One” by the government in court documents — and organized by charged co-defendants, including Ohio militia founder and bar owner Jessica Watkins, 38; former Navy intelligence officer Thomas E. Caldwell, 65, of Berryville, Va.; and Florida car dealer Kelly Meggs, 52.

Rhodes has not been charged and is not accused of wrongdoing. He has accused prosecutors of trying to manufacture a nonexistent conspiracy.

“I may go to jail soon, not for anything I actually did, but for made-up crimes,” Rhodes told Texas Republicans at a March rally in Laredo. He urged supporters of former president Donald Trump to “not cower in fear” and claimed the federal government “was trying to get rid of us so they can get to you.”

The other 12 co-defendants have pleaded not guilty.

In interviews with The Washington Post, Rhodes has disputed previous government allegations regarding his posts to an encrypted Signal group that included regional Oath Keepers leaders from several states at the scene, calling them an effort to call members together outside the Capitol to “keep them out of trouble.”

The latest indictment continues to add new details that reverse that chronology, alleging that Rhodes began discussing plans to keep Trump in the White House by force as early as last Nov. 9, and exchanging dozens of encrypted messages, phone calls and other communications with the Watkins-Caldwell-Meggs group before and during the riots.

On an online GoToMeeting conference that day — six days after the election — Rhodes allegedly told those in attendance, including Hackett, Meggs and Watkins, “We’re going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don’t, guys, you’re going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war and a bloody — you can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or fight.”

So, what you're saying is, "We may have to start a civil war in order to prevent the start of a civil war."

Notice the subtlety of the recruitment pitch. They go after a bunch of guys who're perfectly comfortable with a top-down authoritarian organization, convincing them they need to fight in favor of installing an autocratic government in order to prevent an autocratic government from taking over.

"I'm gonna kick your ass to make sure you know that kickin' people's asses is the wrong thing to do."

It has a weird kind of internal logic that has always made some sense to most of us, but it makes sense only for as long as we can avoid looking too closely at it, and we're supposed to grow up learning that that's not how we do things now that we're adults - at least that's not how we're supposed to be thinking we do things as adults here in god's own America.

We've been in the process of losing something very important. Maybe we can start to reverse that trend by pointing out that the rule of law has to include everybody - that it doesn't mean you only have to follow the laws you and your gun-buddies think are OK - that even in a torn and tattered democracy, armed insurrection destroys everything you think you're fighting for - and that the people who have filled your heads with absurdities are now expecting you to commit atrocities.

Once-And-For-All Is A Fantasy

I'll go out on the limb and predict that our little experiment in self-government will survive. Even if it barely survives, we will have survived, and that means we prevail - eventually - for now.

It won't be over though - the GOP is chock full of assholes who want to tear it all down and replace it with plutocracy, but this episode of the fever will peak, and then break, and then begin to dissipate.

Unfortunately this fight doesn't end once Biden and Harris are sworn in.

It didn't end when we elected Obama.

It didn't end when Agnew and then Nixon were forced out.

It never ends.

Because people like this current batch of Republicans are not about ideology or principle or "doing what's right for our country". They're about power and conquest and setting themselves up to rule. And they seem to think whoever gets to rule over USAmerica Inc will be the de facto King O' Da Woild.

News flash, fellas:

For 2,000 generations, better men than you have been trying to conquer the world.

And the world remains undefeated.

NYT: (pay wall)

Will Pence Do the Right Thing?

President Trump recently tweeted that “the ‘Justice’ Department and FBI have done nothing about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud,” followed by these more ominous lines: “Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.”

The unmistakable reference is to the day Congress will count the Electoral College’s votes, with Vice President Mike Pence presiding. Mr. Trump is leaning on the vice president and congressional allies to invalidate the November election by throwing out duly certified votes for Joe Biden.

Mr. Pence thus far has not said he would do anything like that, but his language is worrisome. Last week, he said: “We’re going to keep fighting until every legal vote is counted. We’re going to win Georgia, we’re going to save America,” as a crowd screamed, “Stop the steal.”

And some Republicans won’t let up. On Monday, Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas and other politicians filed a frivolous lawsuit, which has multiple fatal flaws in both form and substance, in an attempt to force the vice president to appoint pro-Trump electors.

Mr. Trump himself has criticized virtually everyone’s view of the election, from that of the Supreme Court to the F.B.I. to Senator Mitch McConnell, but he has never attacked Mr. Pence, suggesting he has hopes for the vice president.

But as a matter of constitutional text and history, any effort on Jan. 6 is doomed to fail. It would also be profoundly anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Both Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment say that the votes of the Electoral College are to be opened by the “president of the Senate,” meaning the vice president. The Electoral Count Act, passed in 1887 to avoid chaotic counts like the one that followed the 1876 election, adds important details. It provides a detailed timeline to tabulate electoral votes, culminating with the final count to take place on Jan. 6, and it delineates the powers of the vice president.

He is to be the “presiding officer” (meaning he is to preserve order and decorum), open the ballot envelopes, provide those results to a group of tellers, call for any objection by members of Congress, announce the results of any votes on objections, and ultimately announce the result of the vote.

Nothing in either the text of the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act gives the vice president any substantive powers. His powers are ministerial, and that circumscribed role makes general sense: The whole point of an election is to let the people decide who will rule them. If an incumbent could simply maneuver to keep himself in office — after all, a maneuver to protect Mr. Trump also protects Mr. Pence — the most foundational precept of our government would be gravely undermined. In America, “we the people,” not “we, the vice president,” control our destiny.

The drafters of the Electoral Count Act consciously insisted on this weakened role for the vice president. They guarded against any pretense he might have to throw out a particular state’s votes, saying that the vice president must open “all certificates and papers purporting to be” electoral votes. They further said, in the event of a dispute, both chambers of Congress would have to disagree with a particular state’s slate of electoral votes to reject them. And they made it difficult for Congress to disagree, adding measures such as a “safe harbor” provision and deference to certification by state officials.

In this election, certification is clear. There are no ongoing legal challenges in the states of any merit whatsoever. All challenges have lost, spectacularly and often, in the courts. The states and the electors have spoken their will. Neither Vice President Pence nor the loyal followers of President Trump have a valid basis to contest anything.

To be sure, this structure creates awkwardness, as it forces the vice president to announce the result even when personally unfavorable.

After the close election of 1960, Richard Nixon, as vice president, counted the votes for his opponent, John Kennedy. Al Gore, in perhaps one of the more dramatic moments of our Republic’s short history, counted the votes and reported them in favor of George W. Bush.

Watching Mr. Gore count the votes, shut off all challenges and deliver the presidency to Mr. Bush was a powerful moment in our democracy. By the time he counted the votes, America and the world knew where he stood. And we were all lifted up when Mr. Gore, at the end, asked God to bless the new president and vice president and joined the chamber in applause.

Republican leaders — including Senators McConnell, Roy Blunt and John Thune — have recognized the outcome of the election, despite the president’s wrath. Mr. McConnell put it in clear terms: “The Electoral College has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden.”

Notably, Mr. Pence has been silent. He has not even acknowledged the historic win by Kamala Harris, the nation’s first female, first African-American and first Asian-American vice president.

He now stands on the edge of history as he begins his most consequential act of leadership. The question for Vice President Pence, as well as other members of Congress, is which side of history he wants to come down on. Can he show the integrity demonstrated by every previous presidential administration? The American people accept a graceful loser, but a sore loser never goes down well in the history books.

We urge Mr. Pence to study our first president. After the Revolutionary War, the artist Benjamin West reported that King George had asked him what General Washington would do now that America was independent. West said that Washington would give up power and go back to farming. King George responded with words to the effect that “if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Indeed, Washington did so, surrendering command of the army to Congress and returning to Mount Vernon for years until he was elected president. And he again relinquished power eight years later, even though many would have been happy to keep him president for life. Washington in this way fully realized the American Republic, because there is no Republic without the peaceful transfer of power.

And it’s now up to Mr. Pence to recognize exactly that. Like all those that have come before him, he should count the votes as they have been certified and do everything he can to oppose those who would do otherwise. This is no time for anyone to be a bystander — our Republic is on the line.

Paraphrasing: American democracy is never more than one or two election cycles away from extinction.

Embrace the suck. Stay in the fight.

On Biden's Pick

1976 Democratic National Convention.

Barbara Jordan, Keynote Speaker.

(excerpts, via NYT):

One hundred and forty-four years ago, members of the Democratic Party first met in convention to select a Presidential candidate. Since that time, Democrats have continued to convene once every four years and draft a party platform and nominate a Presidential candidate. And our meeting this week is a continuation of that tradition.

But there is something different about tonight. There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is special? I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.

A lot of years passed since 1832, and during that time it would have been most unusual for any national political party to ask that Barbara Jordan deliver a keynote address, but tonight here I am. And I feel notwithstanding the past that my presence here is one additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be deferred. . . .

Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work wants, to satisfy their private interests.

But this is the great danger America faces. That we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual. Each seeking to satisfy private wants.

If that happens, who then will speak for America?

What are those of us who are elected public officials supposed to do? I'll tell you this: we as public servants must set an example for the rest of the nation. It is hypocritical for the public official to admonish and exhort the people to uphold the common good if we are derelict in upholding the common good. More is required of public officials than slogans and handshakes and press releases. More is required. We must hold ourselves strictly accountable. We must provide the people with a vision of the future."

Today's Beau

Justin King - Beau Of The Fifth Column

"...one of the critical flaws in our representative democracy."

Today's Explainer

Matthew Cooke - A Message To Republicans

More GOP Fuckery

The latest in a lengthening parade of Republicans admitting to their attempts to suppress the vote.

Brad Reed, Raw Story:

Calls to expand mail-in voting have grown as the COVID-19 pandemic has made waiting in long lines at polling places a potential health hazard.

Many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have rejected the idea because they fear making it easier for people to vote will harm the GOP.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Georgia State House Speaker David Ralston became the latest GOP official to warn about the perils that vote-by-mail initiatives would have on his party.

“This will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia,” he said. “Every registered voter is going to get one of these. … This will certainly drive up turnout.”

Trump earlier this week similarly told “Fox & Friends” that Democrats were pushing for initiatives that would generate “levels of voting that if you ever agreed to it you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Remember this the next time some Republican starts to crow about how "the GOP is the party lookin' out for minority rights": They are actually, because they intend to rule as a minority, and to use us as fodder to protect their rights at the expense of ours.

Pony Up

Whatever else you wanna say about Mike Bloomberg, the guy's putting his money where his mouth is.

There's a good probability (in my little brain) that he's mostly hedging his bets. He's trying to short-circuit the kind of backlash that makes the pendulum swing wildly away from the nice well-ordered environment that plutocrats need to foster - the kind that still eats everybody who hasn't scrambled into the upper echelons, but eats them at a slower pace than what a guy like 45* is pushing for.

Bloomberg (et al) can't afford to let Trump push too many of us into Bernie's Revolution.

What I hear from Bloomberg is: "Yes, I'm a top-down authoritarian, but I'm pretty gosh darned benevolent about it."

Which is kinda weird, cuz that's what I used to complain about when I referred to the Dems in the 90s, when it first really started to look like the parties were losing their differentiating features.

"Vote for Democrats - we're slightly less asshole-ish than those other guys."

Anyway, it appears Mike is going to put some of that $60,000,000,000 to "good use".

WaPo, Greg Sargent:

It has long been an open question whether Mike Bloomberg would actually make good on his promise to spend lavishly from his fortune to defeat President Trump, should he fall short of the Democratic nomination. Now he’s fallen short — he dropped out on Wednesday — and we have our answer.

It’s a resoundingly good one, as The Post’s Michael Scherer reports:

Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to form an independent expenditure campaign that will absorb hundreds of his presidential campaign staffers in six swing states to work to elect the Democratic nominee this fall.

The group, with a name that is still undisclosed because its trademark application is in process, would also be a vehicle for Bloomberg to spend money on advertising to attack President Trump and support the Democratic nominee, according to a person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

It seems clear that Bloomberg believes he can make himself useful by using his fortune to rattle Trump, to get in his head, causing him to make mistakes or, better yet, perform even more spectacular meltdowns than usual.

I ❤️ Virginia

WaPo:

Virginians showed up in record numbers for Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary, leading a national wave of strong voter turnout that analysts said is all about defeating President Trump.

Roughly 1.3 million Virginia voters cast ballots, about 21 percent of the electorate, according to unofficial results. That’s up from the previous record of about 986,000 votes and 18 percent of the electorate in 2008, when Barack Obama was challenging Hillary Clinton for the party’s nomination.

Back then, voters sensed history in Obama potentially becoming the first African American nominated by a major party. Tuesday’s turnout was different.

Exit polling showed that most voters were seeking a candidate — any candidate — to defeat Trump. Virginia, which has undergone a dramatic blue shift since Trump’s win in 2016, responded more eagerly than any other state. Its turnout represented a 69 percent increase over the 2016 primary, compared to an average jump of 33 percent across nine Super Tuesday states in which the vote count is complete or has been projected by Edison Media Research.

The second-biggest increase was 60 percent in Texas.

“The interest . . . in defeating Donald Trump is so intense that it’s almost unprecedented,” Richmond political scientist Bob Holsworth said.