Feb 11, 2017

The Barny Frank Handbook

Barny Frank in Policy Mic:
After 32 years in the House of Representatives, here is my advice on how people opposed to President Donald Trump’s assault on our basic values — a majority of those who voted last November — can best influence members of Congress. Done the right way, communications from citizens can have a significant impact on legislators, even when they claim to be immune to “pressure.” (“Pressure,” in legislative jargon, is the expression of views with which legislators disagree, as opposed to “public opinion” — the term used for sentiments that reinforce their own.)
The key to doing it right is being clear about the goal, which is to persuade the Senator or Representative receiving the communication that how he or she votes on the issue in question will affect how the sender will vote the next time the legislator is on the ballot. 
This means the following:

Make sure you’re registered to vote — lawmakers check

Many office holders will check this, especially for people who write to them frequently. Elected officials pay as much attention to those who are not registered to vote as butchers do to the food preferences of vegetarians.

Lawmakers don’t care about people outside of their district

You can only have an impact on legislators for or against whom you will have a chance to vote the next time they run. In almost all cases, this means only people in whose state or district you live. Senators or representatives whose names will not be on the ballot you cast are immune to your pressure. There is a small set of exceptions — representatives who want to run for a statewide office in the next election will be sensitives of voters throughout their states. 

Your signature — physical or electronic — on a mass petition will mean little.

You are trying to persuade the recipient of your communication that you care enough about an issue for it to motivate your voting behavior. Simply agreeing to put your name on a list does not convey this. I have had several experiences of writing back to the signer of a petition to give my view on an issue only to be answered by someone who wondered why I thought he or she cared. 
The communication must be individual. It can be an email, physical letter, a phone call or an office visit. It need not be elaborate or eloquent — it is an opinion to be counted, not an essay. But it will not have an impact unless it shows some individual initiative.

Know where your representative stands

If you have contact with an organization that is working on this issue, try to learn if the recipient of your opinion has taken a position on it. When I received letters from people urging me to vote for a bill of which I was the prominent main sponsor, I was skeptical that the writer would be watching how I voted.

Communicate — even if you and your representative disagree

On the other hand, even where you are represented by people whom you know oppose you on an issue, communicate anyway. Legislators do not simply vote yes or no on every issue. If enough people in a legislator’s voting constituency express strong opposition to a measure to which that legislator is ideologically or politically committed, it might lead him or her to ask the relevant leadership not to bring the bill up. Conflict avoidance is a cherished goal of many elected officials.

Say “thank you.” 

Even if your Representative and Senators are committed to your causes, you should write or call to thank them — not frequently, but enough for them to feel reinforced.

Enlist the help of friends in other districts

Your direct communication with legislators outside your voting area will have no impact. But you do have friends, relatives, associates etc. Find out who the potentially influenceable legislators are on issues of prime importance to you, think about people you may know in their constituencies, and ask those who share your views to communicate with those who represent them. On an extremely important issue, get out the list to who you mail holidays cards or important invitations and ask them to communicate with their legislators.
To repeat the essence of point 5, if a legislator who you might have expected to vote differently — e.g. a Republican who votes no on a Trump priority — votes as you have urged, send a thank you.

Me, Me, I Do

Trump
Cheats his investors
Cheats his contractors
Cheats on his wives
Cheats his customers
Cheats on his taxes

Who's got next?

Today's Tweet

Overheard on Twitter:

In Trump world, Sen Blumenthal is a liar because he didn’t fight in Vietnam & John McCain is a loser because he did.

Feb 10, 2017

Resistance Report 02-09-2017

The First Time

It's Called Treason, Mike

WaPo is making no bones about it - they put it in print as a declarative statement, without moderating it:
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”
On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”
"...couldn't be certain..." The Reagan defense - I don't recall.

We have transcripts, General. You called the Russians half a dozen times just to chat? About what, baseball? You were gonna drop by for coffee sometime? You're a lyin' sack o' shit, pal.

So now we get to watch another dance as Flynn and Pence duke it out - either Pence lied in public or Flynn lied to Pence.

But if we're picking survivors, my money's on Pence. He has some cover because he's worked in the DC network and prob'ly still has a few chips out there. Plus, he has to be sucking up bigly to whoever's plotting Trump's demise (a strictly political demise that is).  But he has to win it all or he'll lose it all. His career was deeply comatose until they picked him for Veep. So he's POTUS or he's our new Ambassador to Gambia under President Ryan, or he lands in a slot on the Wingnut Welfare rolls.

Flynn - aside from being a total fucking loon - is a political orphan. So that knife fight gets really messy and Flynn disappears for a while - until he pops up in a consulting gig for Paul Manafort or some such.

It's not a swamp - it's a sewer. And the shit runs wide and deep.

He Doesn't Know Anything

This gang is a rolling clusterfuck in a burning dumpster.

Wilfred Chan at Fusion
Donald Trump is angry he was not briefed on the executive order he signed granting unprecedented powers to adviser-puppet-master Steve Bannon, the alleged domestic abuser and Satan-praisingIslamophobicformer editor of “alt-right” outlet Breitbart, according to a new report.
From The New York Times:(For) the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.
Credited as the mastermind behind some of Trump’s most extreme policies, including the Muslim ban, Bannon has told allies he has a limited window to ram through as much of his agenda as possible, the Timesadded.
This could explain the flurry of slapdash executive orders in the last few weeks. It also means it’s possible Trump didn’t even read what he was signing when he made Bannon a permanent member of the national security council on January 28 while downgrading the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence to optional attendees.

Wondering

One of these guys will kill you eventually.
The other one is a kid who's wondering what it'll take just to get some people to act like human fucking beings.

Saw It Coming

...couldn't stop it.

Today's Tweet

There's so much we're not paying any attention to while we're playing high school fuck-around with 45*, how do we keep track of it?

Feb 9, 2017

Almost Willing


Just had to get this hairball up.

I could give Alt-Spice the benefit, but it sticks in my craw really bad.  He's using a tactic that's pure propaganda when he makes shit up about how there was a terrorist attack in Atlanta carried out by a Muslim. And the fact that he didn't self-correct - he said the same thing on at least two different occasions - to me that means there's no mistake. It was deliberate. He had a conversation with somebody, and there was a decision made that had him telling us a flat-out lie.

Second, they're using the Pulse shooting in Orlando trying to justify the Muslim Travel Ban.  But that incident was a homegrown guy losing his shit and shooting a bunch of people - you know, like so many good Americans have done every year for fuck knows how long now.

Anyway, the Orlando shooter wasn't a refugee or an immigrant. He was born here. He was a citizen. But he was Muslim and when they use him as a false example, we're further smudging the line between What Is and What If.

And that sounds a whole lot like the Bannon administration is moving the anti-Muslim rhetoric even closer to a Corruption-Of-The-Blood kinda thing.

I hate this.

Today's GIF

Today's Tweet

Today's Pix














John Oliver

Rolling Stone interview:
Did you share the general shudder when Kellyanne Conway introduced the idea of "alternative facts"?  It's just a framing device, an ear-catching phrase, but it's nothing new. The content of what she's wrapping a bow on is something that everyone has been bearing witness to. We've had 18 months of feelings over facts. The only thing that's remotely new about it is the location that it's coming from.
Is interviewing her essentially pointless?  In general, it's very dangerous to keep the old campaign architecture around with this presidency, to have an eight-person panel on CNN debating whether or not he said something. "Did he or did he not do this thing we watched him do?" There's actually serious harm in that discussion. And, yeah. I really don't see the point of talking to Kellyanne Conway because her language jujitsu is so strong. You know she can look you in the eyes and tell you the opposite of what you just saw happen, and she will be more confident in her answer than you are in your question.